• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Is Crysis poorly coded?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

tranceaddict

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Location
Toronto
With the system in my sig., and the game running at 1280X960, 2AA/16AF, and all HIGH settings I average between 30-40FPS. In COD4 for example I run it all maxed out with 4AA/16AF @ 1280X960 and get between 70-90FPS. I can even run it at 1600X1200 but I do not like the frame rates dipping into the 50s for multiplayer. Sure the vegetation and water effects look nice in Crysis but some other textures are worse quality then the ones on COD4. What's up with that?
 

redrumy3

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Location
New York
With the system in my sig., and the game running at 1280X960, 2AA/16AF, and all HIGH settings I average between 30-40FPS. In COD4 for example I run it all maxed out with 4AA/16AF @ 1280X960 and get between 70-90FPS. I can even run it at 1600X1200 but I do not like the frame rates dipping into the 50s for multiplayer. Sure the vegetation and water effects look nice in Crysis but some other textures are worse quality then the ones on COD4. What's up with that?
Just crysis graphics pretty much cripple any system except for maybe a 9800gx2 cod4 just runs great
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
People all over have been saying that it's a combination of the two factors. Crysis looks better than any game to date, but it also doesn't have the best coding. Supposedly the Cryengine 2 was created to show off what next-gen cards will do, and they just aren't out yet (Ok, maybe the 9800GX2 counts). With that though comes the possibility that some of the code that the devs hoped would work wonders on the new cards just ended up not really being optimized. The first of everything is never the best.
 

shadin

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
People all over have been saying that it's a combination of the two factors. Crysis looks better than any game to date, but it also doesn't have the best coding. Supposedly the Cryengine 2 was created to show off what next-gen cards will do, and they just aren't out yet (Ok, maybe the 9800GX2 counts). With that though comes the possibility that some of the code that the devs hoped would work wonders on the new cards just ended up not really being optimized. The first of everything is never the best.

Pretty much nailed it. They made an incredibly photo-realistic game with a poorly optimized engine. At release, you'd be hard pressed to find a system that could max it smoothly. Coupled with the fact they built a CLI benchmark program into the engine, it's always been my opinion they made a tech demo instead of a game. :p

Otherwise it doesn't make sense, FPS gamers are a picky lot and performance is important. Crysis wasn't made for them, it was made for review sites.
 

shadin

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Whine whine whine.

Get custom configs you lazy bums.

I don't need custom configs because I think Crysis is a lousy game all around. :) But I don't think the OP was whining, just curious about the poor performance.
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
I've tried out the "DX10" configs, completely crushed my 8800GTS. Even without those though, it's hard for my card to maintain 30fps with all high and no AA.
 

Hazaro

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Your rig is faster, it should be better...

Try the config set-ups I listed, I'm going to do a test of them.
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
lolzy0.jpg


Errr... that's a little too much bloom for my taste. Ok, I lied, that's a LOT of bloom. I still got the same FPS that I had just two minutes before I tried your autoexec. :(
What kind of FPS do you usually get?
Just tried my E6600 at 3.6Ghz, saw no difference. Definitely GPU limited.
 
Last edited:

shadin

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Ack, too much bloom!
204276-jones_melt.jpeg


Out of curiousity, are there any graphical settings where you can maintain high FPS? Maybe config tweaks aren't the culprit.
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
Ack, too much bloom!
204276-jones_melt.jpeg


Out of curiousity, are there any graphical settings where you can maintain high FPS? Maybe config tweaks aren't the culprit.

Low - 95fps
Medium - 48fps
High - 31fps

By the way, this is in the middle of a highly forested area. Right at the beginning of Relic.

lolgt3.jpg
 

Pntgrd

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
I have tried about all of the configs and to tell yo the truth, I don't care for any of them. No matter which config it is, they all make what is very realistic looking out of the box, look cartooney and such. You have to get back the fps from somewhere. I am now back to running DX10 at very high with 3 settings backed down to high. I do use an autoexec.cfg but only to enable the console and to set the physics to core3 on my quad. I am going to try enabling EdgeAA tonight just to tidt things up a bit. With this I still get over 30fps avg and the game, unlike most others, plays perfectly smooth there. To me that is what counts, that plus looking like what it was supposed to.
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
Lowering shaders and shadow to medium, I get 48fps. Everything else is still high. I think I'm going to reinstall my drivers using drivercleaner. Usually I just uninstall and update.
 

Hazaro

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Maybe that was the one I didn't correct the bloom on.

Whoops.

My config was to get delicious graphics and not fps. I'll see what I can do.
 

reclaimer122

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Location
Connecticut
Maybe that was the one I didn't correct the bloom on.

Whoops.

I hope you can afford my corrective laser surgery. :)

Even if you set your config for graohics, I would think that I could pull off with at least the same fps.
Nvm that, I just noticed you said you get 24 fps.