Crysis 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test

By on March 29, 2011, 4:47 AM
Crytek and EA unleashed the highly anticipated sequel to Crysis last week. While waiting for it to become available Down Under, I found myself reading numerous reviews about the game. Most were highly positive, while informal observations from bloggers and PC gamers noted that Crysis 2 has departed from some of its predecessor's gameplay essentials and feels closer to a Call of Duty-style shooter.

As things stand today, Crysis 2 on the PC does offer better textures, but that's about it other than the higher resolutions and frame rates usually offered by PC titles. DX11 effects are expected to be added in a future patch, but in the meantime don't misinterpret us, the game looks gorgeous regardless.


Clearly it's not exactly what we expected, but Crysis 2 does appear to be quite a lot of fun nonetheless. Now the question that remains to be answered is how demanding Crysis 2 is on PC hardware? Despite its shortcomings, can it bring the most power hungry rigs to their knees as the original game did? Today we plan to find out as we run a wide range of processors and graphics cards through the gauntlet.

Read the complete performance review.



User Comments: 69

Got something to say? Post a comment
chaboi390 said:

Can't say that this is a true test of Crysis 2, No DirectX 11 yet.

Quite Disappointing.

Arris Arris said:

Have to say you are running a similar setup to myself (Pro mobo not deluxe, 8GB of ram). You show that at 4GHz the 590 GTX is running without bottlenecking, whereas I'm running my HD 5850 (with crossfire disabled due to the flickering problems when running it with my other 5850) with the i7 2600K @ 4.6GHz and getting an average framerate closer to 40 fps at extreme 1920x1200 compared to your 4GHz 31 fps average. So maybe the 5850 likes more CPU clock speed than the latest Nvidia offering. I'll try and do some testing tonight with fraps as my average 40 fps is a non scientific "in my head average", sorry Might be some other setting in the Catalyst drivers causing the performance difference and not the CPU speed(running with their default settings myself), or that I'm using the 11.2 driver which is the latest non beta available.

Good round up of cards tested though to give users a good idea of what to expect performance wise. Performance over a range of cards is decent, shame about the gameplay (in my opinion).

Also maybe worth noting that crossfire and SLI users are experiencing issue with this game - http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic162819.html

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

@Arris

Are your 5850's at stock clocks (725/1000) or OC'ed ?

It would appear that a smallish bump in core/memory would get you pretty close to 40fps judging by the 5870's benchmark.

Nice review Steve.....I'll still wait until it's premium price drops a little.

Arris Arris said:

dividebyzero said:

@Arris

Are your 5850's at stock clocks (725/1000) or OC'ed ?

It would appear that a smallish bump in core/memory would get you pretty close to 40fps judging by the 5870's benchmark.

Nice review Steve.....I'll still wait until it's premium price drops a little.

I'll double check. Believe I have them at stock at the moment.

I'll try setting the clock to 4GHz and seeing if that drops the FPS.

Olo1602 said:

I agree with You Arris, I have 45+ FPS almost all the time at 1920x1080 (lower resolution) on my old q6600 @ 3,4 + hd6870, catalyst 11.2. The game works great.

By the way here is our polish review, not the same rig but it's worth comparing.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Arris there is no way the Radeon HD 5850 needs more than 3GHz, let alone 4.6GHz, there is no bottlenecking going on here.

Please keep in mind that we are deliberately testing a demanding scene in the game and at no point do we look anywhere that is going to create an fps spike, such as looking towards the ground for example. The maximum frame rate is not much higher than the average in our test. So when playing the game chances are you will see spikes where the maximum climbs much higher and therefore will push up the average.

Also do not compare just one card, such as an AMD graphics card. What is important here is the margin between certain cards as that should remain consistent provided there is no physical limitation such as a slow processor.

For example when using the extreme settings we found the GeForce GTX 285 and Radeon HD 5850 delivered virtually the same performance at 1680x1050, this should be the case for all systems.

