Is Crysis still the #1 benchmark for performance?

I remember barely being able to run it on a $1500 machine in 2008. Are there new games that have even come close to its graphics standard and performance consumption?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8hJmjIpqqvg
youtube.com/watch?v=4f7eeeK6gTw
youtube.com/watch?v=F0Lz9iXEark
youtube.com/watch?v=a0nl0Pdn3is
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

wtf crysis is easy to run on today's hardware

are you retarded

Why not Crysis 3? it's way harder to run it

Literally runs on a $100 x86_64 chink tablet with an intel atom. It's on youtube.

not op but running crysis in ultra 4k 60 fps with mods/full AA is still hard

i just bought a $600 HP laptop with an i5 and it can barely run CoD4. Hardware performance has barely increased.

Is [insert game here] still the #1 benchmark for performance?

No. Fuck off with this shit. Games are not real world workloads. They do not make good benchmarks.

There's a difference between running a game and R U N N I N G a game, kiddo

Crysis 1 is unoptimized for multicore machines better than quad cores and runs on a old version of Cryengine. Ryze looks way better and is more optimized for modern specs.

the cryzenX mod for crysis1 can even make a 1080ti sweat buckets, it basically increases the max values of all dynamic graphical effects

>$600 HP
>can't play CoD4
You're right that hardware performance has barely noticeably increased since 2012-13ish for the average user, but you got ripped off on that laptop son. Also laptops have weird cost-value ratios.

It's a dumb thing to say.
Crysys was state of the art FOR THE TIME. Since then, we've discovered a lot of things Crysis spent so much time on could be done better, more realistically, and with less resources. The only special thing about it is the scale of the maps and physics - but even now there are games coming out with more demanding AI, scripting, world density, you name it. Crysis is not a particularly special benchmark.

Agreed. Crysis has been surpassed so badly in the last five years.

>Is Crysis still the #1 benchmark for performance?
No, it is very much outdated and can be easily run on any moderately new gaming hardware.

>Are there new games that have even come close to its graphics standard and performance consumption?
Pretty much any AAA game looks better and has higher performance consumption.
(Not to mention that the game had 2 successor games, which all were more performance hungry then their predecessor)

A lot of things have happened in the last decade, I do not understand why you think that nothing would have changed.

Crysis had a lot of tech that had never been used before in games,so it wasn't as well optimized as t could have been if it were made nowadays. That's not a slight against the game, it was phenomenal when it came out, but it's still performance heavy maxed out even on modern systems. Modern games use the same techniques with much better performance. The only real limiting factor for Crysis though is it's dual core.

>Unoptimized code is hard to run

I replayed crysis 1 the other day and the game aged a lot. The lighting and character models still look good but the foliage, shadows, and environment textures were low quality up close. Also the AI is dumb as rocks, they would take the worst and longest possible route to chase you. As soon as you go invisible in front of them they lose aggro on you and run around like headless chickens speaking Korean.

>(Not to mention that the game had 2 successor games, which all were more performance hungry then their predecessor)

Yeah, mutilated for consoles. And even worse optimised.

>Yeah, mutilated for consoles. And even worse optimised.
Thats completely besides the point I was making.

Only Crysis 2, and it's easy to run on modern hardware. Crysis 3 is insanely well optimized and despite coming out when the 360 was still alive it looks better than most Xbone/PS4 games. Ryse has better character models and maybe better lighting but I think the amount of foliage and weather effects put Crysis 3 ahead slightly imo.

Nah the sequels were way better optimized. Crysis 3 shits on Crysis 1 graphically while also running better for modern PCs. The only thing Crysis 1 does better is have larger open areas but that's a gameplay design decision since Crysis 1 later levels were a mess to navigate and had too much walking around

>unoptimized
>can use more than 2 cpu cores

pic not related

It's still kinda demanding, but that's more due to crappy code than visual fidelity. It runs like ass.

>No, it is very much outdated and can be easily run on any moderately new gaming hardware

Run maybe, but not run maxed out at 1080p/60fps. A GTX 1060 doesn't come close to a solid 60, with drops into the low 40s during combat.

You better take that back motherfucker. I loved the moments of calmness of the game

Can't use more than 4 cores or threads, DX10 support but no DX11 support, 64 bit client hardly uses more than 3GB of RAM

>And even worse optimised.
Fucking mongoloid gamer, how can you say this without acknowledging that the original Crysis is terribly optimised by those standards?

>4K meme
found your problem senpai
1080p is perfectly fine

>Crysis 3
>Having to manually modify the Field of View in order to have a pleasant experience...

