Crysis 2 Performance Preview

[red1776]

^-- Yes.

Also Crysis 1 &2 cannot compare - leaves on trees at the edge of map, versus flat city areas..?

That I am not so sure about St1ckM4n, all that concrete,asphalt has detailed textures. and all of the glass, and automobiles are going to have immense reflection/distortion/perspective, and more lighting angles and dispersion than you can shake a polygon at.
Gentleman ...start your Ray tracing!

 

[ruben1992]

Can we see a 6850 instead of the 5770 and a CPU comparison in the proper review please?

 

[princeton]

red1776 said:
Thats what I was trying to ferret out. i think it was Princeton who said that the 'beta' does not have a working hardcore setting...its medium only. and the cards reviewed are the heavy hitters averaging 40-65 FPS @ 1920 x 1080. The jump from medium DX9 to actual 'Hardcore' DX11 is going to be huge. (i'm assuming, and unless they have developed some serious DX11 optimizations over anything we have seen thus far) you may need a pair of CF/SLI 6950/570's to play at highest settings.

Yup, that's what I said. It's becoming obvious it is a console game. Trust me when I say it isn't near as free roaming as the first game. You're always being forced to go where the game wants you to.

 

[jonelsorel]

No wonder that a bunch of germans make one of the most efficient game when it comes to eye-candy/hardware. Once in a while it's good to know what our videocards can actually push (fps) and at what detail levels.

Hear that crappy coders? Learn!

 

[Guest]

i5 750 , ati 5870 4gb ram bring on the fun!!!

 

[Guest]

Absolutely ridiculous for techspot to do a performance review of a pirated version.

First of all they should steer clear of pirated versions. There IS no excuse.

Second of all, a performance review ?
Of an unfinished game, while everyone knows you finish a game first, and then as a last pass do all the heavy optimization ?

Seriously uncool.

 

[Guest]

>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

This dumb reaction is exactly why Techspot shouldn't do ***** stunts like this.

There are always dumb people like this who do not understand that hardcore optimization is one of the last things done to a game.
Thanks to techspot there's now ANOTHER ******* thinking a leaked alpha-version is representative of the final game.

 

[Stupido]

Julio 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.

I also join the positive feedback crowd... I really liked the article - @least it satisfied my curiosity...

The other complainers are just like old ladies sitting and nagging... blah...

yes, piracy is bad (I'm software engineer) and as PC gamer I also think it hurts the PC gaming as industry. But @this particular case I don't see any damage done. Further more many people will still buy the game - I have read this on many forums... So why this (unnecessary) rant?

 

[Guest]

>Stupido : But @this particular case I don't see any damage done.

Let's see :

>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

Hmm, no damage done ?

 

[Stupido]

Guest said:
>Stupido : But @this particular case I don't see any damage done.

Let's see :

>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

Hmm, no damage done ?

yes, no damage... @;east i don't see what is damaging in that post?

Further more, when I see comment like this I see someone who is not very polite (caps lock), no modesty (he is better that whole development team of Crytek - obviously he is guru in optimizing game engines) and in general that kind of people just flame around and will not accept any other thoughts and point of view. thus not very constructive in discussion...

In any case, I believe the most of the gamers will wait for the first review before buying the game. Or if demo is available, will play that to have feeling of the game. even more, we all know that this is just leaked and unfinished game. (I don't know how to bold or underline in order to emphasize) ...

 

[Guest]

As a user who has had my posts removed in the past for posting google links to the word torrent i find this article extremely hypocritical.

For future reference i shall be making a hard copy of the article to use as a reply to any anti piracy comments left by your mods. I would also advise you to remove this article post haste before anyone who should not see it sees it.

Believe it or not there are a couple of members of this forum that are directly connected to that game....

What were you thinking?

 

[Stupido]

Guest said:
... What were you thinking?

who said that we were thinking?

 

[madboyv1]

HA, I gotta say a couple things. Assuming the link was to the program, posting a direct link to a torrent or a link that leads you to pirated material is not the same as posting an article without leads to the pirated material. If they had included "we got it here" or "you can get a copy here" or "this site/torrent has it for download", then your argument would be 100% valid.

Also, removing the article would do nothing, as it is likely cached by google already and considering people have claimed to email the related companies about this article, the "people who should not see it" as you put it already know about this article.

I was going to finish up by saying how badly comments have been nothing but a skipping broken record, and the people attempting to be the loudest are actually the guests... but that's pretty obvious. *shrug*

 

[Stupido]

The whole pirate discussion is a bit pointless... at least I think so for this article
This article was a just sharing experiment... and it looks like almost no body discussed the findings...

 

[Guest]

Nope!
I hope Crytek sues them. Piracy is piracy and piracy is theft.

 

[Guest]

Wow you commenters are pathetic. All they did was test performance on a leaked build. I can almost stake my life on the fact that they will pay for the game. They are in the business to pay for it. You guys act like they just pirated the final version and basically said screw this I'm not gonna pay for it.

