backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Armorize.. on Nov 3 at 9:59 PM

Crysis demo released; gamers lament the weakness of their PC hardware

Gamers who recently spent a considerable sum of money on a high-end video card will finally find that their piece of hardware is no longer overkill. That’s right, the Crysis single-player demo is here as promised by the developers late last month.

The demo was originally set for release on September 25, but developer Crytek decided to push the public debut date back a month in the interest of quality. The retail date of November 16 still appears to be on-track.

“We are taking some extra time to make sure you that you have an amazing experience but also we did not want to risk the release date of Crysis at this stage,” Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, explained regarding the delay. “To get the game into your hands by November the 16th, we had to make this call.”

The demo may be downloaded directly from an EA Canada web server. The 1.77GB download includes the entire first level and the CryEngine 2 - Sandbox 2 game editor, giving the community an opportunity to get familiar with the tools before the retail game ships.

As should be well known by now, Crysis is the most hardware-demanding game to ship this year. Those who are interested in diving into the demo should read the official system requirements and recommendations before downloading.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

25 Fps average on my setup..
By Soldier38 on 10/28/2007 1:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
My GTS 640 did it justice even though Im not getting 30+. Its still very playable on all high settings at 1920 x 1200. Nice job on the demo. Its not just Far Cry polished like some have said. Looking forward to full version on the 16th!

X2 6000+ at 3.2 Ghz
2 Gb Gskill DDR2
GTS 640 OCed to 550/1700
2 x Raptors 150 Gb Win Xp
24 " Flat panel 1920 x 1200
XFI Sound




RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Le Québécois on 10/28/2007 2:27:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
X2 6000+ at 3.2 Ghz
2 Gb Gskill DDR2
GTS 640 OCed to 550/1700
2 x Raptors 150 Gb Win Xp
24 " Flat panel 1920 x 1200
XFI Sound


If you're running it on Windows XP, you don't have everything at the Highest settings. The game uses some heavy DX10 graphics enhancement. Just look at some of the DX10 VS DX9 trailers from http://www.gametrailers.com.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Omega215D on 10/28/2007 3:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Gotta admit, it still looks good at DX9. As for me and my GeForce 7900GS we'll stick to 800x600 or 1024X768 which is what I usually play at for almost all my first person shooters.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By StevoLincolnite on 10/28/2007 9:46:26 AM , Rating: 5
Great! Now to fire it up on my trusty Voodoo 2!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By AzureKevin on 10/28/2007 3:23:28 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer my Voodoo 3 PCI version.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By das mod on 10/29/2007 11:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
pfffft !! n00bs

integrated video chipset FTMFW !!!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By StevoLincolnite on 10/29/2007 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you haven't heard, the Voodoo 2 12mb card has been capable of running Quake 4, Doom 3 and Half Life 2, Integrated Cards these days have TnL and Pixel shading, which is what the Voodoo 2 lacks, it actually never officially came out with Windows XP drivers either, and people with a Geforce 3 Ti200 are able to play Oblivion :)

People with a Radeon 9500/9550/9600 can run Bioshock as well ;)
Isn't it amazing how far technology has come?


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By SlyNine on 10/31/2007 10:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
People can play modifide version's of said games. Oldblivion. still kinda nice for people with older hardware but not as seemless as it sounds.


By murphyslabrat on 11/1/2007 9:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, I played Oblivion using OldBlivion and a PCI Radeon 9200. I had several of the visuakl settings turned off, and it got a little choppy when I got into complicated heavily populated scenes. So, while it looked a lot like the kind of game that the R200 core was designed to run, it was definitely playable, even as a wizardly char (meaning lots of flashy magic effects). And you'd better not be expecting much more than that from integrated graphics or such an old card (yeah, 2001)


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/2007 9:42:35 AM , Rating: 1
and some people wonder what's the point of consoles and predicting their immediate demise. here is a current gen pc (bleeding edge in my eyes) and already there's a game that overtaxes it in terms of graphics and cpu power. also there was recently an article on at anandtech about games running on vista struggling with their memory allocation.

i don't mean to start a flame war (i mean it, fanboys need not reply) but i find it interesting how demanding pc games have become.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Sahrin on 10/28/2007 9:58:37 AM , Rating: 4
The Ars memory article was about the 32-bit memory allocation limitation - NOT Vista (though 32-bit Vista was mentioned to demonstrate the limitation, so was XP - and Vista x64 resolves the issue). The article was about how Vista fixes the problem, not about Vista's "memory allocation issues."