What does that have to do with optimisation? This is Sup Forums, not Sup Forums. Whether you need to see 360 around you is irrelevant - we're talking about the technology, not the gameplay. Take your periods back there with you.

Wasn't Crysis that game with devs so incompetent the entire map had water under it and that water was still rendered and teasselized even when it wasn't visible?

That was Crysis 2 and that was done on purpose to cripple AMD GPUs as the game was paid for and optimized by Nvidia.

incompetent tards spread this FUD

Its engine is optimized for dual cores. I can't even get stable 60fps without looking at the ground. For reference I use i5-4690K and GTX 970

It's a very real thing. Crysis 2 PC version was sponsored by Nvidia so they went out of their way to make sure the game ran better on Nvidia by adding so much tessellation not seeable by the player but obviously put it there to slow down AMD cards that couldn't handle Nvidias propriatary code.

Doom is the best thing to benchmark.

It's just a really fucking badly optimized game most likely written by intern pajeets. Thus it was used as a benchmark a few years ago, I remember crysis 3 being used as a benchmark, not now though

It's a joke benchmark. That's why it became a meme to say "can {insert PC here} run Crysis"

It was good in 2007 but we're in 2017 now. Things have changed a lot and there are better programs out there.

I wish Crytek didn't make bad business decisions and run their own company under a bus, we wouldn't have people use Umeme 4 now.

Maximum setting wasn't meant to be optimized, it was meant to throw a whole bunch of new technologies that had never been used before, basically a tech demo but as a full game. It means that even though modern games use those techniques better Crysis has aged very well aside from being designed for older dual cores.

Crytek deserved it. They fell for the Nvidia Optimization Jew and it crashed them.

Total nonsense; AMD cards handle tessellation differently to Nvidia, so they wouldn't be as tessellated on AMD cards to begin with. They just lacked the performance of Nvidia's to begin with.

Crysis/CryENGINE 1 looks like ass compared to todays AAA engines.

Crysis looks shit now, plus it was an unoptimized piece of shit. I hate when people think think this game is hard to run because MUH GRAPHICS when the game is horribly optimized

You cant be serious i remember playing cod4 with my p4

t. nvidia marketing jew

>hp
There's your problem user
I can play it just fine on my 150 dollar thinkpad

Witcher 3 is pretty demanding on max settings.

Lol still cant run crysis in 16k what a joke you earthlings are.

Crysis is only hard to run because of the CPU limitations. Here's 1440p maxed out, my GTC 1080 is almost never at 100% because of CPU bottlenecks.

Nigga I played that game on a 400$ netbook back in 2010 or so.
You're just too retarded to buy a decent laptop.

I can play the remasterd version at 1080p 60fps with a mixture of high and medium settings with a 750ti. You got ripped off.

Is it due to the game having shitty optimization?

Could you run a speccy on this laptop? i'm sure we'll have a good laugh

That's pic is 1080p tho

Turns out that crysis wasn't hard to run, it just had poor optimization.

I had to scale down the pic to get by Sup Forums's shitty image size limit.

Iphone X can run Crysis

it's a 2007 game that was using techniques only now used by console games on the PS4 and Xbone. Pretty much everything was new at the time, you can see how some stuff didn't work properly, like how they couldn't figure out how to use anisotropic filtering and ambient occlusion at the same time, so they gave players the option. They were basically throwing spaghetti at the wall and trying to make the graphics look as good as possible. Compare it to other 2007 games like CoD 4 and Unreal Tournament 2007, it blows them out of the water.

>no DX11 support
There was a patch that added that to Crysis 2.

this is actually true, although you don't need AA you tard

>intel HD graphics
>hp
theres your problem, retard

>but even now there are games coming out with more demanding AI, scripting, world density
name one
we've gotten better lighting, shadows, AO, PBR, higher poly models, higher quality textures, but nothing touches Crysis on the physics and world scale front yet.

I get 2000+ fps in Crysis 2 on ultra settings 1440p if I leave it uncapped, I'd say the dream is dead.

>It's just a really fucking badly optimized game
I really hate this meme

I have an i3 with intel hd and can run CoD4 with no problems. I could even run it back when my only computer was a 2006 core 2 duo with an ATI laptop card. The guy is either trolling or clueless

This. Whoever thinks he needs 4K needs to go b2r.

Why does it crash on launch for me?

...

do you have an amd 8350/6300? then run it in 64 bit. if you have the steam version you need to download the libraries separately because fuck you. google it

1800X

same fix still applies. you cannot launch steam 32 bit version

Crysis is kinda finicky to get running on modern systems. make sure you download the 64 bit patch, the GOG version includes it by default. Also try running it in Windows Vista compatibility mode.