Pathetic bunch of people this community has and I feel sorry for the editors and staff here. They merely gave you guys a preview of the performance and you guys focus on the ethics of it.

Do you guys honestly believe they won't buy the copy? As long as they buy a copy (hell they'll probably buy several) who cares if they download the leak.

Pathetic community is pathetic.

@TechSpot I am greatly that you guys have given me this performance benchmark. I plan on getting the GTX 460 from newegg considering the price is amazing right now. So now I know I can run it at a responsible resolution.

 

[Guest]

They also put up disclaimers saying this does not represent the final game but people still say Techspot are representing the final game? Jesus christ reading comprehension, and common sense is deplorable here.

 

[Raswan]

Julio 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.

With you Emil. And we appreciate the response.

 

[Guest]

Also it's been established that this leak was a marketing campaign. No other leak besides Half life 2 has gotten so much press. EA and Crytek have been posting blogs, twitter, and everything else on the matter.

If this leak wasn't a marketing campaign ask yourself this, why did killzone 3 and MVC3 early piracy leaks go under the radar? Maybe one or two sites picked them up but this leak has had HUGE press.

It's called marketing. They wanted to make sure it was gonna sell on PC and omg it's selling like hot cakes now.

TechSpot have nothing to be ashamed of, they merely took advantage of a marketing campaign to bring YOU the USERS a special treat that could partially reflect on the final product in terms of performance. They also gave you a decent indication of what the bare minimum would be.

 

[Raswan]

Guest said:
As a user who has had my posts removed in the past for posting google links to the word torrent i find this article extremely hypocritical.

For future reference i shall be making a hard copy of the article to use as a reply to any anti piracy comments left by your mods. I would also advise you to remove this article post haste before anyone who should not see it sees it.

Believe it or not there are a couple of members of this forum that are directly connected to that game....

What were you thinking?

Of course your link posts were removed. If you had any concept of how an online forum operates, you wouldn't have done it in the first place. No one cares that you will be making a hard copy of anything, whether it's the article, your posts, the free porn you download, or the IUO your mommy gave in in place of this week's allowance. No one is scared of you, including and particularly if you are "connected to that game." What are you gonna do? It's a performance review of a leaked build, with repeated encouragement to buy the game.

 

[gingerbill]

theres alot of drama queens on this thread . I think this article was done with the best intentions but i agree its wrong . I think in retrospect techspot will probably see that themselves but i do believe they got excited about a game they were looking forward to and jumped the gun. Sneak previews based on illegal leaked copies of a game is not right and shouldn't be done again on this site.

 

[Darkshadoe]

So based on what a lot of you are saying, I can illegally download software as long as my intentions are good and I write a review about it?

Good to know..

 

[Relic]

A bit surprised by this article as I figured you guys would at least wait for the demo to be released to preview performance, but I understand the purpose of it. And from this preview even with the unoptimized leak it seems pretty good. I however hope that some of the more mid range to entry level cards in the final build will fair better seeing as this is only DX9. Can't wait till next month to check out the game =D.

ruben1992 said:
Can we see a 6850 instead of the 5770 and a CPU comparison in the proper review please?

I would like to see the 6850 too, but I don't believe Steve got one during the reviews last year =/. I will probably post my personal numbers with that card come next month in the forum if you care.

Now to the overwhelmingly stupid comments posted here, give me a break. If you disagree with the article and are disappointed in its early preview, you can always stop coming here. Posting nonsense about trying to get TechSpot sued is just ludicrous. EA/Crytek may no longer want to give TS sneak peeks at games, but considering this is a tech site that never got that to begin with I don't see anything happening.

 

[TrekExpert]

I was definitely surprised to see this review. Although it was definitely illegal for Techspot to download the pirated version of the game, I don't think there is anything wrong with posting the review. I for one was glad to hear the results as it provided me with some early information as to how I can expect my system to perform on the final game. The only alternative for me to have found this information at this point would have been to download the game.

For this reason I don't think it would be wise for E.A. to take action against this article, as if anything it will only improve sales of the game. Numerous parts the article encourage readers to wait until the full release of the game while removing the need for the reader to download the game themselves.

 

[red1776]

Although it was definitely illegal for Techspot to download the pirated version of the game

.....

I don't think there is anything wrong with posting the review.

How can you possibly rationalize those two thoughts?...and consecutively at that.

The only alternative for me to have found this information at this point would have been to download the game.

...So if you wanted to know the gas mileage of a new vehicle you would????
any reason that (by your own definition) illegally downloading the game would be "the only alternative"? You couldn't say...read a review?, or the hardware requirements list that EA will publish?

For this reason I don't think it would be wise for E.A. to take action against this article, as if anything it will only improve sales of the game.

Darkshadoe said:

So based on what a lot of you are saying, I can illegally download software as long as my intentions are good and I write a review about it?

I guess so Dark.

I am commenting on your comments Trek, not TS's reviewing process. For all I know they have a contact at EA/Crytek and asked about reviewing it...or not.