Please stop spreading Vista FUD - if you don't know what you're talking about shutup. Real people are coming to this site taking your bad information and making the wrong decisions because of it.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=30...


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/2007 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Vista is using more address space than XP in all situations
2. The amount of address space used with Vista seems to be related to the amount of video memory on our video card
3. XP on the other hand does not fluctuate at all, the address space usage is the same no matter what card we use.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
it doesn't matter what the issue is. "real people" would find their game using quite a lot of memory if they installed a recent game on their shiny new dell xps running vista instead of winxp
quote:
Unfortunately the fix is not all roses at this time. Microsoft classifies this as a hotfix which may still be undergoing further testing, which means they aren't recommending that most users install this fix, nor are they even making the fix easy to get.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=30...
i.e. not for "real people" just yet.
quote:
i don't mean to start a flame war (i mean it, fanboys need not reply) but i find it interesting how demanding pc games have become.
you've totally missed the point of my post


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DesertCat on 10/28/2007 11:28:47 AM , Rating: 5
While it's still considered a hotfix, that patch fixes the issue and has been out since August (which is the date of the Anandtech article). For most people gaming on Vista, that's old news on a resolved issue. Thus, bringing it up again sounds like Vista FUD, whether that was your intent or not.

Yes, it's not officially released for everyone through windows update, which is MS being conservative (e.g. average Joe business user doesn't need it anyway). Gamers should go get the hotfix. Nvidia even includes the link on their recommended hotfix page for Vista.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixe...

For Vista users that keep their rig patched, seeing posts that claim "Vista is struggling with memory allocation in games" is bringing up an issue that was resolved months ago.



RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DesertCat on 10/28/2007 11:35:46 AM , Rating: 5
As to the original intent of your post, there have always been demanding PC games that push people to upgrade their rig. It's part of being part of pushing things to the next level.

Kings Quest (1984) got people interested in VGA graphics over CGA

Wing Commander (early 90's) got people to upgrade to a Soundblaster card so that they could buy and hear the optional "voice packs"

Diablo was the "killer app" that finally got me to upgrade to Windows 95.

Yes, consoles are nice because they provide platform stability. Some people prefer computer games, however, and these days it's where the tech is being pushed.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By hubajube on 10/28/2007 12:17:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
i'm not mentioning ms or their products in my posts ever again on this site.


"Screw you guys I'm going home."


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By aos007 on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Ringold on 10/28/2007 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 5
It has to at least be accurate.

For example: Game performance sucks in Vista.

That'd be FUD.

The truth, but never often said by detractors, would be: Game performance sucked for about two months, and now it's geat.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Screwballl on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DEVGRU on 10/30/2007 11:36:29 AM , Rating: 1
I call BS.

Game performance in Vista sucks compared to XP.

Which, in shorthand, and IMHO, means it sucks.

If Microsoft wants people to shell out insane amounts of money for an under-performing, DRM'd, asinine EULA'd, bloated, and promise-broken featured OS - then it sure as hell better perform head and shoulders above their last OS released 5+ years ago (nevermind "tying" DX10 to Vista, FORCING people to 'upgrade' instead of a general release which would have benefited everyone.).

It doesn't. And its Microsoft's fault. THEY wanted to change the driver model and layering. Nevermind if the majority of vendors are having serious issues coding them, thats MS's ball to drop - which is not surprising as they decided to change the rules of the game - and now they get to pay for their shortsightedness.

Vista has EARNED and deserves most of the bad rap its received.

All that being said, I LIKE Vista. I don't use it, but I have - because I'm not one of 'those' people who bag on something they've never actually tried or used. I did, and I liked it - in 2 or 3 years I'm sure it will be a worthy upgrade to XP. As it stands now, its just too much BS to worry about. I'm a gamer. And DX10 aside, and all things being equal (i.e. PC hardware) Vista simply doesn't cut it for compatibility, reliability, or SPEED.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Targon on 10/28/2007 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 4
There are also the "true" computer people who will have their preferences, yet still dislike seeing FUD spread about ANY product. Too many people bash Microsoft because it's Microsoft, not because of any other reason.