Between the crashes and being optimized for dual core Crysis should really be remastered in the new CryEngine. It would be easy money and Lord knows Crytek needs some cash now.

If I install the patch 1.2 from Crytek's site will the steam version work?

Screenlets detected.
1080 looks horrible above 23".

it can be stretched a bit further for games, but not for desktops. Also, 4k gaming is perfectly doable with little compromise other than running it at 30fps. Just like the xbon one X. You're just poor.

>30fps
kys poorfag

no. I'm just going to refer you to my first post
if that isn't enough information for you to fix it then you don't belong on Sup Forums

If all you can afford is a midrange card it works fine.

personally i game in 4k with my 1080ti.

same senpai. and dynamic resolution scaling is fucking prime with some decent AA applied.

>with little compromise other than running it at 30fps
I see you have one of those "human eyes".

Crysis is easy to run and has been surpassed in graphical fidelity a long time ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=8hJmjIpqqvg

youtube.com/watch?v=4f7eeeK6gTw

youtube.com/watch?v=F0Lz9iXEark

>30fps
I'd rather play 900p50 than 4K30

then disable two cores you tard.

Yeah. If every game had dynamic resolution scaling and temporal filtering mid range cards could do 4k 60fps gaming.

Dynamic resolution is a great idea - Frame rate should be the constant.

I know you're being ironic but I do. I have very sharp vision, but it is not very "fast". But again, I play 4k60fps.

Suit yourself. Would you rather chose a tiny window, tiny screen or giant upscaled blurry mess?

>full AA at 4k

are you retarded? why would you need it at such high resolution?

>Compare it to other 2007 games like CoD 4
COD4 was the best graphical game in that year. what are you smoking.........

>has been surpassed in graphical fidelity a long time ago
>posts a game to be released in 2018
Haha sure proved that point. Looks great, but dont get fooled by unreleased games.

I'd say crysis was surpassed by most games around 2014-2015. That's when the general AAA game would look better.

As for crysis 3 (2013) they are catching up now.

There's more to 4k screens than the bargain bin 27" $300 ones. But even then there can be a lot of flickers without any AA. MSAA is mostly waste though, and so is it on decent DPI lower resolution screens.

why is steam such garbage

>personally i game in 4k with my 1080ti.
t. m'lady

t. poorfag

Crysis was trivially easy if you wanted to cheese it, even on Delta difficulty. Abusing invisibility was trivial, it just required a little bit of patience.

And if you didn't want to abuse invisibility, you could just abuse speed and basically speedrun through 1/2 of the game.

Was kind of fun being allowed to do all that though. I'd take that over the vast, vast majority of other modern games.

could be because it's shit optimized, like all Intel/Nvidia sponsored games

youtube.com/watch?v=a0nl0Pdn3is

Crysis 3 is much more demanding than Crysis

You're likely referring to what AMD built into drivers much, much later - the ability to limit the degree of tessellation. That wasn't around back then.

Crysis got WAY easier when I found that option in the settings menu to quickly transition between strength/armor/speed/invisible modes. Prior to that I was using that context menu similar to how you mod your funs.

Stuff like double-tapping the space bar to do a strength-enhanced jump, or (I think) double-tapping the run key to get into speed mode. Made it easy to just shrek through enemy encampments as a punching, Nork-throwing, occasionally-invisible multibillion-dollar murder machine.

Without the hotkeys, about your only option is to cheese through it like you said. Although I did find it got pretty hard once you were fighting the ceph near the end.

Incorrect. AMD limiting tesselation in drives was a respons to nvidias sabotage.

>Haha sure proved that point. Looks great, but dont get fooled by unreleased games.

I played the demo, it looks exactly like that. I mean, you can play it right now if you want to, go download it.

I only used the context menu and had an easy time regardless. Would have been a bit more fun to throw enemies around though, but it felt like a needless risk. I did just speed through most of the game though, as stated. The later levels don't really allow for that, but they're hardly challenging either.

When speeding through is not an option, you just stealth up to somebody, turn it off, kill the fucker and turn it back on. Repeat as many times as necessary.

I wish there was a harder mode where energy wasn't limitless and you had to reach supply drops or some shit like that to recharge your batteries.

If you ever play through Crysis 1 again (I do every couple of years, still one of my favorites just because the controls feel so natural and responsive, it's a fun game environment to be in), be sure you look into the quick-change suit mode thingy.

This applies also to Crysis: Warhead which is IMO just as good as Crysis 1.

You ever try playing Crysis with mods? I haven't checked if there even are any, but I'll probably be playing it again in a few months.

>people on Sup Forums doing real work