Anyway thanks for all the feedback so far guys.

mosu said:

We got it. NVidia rules, Intel rules, who cares about DirectX 11 on high end graphic cards.Thank you!

Arris Arris said:

Steve said:

Arris there is no way the Radeon HD 5850 needs more than 3GHz, let alone 4.6GHz, there is no bottlenecking going on here.

Maybe the CPU optimization/CPU tasks in games being handled better is what was giving me higher benchmarks and fps in the majority of games after switching from 3.0GHz Q6600 to 4.6GHz i7 2600K.

I'm pretty sure your 4GHz benchmarking of the 5850 is right and my general impression of the FPS I'm receiving is artificially high (remember seeing 37-40 mostly). I thought that 3GHz was all the HD5850 needed but it seemed to give more with the faster CPU, but I'm not going to argue over a few fps or setup my old Q6600 to compare the benchmarks as I'll probably find you're right

I'm going to go back to AvP benchmark with crossfire though as I definitely think the fast processor benefits there. I did find through testing that 4.6Ghz -> 4.8Ghz yielded no performance increase, going to throttle it back to 4GHz and check it out. And play a little Crysis 2 with single card with that CPU speed too and see what my general impression of the fps is. I could be suffering more fan noise than I have to

Guest said:

You need 50+ fps to play this game without lag?

That's bull..

I'm playing with 30-40 FPS, game's very smooth and I didn't notice fps lag at all, not even when I'm doing multiplayer.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I completed this game the day it came out, went straight to town to pick up my copy, strangely even though it is fairly fun and the graphics are fairly impressive, the flow is completely wrong and i felt a little dissapointed with it, especially at the fact I had completed Crysis the week before so the orginal was fresh in my mind and to be honest, this was a real let down in comparison.

Anyway my GTX 260 played it fairly well, If anything my Duel core was what made it lag a lot, I noticed it most in the outside scenes. was really annoying! but I will be building a new PC this year

Guest said:

Hey guys, as far as the flickering happening with the ATI cards, I tried a few different things and was able to get it to go away while still using CFX. I just disabled catalyst controller. I know it isn't called that but I can't remember the exact name. There are basically three options. Advanced, normal, and disabled. I disabled it and made sure that it still had crossfire enabled, which it was. I then played the game with my CFX enabled (catalyst disabled) and no flickering!!!!! The settings were run at 1440 x 900 with extreme graphics. I am running 2 HD 3870s. Then I disabled CFX (catalyst still disabled) and could only run at high settings. Thus proving that CFX was enabled for the prior test.

gobbybobby said:

30 FPS is my limit, anything below 30 and I tone the GFX settings down. My machine is 2 yr old, got a GTS 250 with a phenom 1 X4 2.2Ghz so won't be running Crysis 2 on full! I can't even run JC2 or AvP on full. But thats not biggy they still look very good on medium/ medium-high settings.

SilverCider said:

I must admit I was expecting dx10 to at least make an appearance if not dx11, however I am mightily impressed by the level of detail dx9 is still capable of!

BlindObject said:

On the demo I was getting about 60-80fps with a i7 950 @ 4ghz and SLI GTX465 card (both weren't on the test) on a X58 Sabertooth. I still haven't played the actual game, I'm waiting for it to download.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

There was effectively a i7 950 under-clocked to 3.8GHz or whatever it is. :P

Det Det said:

"Quite disappointing" to not see even the article writer coming up with the thinking of why exactly is Crysis 2 not supporting D3D 10/11 (or why there's no 64-bit version either).

Simply, creating a 32-bit D3D 9 version of a game the size of Crysis 2 is _much_ easier than a 32/64-bit D3D 9/10/11 one.

And even _then_ they ran out of time, which you can clearly see from the release of the "first day patch" and the ongoing bugs that need to be wiped out.

