Well, it's a beta so it isn't optimised code or indicative of final code at all. But, as it was, with the 640 GTS it was ussually around 10 FPS with everything on High (VERY high is greyed out). With the ultra is was more like 12-15 FPS on those settings.
I actually dropped to medium and low in order to get the feel of the game, reserving the high settings for the wow factor and screenshots.
wow. i thought they said the game can be played at 1280x1024 with a 8800GTS :(
It was stressed that this is a beta so there's a LOT of optimisation still to come. I would be greatly surprised if an 8800GTS won't be able to play it on high at 12x10 come final release. :)
Originally Posted by carlogiovanni You are breaking the NDA.
Bit-tech has signed no NDA and the Terms and Conditions don't explicitly mention an embargo of any type. However, it appears there are timing problems between EA and ourself and in order to ensure that we can continue to work closely with EA's UK PR team, we will be removing the story until tomorrow morning.
Sorry for all the confusion and replacement content should be up shortly to keep you all entertained. This article will be going live again early tomorrow morning as part of an agreement with EA.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi It was stressed that this is a beta so there's a LOT of optimisation still to come. I would be greatly surprised if an 8800GTS won't be able to play it on high at 12x10 come final release. :)
M-M-M-M-MULTI POST on the same subject
sorry. i know it's been said many times, but i still wanted to know what kind of performance one would get for Beta. so i can set myself a rough target of what to expect.
meh personly I don't think people signing NDA's are anything more than PR bunnies pets :) your pr is quite intersting to read though and includes non add content (work logs/modding) so keep up the good work.
Originally Posted by CardJoe Well, it's a beta so it isn't optimised code or indicative of final code at all. But, as it was, with the 640 GTS it was ussually around 10 FPS with everything on High (VERY high is greyed out). With the ultra is was more like 12-15 FPS on those settings.
I actually dropped to medium and low in order to get the feel of the game, reserving the high settings for the wow factor and screenshots.
Interestingly, I was running the game at the Hisghest settings at 1024 by 768 with no AA using a lesser card (7800 GT 256 MB) and was getting an average of 15 FPS. The rest of my set up goes as fallow: Athlon 64 x2 with 2GB or RAM.
The game was playable when set to Medium settings but the graphics sucked and it looked plain. One thing I'd like to point out is that even at this settings and the game being rendered using DX9 path. The game looked incredible beautiful, did I said it looked owesome? As a graphic's whore, I have yet to see such of better-looking-more-realistic-brilliantly made graphics in a game. I can't imagine this game being rendered using DX10 code, I think I'll have a heart attack that day.
I commented to my friend that one things is seeing the amazing graphics on all the media out there and another is playing the actual game.
To be honest with you people, I don't really care about the MP demo, all I do is loading the game, find an empty server and explore the map. This game is just too much for my rig's current video card, and I am definitely upgrading it soon. I'm only patently waiting for the SP demo to make my final decision.
Just to stress again: It really isn't fair to judge the performance of the full game based on an online MP beta. The performance will be completely different to the gold code.
Originally Posted by Kipman725 meh personly I don't think people signing NDA's are anything more than PR bunnies pets :) your pr is quite intersting to read though and includes non add content (work logs/modding) so keep up the good work.
If you read the Crysis Beta forums, they have said that AA does not work in the beta. So just turn it off.
I myself am enjoying the game at 1680x1050, 0 AA, everything high except object detail/shadows and physics(on med, me and some guys got the best results with this configuration). Also, thers a wierd bug with the sound which makes it lag alot too, put it to medium instead of high, you'll see another frame rate increase.
e6600 @ 3.3ghz
4gigs of ram
8800 GTX KO ACS3(factory overclocked)
Vista ultimate 64
It's only going to get better from here. hope this helps.
Comments 1 to 25 of 45
Replywhat sort of framerates are you getting with your 640MB GTS? and are settings maxed out playable?
I actually dropped to medium and low in order to get the feel of the game, reserving the high settings for the wow factor and screenshots.
It was stressed that this is a beta so there's a LOT of optimisation still to come. I would be greatly surprised if an 8800GTS won't be able to play it on high at 12x10 come final release. :)
M-M-M-M-MULTI POST on the same subject
Rig : http://home.exetel.com.au/tictech/screenshot_101.JPG
Fraps benchmarking : http://home.exetel.com.au/tictech/Crysis/Crysis%202007-09-25%2002-09-25-70%20fps.csv
Intel core 2 Duo 2.9Ghz
2GB of ram
X1650pro
http://home.exetel.com.au/tictech/Crysis/Crysis%202007-09-25%2013-11-04-29.JPG
Auto setting :
1024x768
everything low
4x AA
Frames 7549
Time (ms) 153783
Max 72
Avg 49
Min 20
Bit-tech has signed no NDA and the Terms and Conditions don't explicitly mention an embargo of any type. However, it appears there are timing problems between EA and ourself and in order to ensure that we can continue to work closely with EA's UK PR team, we will be removing the story until tomorrow morning.
Sorry for all the confusion and replacement content should be up shortly to keep you all entertained. This article will be going live again early tomorrow morning as part of an agreement with EA.
I mean, when is tomorrow morning ?
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98166&page=10
the performance of the BETA is pretty bad. okay, it's really bad, it gives sub 30 frame rates with 8800GTX@720p
after Crytek delayed the Demo, they pretty much lost my interest. there's only so long one is willing to run for a game :/
Interestingly, I was running the game at the Hisghest settings at 1024 by 768 with no AA using a lesser card (7800 GT 256 MB) and was getting an average of 15 FPS. The rest of my set up goes as fallow: Athlon 64 x2 with 2GB or RAM.
The game was playable when set to Medium settings but the graphics sucked and it looked plain. One thing I'd like to point out is that even at this settings and the game being rendered using DX9 path. The game looked incredible beautiful, did I said it looked owesome? As a graphic's whore, I have yet to see such of better-looking-more-realistic-brilliantly made graphics in a game. I can't imagine this game being rendered using DX10 code, I think I'll have a heart attack that day.
I commented to my friend that one things is seeing the amazing graphics on all the media out there and another is playing the actual game.
To be honest with you people, I don't really care about the MP demo, all I do is loading the game, find an empty server and explore the map. This game is just too much for my rig's current video card, and I am definitely upgrading it soon. I'm only patently waiting for the SP demo to make my final decision.
What the hell are you smoking?
I myself am enjoying the game at 1680x1050, 0 AA, everything high except object detail/shadows and physics(on med, me and some guys got the best results with this configuration). Also, thers a wierd bug with the sound which makes it lag alot too, put it to medium instead of high, you'll see another frame rate increase.
e6600 @ 3.3ghz
4gigs of ram
8800 GTX KO ACS3(factory overclocked)
Vista ultimate 64
It's only going to get better from here. hope this helps.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums