Crysis 2 Performance Preview

By on February 17, 2011, 2:47 AM
This year looks to be packed with highly anticipated titles that will arrive to the PC. Crysis 2 is no doubt one of those games, and one in particular that has lived in our minds considering that the original game to this very day can put a mid-range machine to crawl.

Crysis 2 is slated for release this March 22, however as it is of public knowledge, an early incomplete build of the game was leaked to Torrent sites last week. So, before we get started let's get a few things straight:

1) Our testing is based on the leaked, unfinished build of Crysis 2. Our intention with this article is to provide an early look to the game's GPU and overall system requirements. Of course, we were keen to see how the game runs on certain hardware given how demanding the original title was.

2) We don't believe this leak can be called a final representation of the game that will ship next month. It's obvious further optimizations will be made as we encountered bugs and had to recur to a few tricks to circumvent crashing to the desktop.

3) Ever since we played the original Far Cry, we became huge fans and supporters of Crytek's work. We encourage all readers who planned to buy the game to hold off and wait for the finished version, rather than spoiling what will surely be one of the best games of 2011.

With that out of the way and keeping in mind that this "beta" build of the game is still missing numerous features, we have run a brief set of tests comparing AMD and Nvidia graphics cards.

Read the full performance preview.





User Comments: 124

Got something to say? Post a comment
St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Was there any point to this? I thought it only ran under DX9.

ess333 said:

i have a core i7 930, HD 5850 and 6 Gigs RAM and Im confident based on this preview that I can run this in DX 11 on hardcore .... fingers crossed ... cant wait

dcrosenthal said:

Personally I didn't see much difference between this and the Xbox demo BUT then xbox is directx9 and this is directx9. For example, the faces in Crysis 1 (Directx 10) were way better than they are in Crysis 2... HUGE difference... So I am really hoping that directx11 will change a lot in the game. There were a ton of objects that looked grainy and just plain bad... I personally love the structure of New York and how they made it but several things I don't like in Crysis 1 almost everything was destroyable! trees you could shoot down was so much fun. In crysis 2 it feels more stationary. I can't punch through walls and cool stuff.... I just want to be able to take down a skyscraper if I have enough explosives! Water was also not as good as Crysis 1.. Dont get me wrong the game looks good just not great and I'm hoping that will change by the time they release it.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

DX11 looks best on small compact things, so yes faces will be a lot better.

But really, should at least change the title of this to say "not final" or something..

Guest said:

You seriously admitting, in public, you downloaded a pirate piece of software - this piece of software no less, which has received quite a bit of publicity - for "testing purposes" ahead of the offical release, or an offical press copy? And then you exhort readers to ensure they buy the real thing themselves, assuring us all that you will do the same?

Am I the only reader who thinks there's something deeply wrong with this?

Guest said:

No, you are not.

Trigrammatron said:

ess333 said:

i have a core i7 930, HD 5850 and 6 Gigs RAM and Im confident based on this preview that I can run this in DX 11 on hardcore .... fingers crossed ... cant wait

I've got an i7 950, HD 5850 and 4 GB of RAM. Ditto, can't wait.

mosu said:

Maybe till March 22 you'll have an ATI 6990 in testing too.

Stupido Stupido said:

I haven't downloaded it (I do not download since veeery long time - actually last download was Quake 3 some years ago... :-D ) but if no destructible environment... hmm... maybe will not be that interesting.

Currently I play BF:BC2 and I like (actually love) the destructive environment...

princeton princeton said:

This article has a big flaw. You guys do realize that there is only 1 set of textures and models in the leak right? All going from gamer to hardcore does is add godrays and bloom. So I hope people don't think hardcore will perform this well in the final release.

Granted It may help some people but it seems quite pointless atm. I was planning on doing something similar but admitting that I downloaded it is a crime.

Also I don't want to sound cruel, but it would be kinda funny if Crytek had a field day trying to get rid of this article :P

Guest said:

Ethics be damned, eh, Techspot?