Guest said:

I think the biggest point to be seen here is what a steal the i5-2500/ i7-2600 are. CPU plus mobo for less than $500 depending on choice. Compared to i7-9 Extreme and 1366 mobo for well over $1000 as of this morning. It is clear that any card less than a couple years old can run this. It is the dual core processors that or declared obsolete. The new Sandy Bridge by price per performance declare all the older processors dead.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I quite disagree with you that crossfire is working "fine". at least not with many configurations. I have have played it on a few CF rigs I have here and it has problems to be worked out.

BTW folks, 11.3 drivers are out, however the release notes are not available....so just install on blind faith I guess

[link]

running my HD 5850 (with crossfire disabled due to the flickering problems when running it with my other 5850)

Arris, you get the background flicker when you have your second 5850 CF'ed? I didn't have that until I enacted my 4th 5850, just goes to show what lousy support they launched this miserable console sequel with......i want my money back! LOL

Alster37 Alster37 said:

Since crysis 2 is going to get patched with dx 11, are you going to another review when it released? Comparing dx 11 performance?

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

I think the biggest point to be seen here is what a steal the i5-2500/ i7-2600 are. CPU plus mobo for less than $500 depending on choice. Compared to i7-9 Extreme and 1366 mobo for well over $1000 as of this morning. It is clear that any card less than a couple years old can run this. It is the dual core processors that or declared obsolete. The new Sandy Bridge by price per performance declare all the older processors dead.

Would be interesting to see a clock for clock comparison though.

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

"Quite disappointing" to not see even the article writer coming up with the thinking of why exactly is Crysis 2 not supporting D3D 10/11 (or why there's no 64-bit version either).

Do you want us to guess? If you didn't read between lines, our take is that they lacked the focus on the PC version development and that's why they didn't go with DX11 or 64-bit executable at launch. Time is always a constraint in software development, but again it's no excuse. Crytek's focus was on launching a multiplatform game and the special PC features were relegated for later.

Since Crysis 2 is going to get patched with dx 11, are you going to another review when it released?

Depending on when it happens we probably will. E.g. if it's a few weeks from now, sure, if it's 4 or 6 months later, we may not even bother as a sign of protest.

Jurassic4096 said:

Catalyst 11.3's

[link]

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Nice article Steven, enjoyed reading it...

I just did a little Crysis 2 overclocking test with my Xeon X3370 (=Core 2 Quad 12MB L2 cache CPU)

3.0Ghz: 45.85fps

3.6Ghz: 45.92fps

I think I may be a little bit bound by my old trusty 8800GTS 512MB VGA card even when clocked to 850/1080 (core/mem)

As for my thoughts on Crysis 2 itself, when i played the PC demo I was massively disappointed

The multiplayer maps above all where way to small, they did not have any of the original Crysis feel to them IMO.

Now I have not even played multiplayer on my Retail copy of Crysis 2, but after adjusting the Field of View and playing a few levels of the single player mission I must say that I am impressed.

The visuals are impressive, the lightning and shadows cast, even at the "middle" graphic option of the only 3 available looks amazing.

It was only now when I read Stevens article that I realized how much better the highest graphical options looks though, however my old trusty VGA card is unable to get any playable framerates there unfortunately.

However with that said I must highlight that I think Crysis really feels bland without the great Vistas of the original Crysis, there are no such grand views to be seen in Crysis 2 as far as I have played yet, I am now at the mission right after "FDR".

And how the PC version could be released with options like aim assistance enabled but only 3 preset graphical options with no customization abilities is beyond me.

And the fact that the console was locked out in the Retail version before the "day one" v1.1 patch just also goes to show where the priorities where during development.

My biggest gripe is with the default FoV though, I only have a 4:3 monitor but I get headache and feel Nausea only after minutes of gameplay, the Crysis 2 FoV is vertical and the default is 55.

Settings that work for me and look good with my resolution of 1600x1200 is FoV of 74, with this I get a slight performance reduction but it's well worth it, no longer does it feel like I'm running around looking at the game through binoculars!

You can use this calculator to figure our your own FoV; [link]

The settings to change are;

cl_fov; this controls the world FoV, you can change it ingame from the console if you have patch v1.1

pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov; This controls the sprint FoV, it should match cl_fov otherwise it will appear as you are "zooming in" when sprinting (Since you will be going from a wide FoV to a narrow one)

r_DrawNearFoV; This controls the FoV of the weapons you use, it is bugged though, if you set it higher than 60 it will go back to 60 when you use the binoculars in the game.

These are the settings I use in my Crysis 2\system.cfg file, the first two skips the intro movies and multiplayer login screen respectively

[CODE]

g_skipIntro = 1

g_enableInitialLoginScreen = 0

cl_fov = 74

r_DrawNearFoV = 60

pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov = 74

[/CODE]

Also if you want to run the same benchmark as I did to get the fps numbers above you can download the batch file attached to this post.

If you are viewing this from the news page comments you need to click on the text "subscribe to this thread" (not tick the button) to get to the forum view...

Please note that it requires patch version 1.0 (I.e. the Retail release)

It does not work with v1.1 because Crytek decided to remove almost all CL variables, again a testament to their support for PC gaming, this even made their own included benchmark stop working!

You can get around this by restoring the backup version of Crysis2.exe under the folder "Backup" in the Crysis2 dir to the bin32 folder, please of course first move the v1.1 Crysis2.exe file out of the way and somewhere you can easily identify it as the 1.1 version...

Jurassic4096 said:

Catalyst 11.4 RC2's

[link]

For Radeon HD 6990 + Windows 7 users

compu4 said:

I think that Crytek really dropped the ball on this one from a technological standpoint. Here is my list of grievances:

1. The game only has DX9 support. That is a serious error on Crytek's part. The original Crysis supported DX10, for god's sake. DX9 is outmoded.

2. There are shitty textures everywhere.

3. The graphics options are incredibly limited, and changing them does not produce an appreciable difference in visual quality. Seriously, the lowest preset looks about as good as the highest. Turning the setting up only adds some shader anti-aliasing and pours on some ridiculous motion blur effects.

4. The blur effects are terrible. There is so much motion blur; it quickly becomes nauseating. The blur on the light sources is very unrealistic. It's almost as if Crytek knew that the graphics were going to be bad, so they attempted to hide the unsavory reality using excessive blur.

5. The faces look really bad.

6. The lighting is fake and overdone, just like the motion blur.

7. Environments are no longer destructible.

8. Object deformation effects are quite lackluster.

In my opinion, the game does not look good at all; it is a big step backward from the original Crysis, and it is absolutely smashed by true modern contenders like Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, and Battlefield Bad Company 2.

Does anyone care to reopen the Crysis 2 vs Metro 2033 argument now?

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Does anyone care to reopen the Crysis 2 vs Metro 2033 argument now?

I know what you mean, why bother? its not even close. The textures in Crysis 2 are absolutely horrendous. Not to mention, this isn't even a corridor shooter...its a phone booth shooter.

dedparrot said:

This will be of use to any users who want a really simple way to change individual graphics settings in Crysis 2.

It may also be of help to the Techspot author who may want to tweak settings in his game.

As of yet, the application is in version 1.7, and Crysis 2 players are super appreciative of it.

[link]

Zecias said:

Guest said:

You need 50+ fps to play this game without lag?

That's bull..

I'm playing with 30-40 FPS, game's very smooth and I didn't notice fps lag at all, not even when I'm doing multiplayer.

it really depends. if you are used to playing all games at around 30 fps and crysis doesn't ever go beyond 30-40 then you probably won't notice any lag(playing games at a constant fps makes them seem less laggy).

if you usually play games around 60 fps and can't tell the difference between 30-60 fps, then i don't believe you ._.

i'm used to playing at 60 fps, so when i play at 30 fps, it is very noticeable, especially when the fps jumps between 30-60.

is it so hard to believe that people can see lag after 30 fps? after all, the human eye can see well past 30 fps.

is it so hard to believe that people notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps?

Arris Arris said:

Steve, I dunno what I was thinking. 4GHz - 4.6GHz makes little if no difference to Crysis2, and even the AvP benchmark with crossfire enabled benefits very little from the extra 600MHz. Think I must have been confused between the CPU overclocking and when I was overclocking the GPUs slightly. Probably just overcome with the general performance increase in just about everything else when I moved to this new system.

Arris, you get the background flicker when you have your second 5850 CF'ed? I didn't have that until I enacted my 4th 5850, just goes to show what lousy support they launched this miserable console sequel with......i want my money back! LOL

I get the flickering with 2 cards enabled. Must be something in the code that dislikes even numbers of cards

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Guest said:

You need 50+ fps to play this game without lag?

That's bull..

I'm playing with 30-40 FPS, game's very smooth and I didn't notice fps lag at all, not even when I'm doing multiplayer.

If your standards are low that does not make the opinion of others wrong. And in my opinion 30fps feels very laggy.

dedparrot said:

This will be of use to any users who want a really simple way to change individual graphics settings in Crysis 2.

It may also be of help to the Techspot author who may want to tweak settings in his game.

As of yet, the application is in version 1.7, and Crysis 2 players are super appreciative of it.

[link]

I am aware of Wasdie's program and have used it, trouble is most of the tweakable settings break the game. Enabling MSAA for example destroys the image quality, makes the game look very washed out.

Arris said:

Steve, I dunno what I was thinking. 4GHz - 4.6GHz makes little if no difference to Crysis2, and even the AvP benchmark with crossfire enabled benefits very little from the extra 600MHz. Think I must have been confused between the CPU overclocking and when I was overclocking the GPUs slightly. Probably just overcome with the general performance increase in just about everything else when I moved to this new system.

Hi Arris, yeah I have done huge amounts of CPU scaling testing in my time and you will find that at 4GHz there is literally no game that can max out a Core i7 processor.

jurassic4096 said:

Catalyst 11.3's

[link]

jurassic4096 said:

Catalyst 11.4 RC2's

[link]

jurassic4096 said:

jurassic4096 said:

Catalyst 11.4 RC2's

[link]

For Radeon HD 6990 + Windows 7 users

Why are you spamming this thread with driver links? Please don't...

Det said:

"Quite disappointing" to not see even the article writer coming up with the thinking of why exactly is Crysis 2 not supporting D3D 10/11 (or why there's no 64-bit version either).

Simply, creating a 32-bit D3D 9 version of a game the size of Crysis 2 is _much_ easier than a 32/64-bit D3D 9/10/11 one.

And even _then_ they ran out of time, which you can clearly see from the release of the "first day patch" and the ongoing bugs that need to be wiped out.

You do realize that the focus of this article is GPU and CPU performance, not to make wild assumptions?

Guest said:

I'm not sure if I trust these benchmarks.

I have an XFX 6870(OC to 950/1250) and I usually hover around 60 fps but the lowest I've seen it drop to is 38 fps. This is on Extreme settings with V sync on at 1920x1080.

Not sure if its my computers specs that are making a difference?

965BE @ 4ghz

8gb Corsair XMS3 1333mhz

Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H

I don't believe I'm imagining things either.

Technochicken Technochicken, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Nice review. Judging by the given CPU results, and the framerates I got in the multiplayer demo, it looks like my system was more CPU than GPU bottlenecked. And I see TechSpot has a new bench system!

Guest said:

glad and somewhat shocked to see how hyper threading helps core i3 compared to a higher clocked e8500.so core i3 budget users are not to be dissappointed

Arris Arris said:

Guest said:

I'm not sure if I trust these benchmarks.

I have an XFX 6870(OC to 950/1250) and I usually hover around 60 fps but the lowest I've seen it drop to is 38 fps. This is on Extreme settings with V sync on at 1920x1080.

Not sure if its my computers specs that are making a difference?

965BE @ 4ghz

8gb Corsair XMS3 1333mhz

Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H

I don't believe I'm imagining things either.

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.

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

Not necessarily meaning to add to the PC gamers vs. Crytek debate, but the findings here on texture quality are astounding (see the screenshots):

Crysis 2 Textures Are 1/2 Size of Crysis 1 - [link]

Guest said:

I can't believe you even let them off the hook for this consoled up garbage.

I'm not reading this rag of a magazine anymore.

Guest said:

I think you need to try the RadeoPro "fix" for crossfire.

I'm running 2x6970 at 1920x1200 with much more than Extreme settings (See Nebby's mods on the Cry2 thread at B3D) and I'm pegged at 60 fps with vsync on (60 Hz screen and proccy is 2600k at 4.5GHz). These numbers are much higher than reported here.

To do this I am using RadeonPro to force the Bioshock Crossfire profile and D3D Triple-buffering.

My guess is that this modification would up the 6990 results.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Not necessarily meaning to add to the PC gamers vs. Crytek debate, but the findings here on texture quality are astounding (see the screenshots):

Crysis 2 Textures Are 1/2 Size of Crysis 1 - [link]

Oh I hear ya.

I noticed the poor textures first thing I did when playing the leaked version at a friends house for roughly 10 minutes.

Then I chalked it up to being a leaked beta, and that the full version would use high resolution textures.

But nooo, it's very easy to see for yourself, in the first mission you go up to a wooden door, the first one is open a little so you might not notice it, but then you enter an area and kill 3 guys, after that is the same door again, but now locked.

So you go up to it and press "use" (since it's the logical thing to do, and yea, my screenshot below really tells it all.)

This is at 1600x1200 "Very High" quality

In the Dosbox Window I am playing Duke Nukem 3D, which looks better to you?

[link]

Guest said:

I do not understand how you people got theese results nor how you came to the conclusion that this DX9 bull is as demmanding than the original Crysis which you did say?

Which in FACT on my desk tested with 4 video differnet video cards it is not as demmanding as the original and that was the whole point this tim around !!!!

The original was meant to be a bear that few then current cards could even play, while this round Is basically a console port they are going to tweak along the way, and this was done so on purpose to SELL, SELL, SELL, to the masses and SELL it has on XBOX 360 and PS3.

From my own testing and many sites on the web such as Toms Hardware, crysis 2 is in no way as demmanding as the original. My HD 5770 struggled with the original across the board, yet it plays Crysis 2 quite nicely. Also the results you got with AMD 6xxxx cards puzzles me and defies what I have on my desk.

My P2 1055t overclocked mildly to 3.73 with an HD 6950 and it laughs at this game easily getting 60 FPS on Ultra Super Dooper high or whatever they call it today!

compu4 said:

Guest said:

I do not understand how you people got theese results nor how you came to the conclusion that this DX9 bull is as demmanding than the original Crysis which you did say?

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.

compu4 said:

red1776 said:

Does anyone care to reopen the Crysis 2 vs Metro 2033 argument now?

I know what you mean, why bother? its not even close. The textures in Crysis 2 are absolutely horrendous. Not to mention, this isn't even a corridor shooter...its a phone booth shooter.

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.

Guest said:

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 :)

Guest said:

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 ;)

Tehori said:

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.

Sheena said:

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.

Guest said:

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. :)

BlindObject said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

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.

You are mistaken

In the Retail DVD version (v1.0) the graphic options are these;

Gamer, Advanced, Hardcore

With patch v1.1 applied they change to these options;

High, Very High, Extreme

This probably relies on which locale your release is, mine is;

Deutch, English, Español, Français & Türk

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.