There are valid issues with Vista, and it's fair to comment on those, but at the same time, too many people who have never used Vista(other than for a few minutes) will say how horrible it performs.

I am NOT a fan of Microsoft, but many of the issues we see are related to the limits of 32 bit. Linux may not have the memory footprint of Vista, but even then, if you managed to get some of these games working under Linux, you would STILL run into memory issues at some point, if not with the current games, then with games that get released in another 2 years.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By codeThug on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Aikouka on 10/29/2007 6:40:49 AM , Rating: 4
If you don't have that hotfix installed when you run the Crysis setup, it will alert you to this and even send you to Microsoft's page for the hotfix.

Personally, I never installed it because I had no problems as I have 4GB of RAM (in Vista Ultimate x64) anyway. So the entire point of your post is really not a big deal.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Ringold on 10/28/2007 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get the point. You can run these games with the IQ you find on a console, or with high end hardware can run it at an IQ level that blows away consoles and won't be matched until 1080i is replaced with a higher resolution and the hardware to drive it all.

I don't predict the demise of consoles, they'll be as popular as ever, but it doesn't negate the fact that for plenty of people PC gaming is vastly preferred. Higher potential image quality, wider variety of games, etc. And yes, higher cost, but every other component beyond the vid card is easily justified without gaming.

Of course, much easier to get the girls in to it with a Wii.. the platforms can all co-exist, I think.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By wallijonn on 10/30/2007 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wider variety of games, etc. And yes, higher cost, but every other component beyond the vid card is easily justified without gaming.


Wider variety of games? I would think the consoles have greater variety and greater number of games released than PCs.

As for costs, upgrading to a PCI-E vidcard will necessitate a whole new PC (versus an older AGP system.) You're looking at about $1200 to $1500 then ($100 psu, $200 mobo, $300 vidcard, $300 cpu, $200 RAM, $100 SATA HD, $50 DVD burner, $200 VISTA.) Other than gaming there is little justification for a PCI-E vidcard since most people don't do CAD/CAM at home. And if you're upgrading from AGP to PCI-E, then you may as well throw in a $700 23" wide screen flat panel display. That will be about $2000 to play 4 or 5 PC games a year.


By Shadowmaster625 on 10/31/2007 4:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
or you could pay $80 for a mobo, $110 for a cpu, $60 for a psu, $60 for ram, $60 for a HDD, $30 for a DVD burner, get an old case, mouse and kb for free, and finally spend $200 on a video card. There you have it. $600 for something much much more powerful than a PS3. :O


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By walk2k on 10/28/07, Rating: 0
By Le Québécois on 10/29/2007 12:28:26 AM , Rating: 3
That wasn't my point at all. I stated than he was not running the game with the the highest settings possible. I have no doubt the game looks good on XP and runs ok but it does not compare to the DX10 version.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By choirbass on 10/28/2007 10:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
i may have not had very high expectations for my hardware being mostly from 2005, and am not much for fps games in general, though i thought i would give the demo a try after hearing about about it for months, but even running the below hardware on the highest settings @ 1280x1024 native, with a few sacrifices too (0xAA, low shaders and shadows, DX9), the game is completely playable, as in above 20fps avg (wasnt using fraps to really tell), since it was playable at those settings, which should be the main emphasis, at least to me anyhow, with graphics quality coming in second.

XP x64 sp2
X2 3800+ @ 2.4
2.5GB PC3200
7800GT 256
74GB ADFD Raptor
19" LCD


By therealnickdanger on 10/29/2007 12:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Vista 32
E6300 C2D 1.8GHz
2GB DDR2-800
7950GT

65fps
800x600
Combination of low, medium, and high settings. No AA or AF.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By daBKLYNdoorman on 10/28/2007 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm getting an average of 40 FPS on my setup:

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz
2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM
320GB Seagate PRT HD
GeForce 8800GTS 320 EVGA
ASUS P5B-Deluxe
Windows XP Pro
All new drivers for GeForce

Thats at 1680 x 1050 resolution all on medium.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By fk49 on 10/28/2007 9:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
With all settings on low, I get about 50fps at 800x600 and 25fps at 1440x900.

