Crysis Performance with SLI

jmke · 21st November 2007, 15:28

That said, we ran the second test again with SLI turned off. The game was rendered unplayable with an average FPS of 12.23. That's not a surprise, but it's important to note that whatever system check Crysis runs on your machine will not detect SLI functionality. In essence, the optimal setting feature for this game is pretty much worthless. We turned SLI back on and tinkered with advanced settings to find a combination that offered good graphics quality along with acceptable frame rates. One combination in particular had texture, object, shaders, and postprocessing settings at high, shadows, physics, and sound on low, and the rest of the settings at medium. This combination delivered an average FPS of 41.58, which was acceptable but not spectacular considering the small section of the game we tested.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/

thorgal · 21st November 2007, 17:24

What's the point of a spectacular looking game when 99.9% of people cannot play it... unless they make it look unspectacular

jmke · 21st November 2007, 18:20

I strongly argue that Crysis at Medium/High is "unspectacular", have you played the game yet?

when Far Cry was released no then current VGA card could run it at 1600x1200 4xAA either, afterwards with the HDR patch performance hit was again seen. That didn't mean the game looked ugly when not running at max detail setting.

In about 1 year~2 years you can replay Crysis at Very High at 60FPS and enjoy it again

FarCry is now still a very good game, and mid-range VGA cards can run it fluently at high detail, it looks gorgeous; 1280x1024 4xAF max detail ~55FPS with <€100 VGA card: http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=6 28

Did I mention FarCry is free ? http://www.fileplanet.com/180410/180...d-Supported%5D

The Senile Doctor · 21st November 2007, 18:40

my intention with a lot of games exactly,

I buy the games after 6months-1year, they're all bugfree and patched up then, and they look like they were supposed too because you play them on a card from a generation not yet available at realease.
best way to play, I'm playing dark messiah now

jmke · 21st November 2007, 19:05

Crysis is the only game so far which 8800 GTX can't handle, all other games released since 2006 run fluently at high detail on the card

thorgal · 21st November 2007, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

I strongly argue that Crysis at Medium/High is "unspectacular", have you played the game yet?

It's a matter of principle really : to me, when a game at high quality settings is unplayable, I call it an error of programming.

I really do not see the point to have a game which you can only play at medium resolutions or detail settings when high resolutions/details are available, but when the latter can't be played by even the best hardware in the world. What's available in a year does not matter : by then newer and probably better games are available, and the hype and "playability" of this game will have worn off.

Btw : Yes, I know about farcry being free

geoffrey · 21st November 2007, 20:37

Otherwise there would be no reason to upgrade

jmke · 21st November 2007, 22:54

under what rock have you been living Torsten? In the last 15 years every game released on PC pushed it past the hardware limits; as early as Wolfenstein and Doom 1 which were reason to upgrade to be able to play it decently.

Quake 1 was unplayable on mid-range hardware (486) and only playable at 320x240 with a Pentium 1 90, the fastest machine available then. It took another 2 years for Quake 1 to be playable at 1024x768 with help of 2xVoodoo 2 12Mb cards; only then the game really showed of its graphical splendor.

this trend hasn't changed since then, at all. We've been spoiled by the 8800 GTX the last year, able to crunch through most games at higher resolutions/AA/AF without issue. It's only when games take another larger step forward you see the growing pains; Oblivion, Crysis, Doom 3, list goes on.

22nd November 2007, 01:19

Or CoH Opposing Fronts. Is a slide show at 1920x1200 HQ settings using a 600/1500/1900 8800GTS, and that is with 0xAA. Even lowering settings, still very laggy. Original CoH could play maxed out with a 7950GT 512mb... Big part of the issue seems to be DX10 though, small extra effects are taking a huge amount of performance to render, both on 8800GTX or HD2900XT judging by Yougamer's results.

Quote:

Although our custom gameplay measurement yielded borderline playable results, performance after a few minutes of hand-on gameplay deteriorates to unplayable levels. Moreover, the new weather effects - a major attraction in Opposing Forces - bogged down our high-end systems even further. We had to conclude that with currently available hardware, playing Opposing Fronts in DX10 mode with full graphics detail is a failed proposition.

Source

thorgal · 22nd November 2007, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

under what rock have you been living Torsten? In the last 15 years every game released on PC pushed it past the hardware limits; as early as Wolfenstein and Doom 1 which were reason to upgrade to be able to play it decently.

Quake 1 was unplayable on mid-range hardware (486) and only playable at 320x240 with a Pentium 1 90, the fastest machine available then. It took another 2 years for Quake 1 to be playable at 1024x768 with help of 2xVoodoo 2 12Mb cards; only then the game really showed of its graphical splendor.

this trend hasn't changed since then, at all. We've been spoiled by the 8800 GTX the last year, able to crunch through most games at higher resolutions/AA/AF without issue. It's only when games take another larger step forward you see the growing pains; Oblivion, Crysis, Doom 3, list goes on.

I still stand by what I've said : making hardly playable games for the very best hardware in the world is ultimate stupidity.I agree to the fact that a game can be that good that it wants to make you UPGRADE. In many cases even an upgrade to the very best (of that moment) will not be enough, making you have to wait, what, a year (!) to get to enjoy it fully ? A year is an eternity in PC-land. The worst case scenario should be : playable by the best hardware today, and by midrange hardware in 6 months.

21st November 2007, 15:28	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	Crysis Performance with SLI That said, we ran the second test again with SLI turned off. The game was rendered unplayable with an average FPS of 12.23. That's not a surprise, but it's important to note that whatever system check Crysis runs on your machine will not detect SLI functionality. In essence, the optimal setting feature for this game is pretty much worthless. We turned SLI back on and tinkered with advanced settings to find a combination that offered good graphics quality along with acceptable frame rates. One combination in particular had texture, object, shaders, and postprocessing settings at high, shadows, physics, and sound on low, and the rest of the settings at medium. This combination delivered an average FPS of 41.58, which was acceptable but not spectacular considering the small section of the game we tested. http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/ __________________

21st November 2007, 17:24	#2
thorgal [M] Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,887	What's the point of a spectacular looking game when 99.9% of people cannot play it... unless they make it look unspectacular __________________

21st November 2007, 18:20	#3
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	I strongly argue that Crysis at Medium/High is "unspectacular", have you played the game yet? when Far Cry was released no then current VGA card could run it at 1600x1200 4xAA either, afterwards with the HDR patch performance hit was again seen. That didn't mean the game looked ugly when not running at max detail setting. In about 1 year~2 years you can replay Crysis at Very High at 60FPS and enjoy it again FarCry is now still a very good game, and mid-range VGA cards can run it fluently at high detail, it looks gorgeous; 1280x1024 4xAF max detail ~55FPS with <€100 VGA card: http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=6 28 Did I mention FarCry is free ? http://www.fileplanet.com/180410/180...d-Supported%5D Attached Thumbnails __________________ Last edited by jmke : 21st November 2007 at 18:23.

21st November 2007, 18:40	#4
The Senile Doctor Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: wherever the doom is Posts: 3,171	my intention with a lot of games exactly, I buy the games after 6months-1year, they're all bugfree and patched up then, and they look like they were supposed too because you play them on a card from a generation not yet available at realease. best way to play, I'm playing dark messiah now __________________ OC-2-the-death Where the Reverend is doing his Magick, all mortals be silent Doom over the world

21st November 2007, 19:05	#5
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	Crysis is the only game so far which 8800 GTX can't handle, all other games released since 2006 run fluently at high detail on the card __________________

21st November 2007, 20:37	#7
geoffrey [M] Reviewer Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,127	Otherwise there would be no reason to upgrade

21st November 2007, 22:54	#8
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	under what rock have you been living Torsten? In the last 15 years every game released on PC pushed it past the hardware limits; as early as Wolfenstein and Doom 1 which were reason to upgrade to be able to play it decently. Quake 1 was unplayable on mid-range hardware (486) and only playable at 320x240 with a Pentium 1 90, the fastest machine available then. It took another 2 years for Quake 1 to be playable at 1024x768 with help of 2xVoodoo 2 12Mb cards; only then the game really showed of its graphical splendor. this trend hasn't changed since then, at all. We've been spoiled by the 8800 GTX the last year, able to crunch through most games at higher resolutions/AA/AF without issue. It's only when games take another larger step forward you see the growing pains; Oblivion, Crysis, Doom 3, list goes on. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crossfire vs SLI Performance Comparison Review	jmke	WebNews	0	27th April 2009 11:47
PNY GTX-285 Performance Edition (+ SLI 285 Testing)	jmke	WebNews	0	11th February 2009 16:54
Crysis Warhead performance in-depth	Massman	WebNews	0	23rd September 2008 20:01
Crysis AA Performance: ATI HD4870X2 vs NVIDIA GTX 280	jmke	WebNews	5	21st August 2008 20:59
Crysis v1.1 NVIDIA 3-Way SLI Performance Update	jmke	WebNews	0	25th January 2008 10:17
Nvidia Preps Hybrid SLI to Cut Power Consumption, Increase Performance	jmke	WebNews	0	26th June 2007 14:57
nForce4 SLI Motherboards: Premium Performance at a Bargain Price	jmke	WebNews	0	4th January 2006 11:52
NVIDIA's SLI - 6600 GT Performance and Conclusion	Sidney	WebNews	0	29th November 2004 05:58
NVIDIA's GeForce 6 SLI: Demolishing Performance Barriers	jmke	WebNews	5	27th November 2004 08:03
NVIDIA's SLI - 6800 GT Performance	Sidney	WebNews	0	25th November 2004 04:27