Guest said:

Screenshots are very confusing and I'm glad that I didn't pre-ordered the game quickly. I mean all I can see is a few post-fx such as HDR pipeline, Lens Flare and Motion Blur which is very common in games (Such as CoD, LostPlanet, SplitSecond, NFS, ...) these days.

Overall, game graphics is like 2006 games and still running too sloow on modern hardware. I'm sure it will be same in final release too and you can't expect them to magically fix those problems.

Another thing that makes me sad is that CPU performance, which isn't included like previous game reviews and author is missing that important part. Anyway, thanks for the quick review.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

Guest said:

You seriously admitting, in public, you downloaded a pirate piece of software - this piece of software no less, which has received quite a bit of publicity - for "testing purposes" ahead of the offical release, or an offical press copy? And then you exhort readers to ensure they buy the real thing themselves, assuring us all that you will do the same?

Am I the only reader who thinks there's something deeply wrong with this?

I absolutely agree. We all have read countless posts from the anti-piracy crowd on how there is "NO EXCUSE" for piracy. Plenty of Techspot posters have publicly admitted to doing the exact same practice of downloading a pirated version to test it and have been been called everything from pirate to low life to thief. Where is the outcry for Techspot doing the same thing?

Well TomSEA and Red1776..let them have it.

Guest said:

I hope your umbrella is **** proof, TechSpot.

Seriously, don't be surprised to have repercussions after this article.

Have a nice day

Guest said:

O come on... it's an unfinished BETA. Personally I have not downloaded it and won't play the release until a patch comes out to fix all the bugs that "slipped" through.

Just giving people an idea how the performance of the BETA is doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. If your going to play it from start to end then yes, I would say it's a bad thing

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I absolutely agree. We all have read countless posts from the anti-piracy crowd on how there is "NO EXCUSE" for piracy. Plenty of Techspot posters have publicly admitted to doing the exact same practice of downloading a pirated version to test it and have been been called everything from pirate to low life to thief. Where is the outcry for Techspot doing the same thing?

Well TomSEA and Red1776..let them have it.

Right before you posted that, I thought " Tom must not be up yet!

Hey, My jaw was on the floor when I first saw this. I am going to wait and see what the response is. The jaw on the floor thing is that I thought that there must be some kind of "arrangement " or understanding for Crytek to make the best of this situation and is issuing passes on early reviews or something. I obviously don't know Julio, Steve, personally, but I have been hanging around here for the better part of three years and they strike me as above board kinda guys. It's easy to "let them have it" when you are dealing with people who simply come out and say "screw you, It's not mine, but I am taking it anyway".

In short, I am going to shut up until I know what the story is.

**** huh....I thought you would have jumped all over me by now Dark ***

andy06shake said:

I love the fact that TechSpot has previewed the hardware specs of this pirated beta version of this game. All my games bar 2 or 3 are from torrent sites! Used to be from the Barra's. Hardware these days costs a bomb, sad elitist companys take what they get!!!! FREE THE PLANET!!! F**K THE CORPORATIONS!!! NWO SCUM!!!

ChrisG683 said:

I feel like this was a really dumb article. The game doesn't even really support anything above medium settings, and even then medium isn't working 100% correctly.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

"The jaw on the floor thing is that I thought that there must be some kind of "arrangement " or understanding for Crytek to make the best of this situation and is issuing passes on early reviews or something."

Why would Crytek want a review on a non-complete game? Secondly, if there was an arrangement with Crytek to review the game, Why hasn't every other tech website posted the same thing? Finally, If there was an agreement, why would Techspot have written that "disclaimer" and not disclosed the agreement?

"I obviously don't know Julio, Steve, personally, but I have been hanging around here for the better part of three years and they strike me as above board kinda guys"

I'm sure they are the nicest guys in the world as well as millions of other illegal downloaders.

'It's easy to "let them have it" when you are dealing with people who simply come out and say "screw you, It's not mine, but I am taking it anyway"."

So what is the problem with doing the same thing to Techspot. They are in business to make money giving their opinions on technology. Should they not be held to the same standard as everyone else who is involved with piracy? Techspot is not the victim. They did not "accidentally' trip over a hump in the rug and write a review of a pirated game as much as people would like to think so.

I think this SNAFU is going to be an excellent experiment on seeing things from the other side of the fence. Piracy is either cut and dry wrong and stealing or it isn't as bad as people think. People have to pick one side or the other but not both sides when it is convenient.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

red1776 said:

**** huh....I thought you would have jumped all over me by now Dark ***

Ask and you shall recieve...Look up :P

KRANK2011 said:

What a bunch of crybabies...lol Techspot downloaded the leaked game,who gives a f..k! The only thing that kind of annoys me about the whole thing is this...I think Crysis 2 has HORRIBLE graphics,nowhere near as good as Crysis 1 on pc. You people kill me,do you really think Crytek gives a f..k about pc gaming? This game was developed for consoles first and foremost...the pc market is getting a port of a console game,not the consoles getting a port of a pc game..lol

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

So what is the problem with doing the same thing to Techspot. They are in business to make money giving their opinions on technology. Should they not be held to the same standard as everyone else who is involved with piracy? Techspot is not the victim. They did not "accidentally' trip over a hump in the rug and write a review of a pirated game as much as people would like to think so.

I think this SNAFU is going to be an excellent experiment on seeing things from the other side of the fence. Piracy is either cut and dry wrong and stealing or it isn't as bad as people think. People have to pick one side or the other but not both sides when it is convenient.

You read into and parsed what I wrote to fit your point, of which you may have...and be completely correct. If you are, I will be the first one to write it here all in caps if you like.

All I am saying is that this (if it is what you are asserting) just seems way out of character to me. My thought was that it's very plausible that since the kitty was let out of the burlap early, Crytek may very well try to mitigate things by giving the green light to talk it up and review the ...ahem..."escaped beta" I just would like to know if there is more to the story before everyone starts blasting away at Steve and the crew. If your right...your right. I think you picked on the wrong person here Dark. I do not go around seeking out people to call them crooks for the sport of it. I argue that intellectual property is indeed property and not for others to arbitrarily help themselves to Just as they would not want others to help themselves to the results of their efforts,creativity, or possessions.

And BTW, I really, really want to have a look at this game, however I have not, and will not until I purchase my copy in March. My intellectual integrity is in tact...and will remain that way.

*** your point about a disclaimer is well taken***

Guest said:

Let me tell you guys at Techspot, you have done nothing wrong in downloading the leaked build to do this preview.

And too all guys shaming techspot, I bet you have a copy of crysis 2 beta on your computer too, so.... shut up.

It seems CryEngine3 is even more badass, but at DX9 the scores are a bit of a putoff. Seriously, if the console's pathetic 7900GT or HD2600/X1900 class graphics can deliver 30fps, then why does a core i7 and HD5770 put up only 26fps???

POOR OPTIMIZATION CRYTEK, I EXPECTED BETTER

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Very amused at all the people trying to bash Techspot for this right now, have you never ever downloaded something "Illegally"? if you say No that's a straight up lie and you know it. I do agree that the article is somewhat pointless in the fact that is is an unfinished release that doesn't support the full potential of what the game will be. That being said it clearly states that in the article and there will be a complete review of the final release when the game comes out in March. So take this for what it is, a Beta Test or preview or whatever, but keep your negative thoughts to yourself. Nobody cares.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

but keep your negative thoughts to yourself. Nobody cares.

Apparently thats not true Ad, I am getting lit up for NOT bashing Steve and company.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

red1776 said:

but keep your negative thoughts to yourself. Nobody cares.

Apparently thats not true Ad, I am getting lit up for NOT bashing Steve and company.

I apologize if you feel I'm singling you out Red, that is not my intention. You and Tom were the first Anti-piracy advocates I thought of.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I apologize if you feel I'm singling you out Red, that is not my intention. You and Tom were the first Anti-piracy advocates I thought of.

That wasn't aimed at you Dark, you had a well thought out and supported point. Its the !#@&*^^%$@^&%# while they do a drive by that I cant stand. Hell i like a spirited debate.

and I really wish someone would weigh in if you know what I mean.

colinf said:

wall street reports shares soar in high horses, ivory towers and glass houses

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I'm not even going to bother reading this. First of all, it's not the real release so means nothing, but most importantly it's like TechSpot is promoting piracy.

Jiraiya said:

Why the review at this time ? This is a big failure

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Just for sake of argument, what if this version was intentionally leaked by Crytek in order to gauge the reception of the game?

Would downloading and reviewing it still be 'wrong'?

Guest said:

Mmmm financial gain from ads and clickthroughs from warez Techspot? I hope crytek sue the **** of of you frankly.

Raswan Raswan said:

TomSEA said:

I'm not even going to bother reading this. First of all, it's not the real release so means nothing, but most importantly it's like TechSpot is promoting piracy.

Can't argue that the principle of the thing is a little sketchy, and maybe not the smartest if this was a cut-and-dry illegal download. But, as another poster suggested, it's possible we don't know the whole story. Maybe Crytek, operating with the understanding that the game has already been leaked and downloaded ten thousand times, saw some benefits in encouraging this beta review. 1) It might stop illegal downloads by those who were going to do it just to see how their system ran. 2) It ramps up excitement for the release in a month. Of course, you'd think they'd mention this in the preface if this was the case, but you never know.

Far as I am concerned, TechSpot is a mechanism for information and enjoyment, not the moral compass by which I lead my life. Any twinges I feel (and they are small) are minimized by the fact that, in the end, I really couldn't care less if TechSpot precipitated the leak themselves--I just want to read about it and plan for the moment I can get my hands on my own copy. You people have piss and moan all you want (and I encourage you to, since it keeps democracy ALIVE...) but in the end you should either boycott the site and report them if your principles are really that offended, or stfu and keep reading

That said, where's the 5870?!?! I know it's discontinued, but that doesn't mean some of us poor saps don't have it. Sure, I can best-guess it, but I'd rather they did the work for me

Guest said:

Is it not possible that the leaked pirated version of the game IS the review version sent out to sites like this? And frankly, if this is the case, then I'm not so surprised that it was leaked in the first place. I don't for one second believe that techspot would openly parade piracy in this way.

Guest said:

Anyways Ive E-mailed EA - CRYTEK pointing them to this site and preview for basically condoning piracy.

Lets hope you get your asses sued because whichever way you want to look at it or dress it up you have obtained this material illegally.

Anyways saving a backup of these pages before the inevitable "closing" of this article.

Guest said:

Suing is never the answer.

Guest said:

Yeah I doubt they will be sued tbh, maybe a virtual slap might be on the cards though.

I don't really see the point in this article, I thought it was now common interweb knowledge that the leaked beta was locked to Xbox360 settings hence the medium textures, polygon count and DX9 shaders.

I guess it does give people an idea of what to expect from their machines at those settings.

Ohh and :slapped hands: for you Techspot for pushing out the cheeky wagon lol

Guest said:

There is no "glass houses" or "high horses" here. There are facts.

Techspot published a flawed article based off of an incomplete game engine which was downloaded via a PIRATED copy for the SOLE PURPOSE of generating traffic and in doing so is generating additional ad revenu through high pageviews. To me, that's not only disgusting but illegal.

I am a regular Techspot reader but to me, this steps over the line. It is games like Crysis 2 that allow PC hardware sites to continue their operation since without them, the PC gaming market would stagnate. Meanwhile, here we have this publication condoning the illegal downloading of a highly anticipated game and then basically blowing it off as a "beta" preview. I call shens and so should others.

Let's see how long this comment stays around for....

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

There is no "glass houses" or "high horses" here. There are facts.

Techspot published a flawed article based off of an incomplete game engine which was downloaded via a PIRATED copy for the SOLE PURPOSE of generating traffic and in doing so is generating additional ad revenu through high pageviews. To me, that's not only disgusting but illegal.

I am a regular Techspot reader but to me, this steps over the line. It is games like Crysis 2 that allow PC hardware sites to continue their operation since without them, the PC gaming market would stagnate. Meanwhile, here we have this publication condoning the illegal downloading of a highly anticipated game and then basically blowing it off as a "beta" preview. I call shens and so should others.

Let's see how long this comment stays around for....

I couldn't have said it better. I mean hell, if techspot really needed traffic they could just hire Semiaccurate Charlie.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

All I have to say is, I've lost respect for TechSpot. Not precisely because of them downloading the unfinished, unreleased game (downloading the beta IF you plan to buy the game regardless, to me, is OK), but making an article about it for page views? That's illegal. Insulting, too.

Xclusiveitalian Xclusiveitalian said:

The only reason i didn't like that they did this article is because I don't want techspot to get in trouble via lawsuit from Crytek, i go to this site everyday. Im sure they would buy the game when it comes out but everyone is sue happy these days and you gotta be careful.

Guest said:

Bollocks! Thanks to capitalism there is plenty of good quality yet cheap hardware on the market. For instance you can get a quad core Athlon 2 for under $100 or a GTX460 with custom cooler for less than $150!

It's no surprise that someone ranting against a non existant entity such as the "NWO" would be so ignorant. Let me guess, do you also think 9/11 was an inside jobby job as well?

Try getting out of your moms basement once in a while kid.

blimp01 said:

haha the computer you need to run crysis 2 doesnt even run crysis 1 well

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

I'm truly amazed how this article's feedback has centered on an "ethics debate" rather than the substance of the findings. I see a lot of anti-piracy activism going on, and as much as I respect the varied opinions posted here (none of which will be moderated), let's not forget the fact we are not the source of the leak, we are not distributing nor promoting the leak's distribution, and finally we are not spoiling any content whatsoever. To be clear, this is NOT a review of Crysis 2. What we HAVE DONE is run a few benchmarks on the unoptimized code to hopefully bring a preview of what's to come. As you all know, the first Crysis game was made famous by its incredible graphics and because of how demanding it was, and still is on PC hardware.

I'm glad to report we haven't heard from EA or Crytek as of this moment, and I'd be really disappointed if we did because our ultimate intention is to bring some awareness and early data to prospective gamers. A simple search on TechSpot will bring dozens of reports on previous Crytek games. Far Cry and Crysis are two of my personal favorite FPS games and I paid for both titles when those were released.

Allegations about pageviews are greatly exaggerated considering that we expect this article to amount to less than 5% of our daily website traffic. We are not some kind of evil publishing empire. TechSpot is run by true PC enthusiasts and I've personally been behind the site for over ten years. When I asked Steve (the author of the preview) to run the benchmarks I did so enthusiastically, thinking about getting this early info out there for you to enjoy.

Thankfully a large portion of the feedback has also been positive. I appreciate the support of those who are backing our decision to run the benchmarks and publish the performance preview. Again, I'm not debating our position here, but I'm simply establishing our original intention with the article and we stand by it.

Guest said:

Whos to say Techspot and Crytek didnt make a deal under the table?

Whos to say Crytek didnt leak the beta?

Any one has any solid evidence stating other wise??

Guest said:

If anything, techspot are doing everyone a favour. I imagine a lot of people would download the leak so they know how the game runs, but with these benchmarks, they won't have to!

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

Whos to say Techspot and Crytek didnt make a deal under the table?

Whos to say Crytek didnt leak the beta?

Any one has any solid evidence stating other wise??

Obviously someone from crytek leaked the ****ing beta. It's already been addressed on facepunch that the leak was grabbed off of the EA servers. If you're going to make a claim like that make sure there really isn't any evidence stating otherwise.

Guest said:

Because maybe it's running at twice the resolution and at higher settings? Also these aren't hardcore settings, the beta is locked at medium with all other higher assets missing. I don't know why Techspot didn't do better research on this.

yukka, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I don't get it. Why if you love the game and the makers so much, go to all the effort of running a full article on the performance of a leaked version the makers didn't want anyone to have.

This was a bad decision. Its the first one you have made in the 10 years I have been reading the site but it seems quite serious. The code is unfinished, the game shouldn't be out there. Ignoring it and waiting for a real version to bench seems like the better idea. Instead its almost as if you are promoting the leaked version. Crazy. And opportunistic - do you really need the additional hits?

And im not reading it.

Load all comments...

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.