-Athlon 64 3200
-Ati x1600xt
-2gb ddr2 667
-Vista 64-bit

The grass is very ugly but its still very playable and everything else looks pretty good. Just a reference for those with lower end computers.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By feraltoad on 10/29/2007 4:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
15 FPS avg on High at 1680x1050. Ouch.

q6600 @ 3Ghz
ABIT IP35Pro
2GB Ballistix
1900xtx @688mhz core 7.10 drivers
36gb Raptor(OS)
500gb WD5000AAKS
WinXP MCE

Oh, if your not happy with your framerate max out the AA and play for 5 minutes, then turn it off and play. It will feel like you upgraded. :p

Bioshock ran great w/this setup, but Crysis on High really is phenomenal. The final release might run better, and I'm sure nVidia and ATi will optimize their drivers to squeeze some extra performance. Plus it's so rough on cards it will force the hand of NV and ATi to pump out some better cards. Hell, with all the games out in '07 you could wait a year before you run out of new things to play.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By returnofdjango on 10/29/2007 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just got my IP35 Pro and I have a G0 q6600.
WOuld you mind sending me all your BIOS settings and BIOS version!!!!, as well as tell me your cooler, and memory? I can't get mine past 2.7Ghz ...thanks.

i really would appreciate it.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By feraltoad on 10/30/2007 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Freezer Pro 7. I found it for like $22 shipped so I couldn't resist. I used the TIM included with the cooler after reading a really positive review of their TIM. The memory is a Crucial Ballistix Kit of 2x1GB BL128664AA804.

Bios version date 9/06/2007 version 1BC14. I used the FlashMenu program to update it. I usually use a floppy but this program worked great to update the BIOS thru windows.

Believe it or not I'm using uGuru program to OC. I used to only go through the BIOS since an windows OCing was unstable but I haven't had a single problem with it. I've ran 2 instances of Prime 95 for an hour and gamed with BioShock and ETQW for hours and hours even while encoding video, probably not the most thorough testing but I've been having 2 much fun using the PC to mess with it. Plus, you can set up profiles with uGuru! Anyway I setup OC Guru profile USER2 with these settings ExtClk 334 PCIEClk 100 VCORE 1.2875 MCH 1.37 CPUVTT 1.20 ICH 1.12 CPUGTLREF 1&3 67% DDR2 2.00 ICHIO 1.6 DDR2REF 0% CPUGTLREF 0&2 67%. It automatically runs the memory at DDR1000 when I enable the OC, I've checked the memspeed through CPUz. Oh, and I set Fan EQ through uGuru to kick in to 100% fan speed at 44c.

Oh, and you need version uGuru v3105. v3104 would NOT load on my system. If you have that problem list ur email here and I will email it to you. I found it on a forum where someone found it elsewhere that ABIT's site only lists v3104 as latest but that POS would not load. But I can't find the forum I found it on to give you a link.

Good Luck!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Screwballl on 10/29/2007 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Had no problem in DX9 at medium settings with my system:
E6600, X1950GT, 2GB DDR2, 1440x900

it played smooth as can be and looked great... would be nice to see if DX10 is really worth the extra $$$ or just a little bit of eye candy


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By TxJeepers on 10/29/2007 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
IDK what these nubs are complaining about, bad programming aside, it is always nice to see programs that push the limits. Do you want software vendors to always cater to hardware vendors? No, and not the other way either. A balance is what is needed. Each always pushing the other towards further performance. It will happen anyway, but come on, those complaining about programs written for high end machines is so lame.

X2 4200
2GB Patriot
7950 GT
XP
Nvidia drivers from August LOL
Medium settings across the board at 1024x768.
Fraps: averaged around 30fps+
Cut scenes fluctuate up and down to the teens.
Playable but not ideal. I'd like to be getting more.
But you know what, I wanted to build a new box anyway. What a great excuse to do so.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
Crysis System Requirements Revealed
October 9, 2007, 3:43 PM
Crysis Demo Delayed Until Oct. 26
September 22, 2007, 12:17 PM
Crysis Demo Set for Release on 9/25
August 28, 2007, 9:46 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki