Are these Crysis framerates playable?

[asintu]

Just ran the benchmark and got the following numbers:

Avg. FPS = 36.8
Min. FPS = 26.6
Max. FPS = 43.9
Video settings: 1680x1050 and everything on High. (0 AA)
System:
Windows XP 32 bit
E8400
4GB
GTS 250 1GB

So would you consider these framerates "playable" or should I turn down some settings? Or maybe even play on my 1280x1024 monitor?
What would you suggest in order to have the best experience possible?

Thanks.

 

[duragezic]

If that was me, that is certainly playable. I am probably a bit lower in FPS all around. I have a similar system (better GPU but much slower CPU) and play at almost those settings.

 

[asintu]

I've just re-tested only changing the resolution to 1280x1024

Avg. FPS = 48.1
Min. FPS = 32.8
Max. FPS = 58.8

Are these bumps in frame rates worth giving up the extra screen real estate?

 

[TheVrolok]

I think it's playable.. not pretty.. but definitely playable.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Sounds playable to me. I actually played through Crysis with framerates in upper teens-30 all the way through. I can sacrifice some frames for eye candy, where Crysis delivers.

But why are you asking us? You're the only one who can really decide if it's playable.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i played crysis between at ~24 fps and found it playable, oddly enough.

 

[Pelu]

lol... crysis suck so much computer... getting 30fps... was a pain in the... when the game was new... now everyone is drooling for 60... and unhappy if less than that... and all for that piece of crap game.... stupid engine...

all those trees and foliage for pure fancy... the shooting looks like bs... and all of that look good here and there... for nothing new to the gamestyle or gameplay value... only a few suit powers that isnt a new concept at all.. is like deux ex did the power stuff better with more power ups and such...

oh and something that really pulls my leg is... why all this work and effort making this green tropical junkyard filled with koreans, and forget about adding some animations to the weapon component switching....

 

[zerocool84]

No one can tell you what you think is playable. Some people would never play anything under 60fps and some think 30 fps is enough. Go with whatever you feel is playable enough.

 

[Mana]

Crysis is quite smooth and playable at even 25~ish frame per second unlike most games out there. This is because of its use of motion blur. Games up until Crysis were largely incapable of motion blur and as such your eye, even at 30 FPS, could see a "gap" between the frames thus requiring a higher framerate. By gap, I mean in one frame, an object is in one position, the next frame it is in another position and your eye can detect that "teleportation" of positions. However, motion blur allows the object to transition from one position to another and your eye interprets that as "motion" instead of "teleportation". It's the reason why major motion pictures can get away with being 24 frames per second.

I hope I explained it well enough. :\

 

[Sylvanas]

Why dont you play it then determine if its playable? TBH I think 1680x1050 is very much playable.

 

[vj8usa]

Don't ask other people what combination of framerates and settings you should try to reach. We can't read your mind and figure out what you'll prefer. Personally, I was fine with average framerates in the 20s, often dipping into the teens, but I was playing on normal difficulty since I was more interested in seeing the eye candy at high settings (this was on a single core machine with an X1900). As long as I could aim reasonably well, I was fine with semi-low framerates. You might also want to look through .ini files on the Crysis forums, though - you might be able to get visuals that look as good as "Very High" but keep the game performing nearly as well as when it's set to "High".

Crysis makes it easy, too, since you can change everything but object distance (if memory serves me right) without having to reload/restart the game.

 

[TidusZ]

I played through black and white on a compaq presario with a k6-2 cpu and onboard video. If I can do that, you can play crysis with SLI'ed graphing calculators on a cyrix 686. Just go beat the game man.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
I played through black and white on a compaq presario with a k6-2 cpu and onboard video. If I can do that, you can play crysis with SLI'ed graphing calculators on a cyrix 686. Just go beat the game man.

hahahaha, sounds good.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

lol Crysis

If you Crossfired two HD 4890s, would you be able to reach 45 FPS on Ultra High? Or, is acceptable framerates at Ultra High still out of the question for this two year old "game?"

Man Crysis...what a joke.

 

[BassBomb]

Playable is totally subjective to the person playing...

I've seen some people who can play at 20 FPS, and some people who can't play under 30...

Personally I played Crysis at 28-30 average

 

[Red Irish]

I played at acceptable frame rates with two factory overclocked Club 3D HD 4850's in CF, until the last level. The game still has issues that have not been resolved in post release patches.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: asintu
Just ran the benchmark and got the following numbers:

Avg. FPS = 36.8
Min. FPS = 26.6
Max. FPS = 43.9
Video settings: 1680x1050 and everything on High. (0 AA)
System:
Windows XP 32 bit
E8400
4GB
GTS 250 1GB

I think it is very playable, since you have very high minimum fps. Too bad that you're missing the directX 10 effects.

 

[chizow]

Mana's post above explains it quite well. Crysis' use of motion blur gives the appearance of smoothness at lower frame rates.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: asintu
Just ran the benchmark and got the following numbers:

Avg. FPS = 36.8
Min. FPS = 26.6
Max. FPS = 43.9
Video settings: 1680x1050 and everything on High. (0 AA)
System:
Windows XP 32 bit
E8400
4GB
GTS 250 1GB

I think it is very playable, since you have very high minimum fps. Too bad that you're missing the directX 10 effects.

agree, i've played it a bit so far and love it.
What are the dx10 effects ur talking about? Would I see them if I do the Very High settings hack for XP? Or are they dx10 only? And is it worth it over higher framerates on High settings?

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: asintu

What are the dx10 effects ur talking about? Would I see them if I do the Very High settings hack for XP? Or are they dx10 only? And is it worth it over higher framerates on High settings?

Very High settings on Crysis is what makes it Crysis. There is where you really see what this engine is really capable of, in terms of image quality. There are the best graphics PC gaming is able to offer. So I'd say, yes it's worth playing on Very High over the higher framerates on High. Maybe you can even drop the resolution a bit, if it doesn't bother you.

As for the XP hack, I really don't know what to say. I've played it on XP with the hack and also on Vista on dx 10 and I think there is a slight difference, the game looks a bit sharper on Vista. I might be wrong though, but why are you still on XP?
I've also used XP for a long time, until I managed to get more ram and now it just feels much better then the old OS was. It's a shame to own a dx 10 videocard and not be able to see everything she has to offer.

 

[AstroManLuca]

LOL, Crysis isn't even a game, it's a benchmark.

I might suggest looking at the TweakGuide for the game to see which specific settings you can enable without much of a performance hit vs. which ones you can disable without much of an effect on visual quality. TweakGuides also provides screenshots comparing how the game looks with a particular visual feature on or off so you can determine if it's worth it or not. http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html

IMO a minimum framerate of 30-35 is about the least I'd want, with an average of 35-45. That must be thanks to your fast CPU and lots of VRAM. A high minimum can be just as important, if not moreso, than your average. Maximum means almost nothing, though. IMO of course. It all depends on you. To get a good balance of performance and visuals, you basically have to spend a lot of time tweaking and relaunching the game over and over again until you're happy with it. That's a better use of your time than just posting here over and over again only to have people tell you to try it yourself.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
LOL, Crysis isn't even a game, it's a benchmark.

I might suggest looking at the TweakGuide for the game to see which specific settings you can enable without much of a performance hit vs. which ones you can disable without much of an effect on visual quality. TweakGuides also provides screenshots comparing how the game looks with a particular visual feature on or off so you can determine if it's worth it or not. http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html

IMO a minimum framerate of 30-35 is about the least I'd want, with an average of 35-45. That must be thanks to your fast CPU and lots of VRAM. A high minimum can be just as important, if not moreso, than your average. Maximum means almost nothing, though. IMO of course. It all depends on you. To get a good balance of performance and visuals, you basically have to spend a lot of time tweaking and relaunching the game over and over again until you're happy with it. That's a better use of your time than just posting here over and over again only to have people tell you to try it yourself.

will do. thanks for the link

 

[asintu]

Now this is weird. I did the hack to change the settings from High to Very High and the only change in fps is losing 2 fps for min. FPS. Average and max remained the same. I dont get it

 

[roid450]

Thats almost exactly what I get on Enthusiast for Warhead and Crysis. IMO as long as you don't go below 25 you're good, since most film is shot at 25 fps constant and is plenty smooth, you should be fine.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

A Dutch techsite (Tweakers.net) just put a comparison between the 4870 and 4890 on their site. 2x 4890 stats will follow later.

Anyway, at 1920x1200 even the 4890 did not get better results than 13 minimum, 18 average fps.