Crysis demo performance in-depth

By Julio Franco
Oct 29, 2007
Post New Reply
  1. Crysis is a highly anticipated first person shooter developed exclusively for the PC by Crytek, the makers of the award-winning Far Cry. The demo offers PC gamers a quick look at what will possibly be the most advanced FPS ever created, you just have to swallow the huge 1.8GB download first. I'm sure many will agree that the demo is well worth the download though, offering the entire first level of the game which represents "roughly 45 minutes" of pure gameplay.

    Today we are going to see how the various mid-range and high-end graphics cards handle this new and exciting first person shooter. There will also be some brief visual quality comparisons along with some CPU scaling and DX9 vs. DX10 performance charts. The single-player demo supports both DX10 and DX9 rendering in Vista while Windows XP users are limited to DX9. While the game has been said to include 64-bit support, the demo can only be run in 32-bit mode, so there are no 32-bit vs. 64-bit comparisons just yet.

    http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-performance/

    Please leave your feedback here. Thanks!
  2. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    Is it strickly necessary for me to sit through those half dozen or so cut scenes at the start of the demo? I downloaded the (almost) 2GB file so I can play a game, not sit through some movie. If I wanted a movie, I would download that. I've been playing these kinds of games for years now, and to be honest I could not give a monkey's about the storyline. I want good action and good graphics, exciting gameplay. I almost fell asleep waiting for this game to begin.
  3. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    crysis.exe in Bin64 directory runs in 64-bit mode just fine here.

    No, you can move/delete/rename the *.sfd files in Crysis SP Demo \ Game \ Localized \ Video.
  4. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,319   +417 Staff Member

    Hmm very interesting indeed. I have tried a huge range of graphics cards and drivers but I cannot get the 64-bit version to load. It just comes up with a blank screen and the task manager just says that Crysis has stopped responding. I am using Vista 64-bit ... what operating system/drivers and graphics card are you using? I would really like to work this out.

    I spent hours reading through the Crysis forums and I could not find anyone that got the 64-bit version working. Many tried, all failed so if you could help me out with this that would be great.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Update: Well what do you know at 2am in the morning I found the problem. For some reason with V-Sync set to "Use the 3D application setting" and the Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration setting on "Multiple display performance mode" the 64-bit version would instantly lock up. Changing these settings to Single display performance and Force On allowed me to run the 64-bit version. The results were quite good...

    GeForce 8800 GTX (768MB) 32-bit
    1440x900 = 38.6fps
    1680x1050 = 30.8fps
    1920x1200 = 25.8fps

    GeForce 8800 GTX (768MB) 64-bit
    1440x900 = 45.6fps
    1680x1050 = 36.4fps
    1920x1200 = 30.0fps
  5. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    Yeah, it could be that most people use "high performance" settings. I use "high quality". That is, vsync always on etc.

    Vista Ultimate x64, 8800 GTS, ForceWare 163.69 (WHQL).
  6. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Wow, what an excellent article
    Thanks allot for the hard work Steve!!!

    Now I'm off to install Vista 64 bit so I can see if I can get over 25FPS with my crazily overclocked 7900GT (720/880 core/mem, 520/750 is default)
    I installed a nice voltmod on it over a year ago that I haven't even felt the need to test untill now :D
    Core now getting 1.5v instead of 1.2v :haha:

    That 8800GT is high on my buy list, tho I will probably wait for the new G92 GTS instead
    Would be nice if my watercooler would fit too but I don't think it will :(

    Attached Files:

  7. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    I think my sarcasm detector is broken. Aren't you supposed to stay in Win2k?
  8. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Well, I said I would never "upgrade" to XP, so I win :D

    I'd prefer to run Crysis in Windows 2000 (I think I would get better performance)
    However I didn't manage to fix it, after giving it some dll's etc it just gave me a generic "memory could not be read" error message so no way to troubleshoot further without debugging tools...

    First it needs a newer POWRPROF.dll to get rid of this error message:
    "The procedure entry point ReadProcessorPwrScheme could not be located in the dynamic link library POWRPROF.dll"

    Then it needs a newer dbghelp.dll to get rid of this error message
    "The procedure entry point SymFromAddr could not be located in the dynamic link library dbghelp.dll"

    But once that is done it just gives me a generic "memory could not be read" error message :(

    EDIT; Wasn't so impossible afterall :D
  9. samjohnson

    samjohnson Newcomer, in training Posts: 320

    I run the demo with everything on low. Thats because I have a 7600GT that I am running. I do have 2gigs of ram though. Check my profile if you want to now what I else I have. So far I only got just like a couple of mins into the demo. Good so far. I just can't believe I can run it with a 7600. And its not overclocked. I don't know what kind of fps I am getting but I don't have lag at all. So all you people out there with a 7600GT, YOU CAN RUN IT!!!
    I think I could skip all the little clips if I wanted to. Just hit escape. Though I didn't try it cuse I do like to watch the movie clips in games. :D
    Honestly I didn't think that there were that many movie clips, and the ones that I have seen so far have not been that long. But they may get longer the farther you get into the demo. We will see.
  10. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    About RAM usage; the demo uses ca 1.4GB of memory, virtual address usage is only 1.6GB tho so that is nice (once you hit 2GB in any 32bit OS the application will fail because that is the max, 2GB for app and 2GB for OS/Kernel)

    This memory usage is with a 256MB 7900GT and all on medium/1024x768
    I can imagine what will happen to the RAM usage once I hit 1600x1200 which is my LCD panels native resolution
    And also run everything on very high...
    So yea, I'm making space on one of my hardrives for a new Windows Vista 64 bit install. Will post what performance results I get...
  11. Julio Franco

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Topic Starter Posts: 6,520   +311

    I'm in serious need of a hardware upgrade if I want to run this game properly... the Athlon X2 4400+ I run does get hammered with the demo (both cores), perhaps it's starting to show real life difference compared to the newer Core 2 Duos.

    With my system specs (see the drop down next to my name), that is running with either a GeForce 7800GT or a 8800 GTS, I get what I consider to be poor frame rates. The 8800 GTS on 1680x1050 with some medium and some other low settings is kind of playable...

    Before the end of the year, Quad Core and GeForce 9 *?* here I come!
     
  12. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,281   +24

    I get about a constant 30FPS or so at 1600x1200. Quite playable, but some improvements are still needed. Nevertheless, it's still pretty good for a demo. Jaw-dropping is an understatement methinks. :)
  13. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,458   +288

    I played it last night at 1280x800 with most everything on Medium and Water and maybe something else on High. It played really well, I think I could bump the resolution up. Not sure what my FPS were. I did notice higher CPU than I expected based on the review and what I see in these posts. CPU usage was pretty irratic but was in the mid to upper 90s on one of the cores fairly often. Perhaps tonight I'll play it again but not disable my 2nd monitor off so I can watch CPU usage in real time. I didn't get a chance to look at it until after exited out of the game.
  14. beef_jerky4104

    beef_jerky4104 Banned Posts: 1,094

    Oh yay, seeing those benchmarks makes me very happy about my eVGA e-GeForce 7900 GS KO. -Sarcasm.
  15. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic90831.html

    There, now the sarcasm mode is off again :D

    I'd prefer to run Crysis in Windows 2000 (I think I would get better performance)
    Vista 32bit, 1024x768, everything on medium nVidia 169.01 drivers:
    25.75

    Windows 2000 SP4, 1024x768, everything on medium nVidia 169.01 drivers: (unlike Vista there is browsers, chat clients, hex editors, debuggers, ĀµTorrent, Motherboard monitor and F@H running in the background (49 processes to be exact, default is what, below 20?))
    34.94fps

    /Sarcasm on again:
    Ohh, 2000 is only 35% faster than Vista, I think I will continue to run Vista
    /Sarcasm off
  16. Julio Franco

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Topic Starter Posts: 6,520   +311

    Have you tried the latest 169.04 drivers? Those brought a considerable improvement for me in Vista.
  17. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Will do, most people on Guru3D said not much difference tho ca ~1fps increase
  18. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Graphics card drivers for all tests are nVidia Forceware v169.04
    nForce drivers are v6.86 for Win2K & XP / v15.01 for Vista
    Creative drivers are v2.09.0007 dated 30 Oct 06 for Win2K & XP / v2.15.0002 for Vista dated 9 Oct 07
    Resolution is 1024x768 and all settings are on medium.
    All tests are run in the bin32 or bin64 folder for each respective system using the "Benchmark_GPU.bat". The best score from the 4 runs is chosen.
    All operating systems are clean installed with all updates and service packs applied. Vista also has KB940105 installed. (And my Crysis Win2K fix is of course applied in the Windows 2000 test)
    System specs for all tests are;

    CPU: Opteron 185 2.6ghz
    Mobo: DFI Expert nForce4
    Mem: Corsair TWINX2048-4000PT 200mhz
    Video: XFX 7900GT (volt modded) 720/880mhz Core/Mem
    HDD: 150GB Raptor and a 500GB HD501LJ Samsung drive
    Sound: Creative X-fi ExtremeMusic

    Windows 2000:
    Average FPS: 39.71
    Min FPS: 22.59
    Max FPS: 62.38



    Windows XP 32bit
    Average FPS: 43.88
    Min FPS: 24.49
    Max FPS: 64.69



    Windows XP x64 64bit:
    Crysis Bin64 executable;
    Average FPS: 40.87
    Min FPS: 22.84
    Max FPS: 59.02

    Crysis Bin32 executable;
    Average FPS: 43.42
    Min FPS: 26.35
    Max FPS: 62.83



    Windows Vista 32bit:
    Average FPS: 26.96
    Min FPS: 15.37
    Max FPS: 39.23



    Windows Vista 64bit:
    Crysis Bin64 executable;
    Average FPS: 26.90
    Min FPS: 15.51
    Max FPS: 38.83

    Crysis Bin32 executable;
    Average FPS: 26.84
    Min FPS: 15.65
    Max FPS: 39.05



    From this we can conclude that with such a lowend system as mine there is no point at all in running the 64 bit executable of crysis.exe; it seem to have more overhead and thus get lower performance on this system.

    We however see that in Vista there is no performance penalty by running 32 or 64 bit.
    Having said that Windows XP 32 bit is still 63% faster than Vista both 32 and 64 bit!!!

    As for our NT5.X based systems Windows XP 32bit is 10% faster than Windows 2000, and 7% faster than XP x64 when Crysis is running with the 64bit executable.
    The performance gap when Crysis is run using the 32bit executable in XP x64 is only 1% tho which is within the error margin.

    I would say the winner here is Windows XP x64 because it gives you the choice to run apps in either 32 or 64bit mode, plus you get none of the issues of being able to hit the 2GB virtual address space; which I expect will be doable with Crysis using high settings.
    With my medium settings the memory usage was up to 1.4GB for Crysis in Vista, and virtual memory usage peaked at 1.6GB in Vista. That only leaves 400mb until the game will crash due to exceeding the limit for address space. (This is also the reason the game asks you to install KB940105 when you run it in Vista.) There is a 120-day trial you can get from Microsoft incase you want to try XP x64, it's what I used for these tests...

    I will of course soon upgrade my graphics card so I can enjoy Crysis (I preordered it about a year ago ;))
    But like many others I am waiting to see how the upcoming G92 8800GTS will stack up to the G92 8800GT. And also what ATI's new 3XXX series of cards will do...
    These are very happy times for us PC gamers, both very good games and graphics hardware that will probably challenge the old venerable Geforce TI4200 are literally being released each week!

    Edit; I should add that I think the reason my system performs so badly in Vista is because nVidia has been tweaking their drivers for the 88XX range of cards, and leaving out the old series...
    I expect performance to be much closer with a more recent graphics card. (But for technical reasons Vista does have a larger overhead so XP should always be a percent or five faster than Vista, this info is from Microsoft themselves and is due to the new driver model introduced in Vista...)
  19. beef_jerky4104

    beef_jerky4104 Banned Posts: 1,094

    Excellent posts Per Hansson.
  20. Julio Franco

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Topic Starter Posts: 6,520   +311

    Great insight to complement our tests done in newer generation cards (GeForce 8 series, etc.)

    I'm currently running an Athlon X2 4400+ and the GeForce 8800 GTS 320mb loaner I'm running is not doing any good for me. Depending on how things turn out by the end of the year I'm either running a next gen card or SLI two 8800GT cards.
  21. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Tested the new 169.09 drivers this week, performance was unchanged in XP 32bit, XP x64, and Vista 32bit

    Did not test Win2K or Vista x64
  22. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Got a new computer now, old one decided to give up...

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
    Mobo: Asus Maximus Formula
    Mem: 8GB OCZ OCZ2N800SR4GK
    Video: Asus Geforce 8800GTS 512MB
    HDD: 150GB Raptor and a 500GB HD501LJ Samsung drive
    Sound: Auzentech X-Meridian

    Graphics card drivers this time around are 169.21 for XP x64 and 169.25 for Vista x64
    Intel Chipset drivers v8.3.1.1009
    The Creative X-fi was swapped out due to being a crap soundcard with crap drivers In it's place I'm using a Auzentech X-Meridian with drivers dated 9/3/2007

    Resolution this time is 1600x1200, and all settings are on high


    Windows XP x64 64bit:
    Crysis Bin64 executable;
    Average FPS: 32.82
    Min FPS: 12.66
    Max FPS: 38.55

    Crysis Bin32 executable;
    Average FPS: 32.86
    Min FPS: 11.92
    Max FPS: 38.12


    Windows Vista 64bit:
    Crysis Bin64 executable;
    Average FPS: 28.31
    Min FPS: 13.6
    Max FPS: 31.41

    Crysis Bin32 executable;
    Average FPS: 28.42
    Min FPS: 11.93
    Max FPS: 31.10

    This time around there is no difference at all to running the Crysis 32 or 64bit EXE in both Vista and XP...
    However, Windows XP x64 is still 16% faster than Vista x64.
    That's all for now :D
    Take note that all hardware and software is different from the test above by me so they are not at all comparable... What we can conclude tho is that neither Creative nor nVidia can write proper drivers, Creative manages the feat to make their 64bit driver incompatible with more than 2GB RAM, and in Nvidias case their previous range of card manages a staggering 63% performance difference in XP vs Vista!
  23. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,458   +288

    Perhaps I missed something. But Vista is going to run that game with DX10, XP64 will use DX9. I imagine that is going to cause a performance hit.
  24. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Thanks for the tip SNGX!

    Redid the tests in Vista x64 while forcing the game into DirectX9 mode (just add -DX9 to the start command)

    Results;
    Windows Vista 64bit:
    Crysis Bin32 executable;
    DirectX9 Renderpath
    Average FPS: 31.67
    Min FPS: 15.75
    Max FPS: 37.78

    Now XP is only 3.76% faster than Vista, this performance I admit is better than I ever expected Vista to reach!
    It also begs the question of what would happen if we ran our 7900GT in a DirectX9 codepath in Vista aswell, might that be the only reason it is 63% faster in XP vs Vista?
  25. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,930   +123 Staff Member

    Answering my question in my previous post; the performance is unchanged, a card which does not support DX10 is always run in a DX9 codepath it seems, the -DX9 setting has no effect at all on performance.

    So that is to say that if you have a 7900GT and you play Crysis in Vista instead of XP you are loosing out on allot of performance (XP is 63% faster than Vista on the 7900GT)

    However the 512MB 8800GTS seems to have had it's drivers much better tweaked so here the difference is below 4% if you run the DX9 codepath and 16% if you run the DX10 codepath. This seems very reasonable to me... (the 8800GTS part that is)

    As for the miserable performance of the cards before the 8800 series, well, what can you say really. if you are gaming there really is no reason at all for you to do so in Vista atleast!

    Average FPS: 26.31
    Min FPS: 17.38
    Max FPS: 37.62

    You can compare these numbers with the first one I ran. The rig is now the Intel Q6600 instead, with 8GB RAM...
    As you can see they are virtually identical, showing that the 4 core Q6600 does not help at all since we are so limited by our graphics card anyway, even at such a low resolution...


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.