Crysis 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test

Neither do I. It runs a good 20 fps faster than the original on my PC. Crysis 2 on extreme runs a little better than Crysis on High.

I could not have said it any better myself. They took Crysis and transformed it into Call of Duty: Nanosuit edition. They even made a Call of Duty game caliber game engine to worsen the visual fidelity.

Arris said:
"The benchmarks are of 1920x1200, you are running 1920x1080, so a few hundred thousand pixels less processing per frame. Are you using the same Catalyst version used for the testing? It's possible you have a better performing video driver.

There are many things that can influence your own results. You even mention that you have your card overclocked. Unless you are going to test at default clock and memory at same resolution with the same drivers it's pretty pointless to state your impression of what your cards performance is like and say you don't trust the benchmarks listed here. I too thought my card on my system was performing better than the benchmarks but really it wasn't. Also remember the frames per second listed are also an average.One drop to low fps can really drop your average. "


Ahhh I see now. Noob mistake on my part for thinking it was on 1920x1080. This makes way more sense now. Thanks

Here's my view on Crysis 2.

I've just upgraded my pc (E6750 @ 3.8, 2gb ddr2, xfx 6970 running on a 19" widescreen).

In my opinion, this game is outstanding. I'll admit I was expecting an "on rails" FPS, and, although it is to an extent, it doesn't feel like it. It reminds me of the COD games in that respect. As I was playing this I was reminded of HL2, which is a good thing. As far the graphics and textures go, I thought they looked excellent. I didn't stand still long enough to admire the textures of a door, I was busy playing the game.
So what if it's "only" using dx9, it could use dx7 for all I care. Maybe it would look even better if it was using dx11 but how many gamers would kick off saying it's a return to a game which no system can play - Crysis 1?
These guys are in business to make money, not necessarily to push the boundaries of cutting edge tech, while alienating those that can't afford to buy the latest equipment to run it.

As far as "anything less than 40fps" goes, as far as I'm aware, the human eye only notices lag when the frame rate drops below 30 ish so anything above that is pointless. When I was playing this on my setup I didn't once notice any lag (extreme settings, everything on full @ 1440x900) I didn't have any FPS meters running though, I was too busy enjoying the game

Also, no one has mentioned the music. I don't usually play a game with music on as I find it can distract me from hearing what's being said or the footsteps of some bad guy just around the corner. However, this music seemed to scale excellently with the curent situation you were in - from quiet, light instrumental peices when things were moving slowly, to heavy, almost industrial set peices when thing went crazy.


Anyway, I thought it was an excellent game and when (if) they bring out a dx11 patch I'll play though it again.

Cheers,

Steve.

PS, honestly, who cares which company has the fastest card/cpu/ram. Just get what you can afford to play the games at the settings your happy with. Life's to short to be a fanboy/girl

I've got a non-overclocked Core 2 Duo E8400 and a (very overclocked) GTX 460, and I can manage a solid 30-40 FPS at 1080p on Extreme. I'm not quite sure why the e8500+GTX590 combo failed so hard.

Yea i don't get it. I finished the game on Extreme settings (1680x1050) on my E8400 and the lowest fps i've seen was 27. Average was around 45. Really playable on the E8400.

i like it, more than crysis 1. and i play it at 1280x800 with amd x2 2,5ghz and ati 4350, 2gb ram, win 7 ultimate 32 bit.

Just beat the single player. My i7 950 @ 4ghz, SLI GTX465 and 6Gb DDR3 1333mhz got 60fps (v-sync) through 95% of the game. Some parts where the action got ridiculous and places where the game loaded I got no lower than 30fps at Hardcpre. Honestly I didn't even try Extreme because I was content with Hardcore. The single player was thriller, but the original satisfied me much more. And I still believe the first one looks better.

It's just amazing how many people have pirated this piece of software getting the graphic settings all wrong (you know it's high, very high and extreme in the properly released game). Way to go guys. At least don't whine it sucks, you have no right to do it since you didn't pay a penny for it.

I wouldn't pay good money for this console crap on the PC, I'll play COD if I want a linear FPS experience with crap DX9 GFX, obvously this way becuase CR2 is a direct console port. Horrible game on the PC.

How you can get an average fps of 23 with the E8500 ? My E8200 stock / GTX 460 run this game at 35-40 fps on Extreme setting (1680x1050). Looks like your LGA775 test machine is messed up. Or 23 fps was the minimum fps ?

Can we expect dx11 benchmarks when the patch comes out?
IT will be nice if You compare sli crossfire performance, especially gtx460, 560, hd 6870, hd 6850, hd 5850.

Running water cooled overclocked gtx 480 and i7 920 @ 4ghz. Crapz on the game doesn't drop a frame under 60 on extreme. gg well developed game.

You are kidding, yes?

Help me to understand this joke, irregardless of my lack of gaming experience....... :rolleyes:

The joke is probably the fact a game is running at 60fps on a i7 4ghz and a overcloked high end card is more normal than an indication it's well optimized.

Pretty much what sheena said. Add to this that the 'extreme' setting is a joke as this is 2011 and it is a DX9 game. It's not even taken DX9 to its full extent with none of the features of DX11 or even DX 10/10.1. If 60 FPS is so grand, what will be the frame rate when/if they throw in a DX11 patch and your CPU/GPU has to contend with Ambient Occlusion, tessellation, texture based shadowing etc etc. Not to mention that when released it ran like **** on any machine trying to make use of CF or SLI. The game looks like hell, and is a phone booth point A to point B shooter.....Nice job indeed.<<<extreme sarcasm.

OK, thanks to both of you for clearing that up for me!

I think the point that could be gleaned from this is that our "guest", basically felt a need to stop by and tell us all about what a great and powerful computer he believes, (or she believes), has.

It would seem that game performance was a subterfuge, to allow its on board windbag free operation in plain sight.

Did I get this right?

I think so...but why talk up your machine under a guest account? ...unless it was tha general going covert after Chef outed him :haha: