Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Crysis Graphical Analysis, Gameplay Review and Performance Guide
bit-tech.net — Bit-tech.net takes an in-depth look at Crysis. Not content to just do a two-page game review, the article does a full graphical analysis and performance guide to help gamers get the best performance out of their hardware whilst still keeping the game looking good. On top of this there's also a single and multiplayer review to make a full ten pages!
cardjoe- 443 diggs
- digg it
- acu8509, on 11/16/2007, -11/+7I remember when 'dual core' and '2GB memory' implied max settings. Now even with my x64 Vista i cant do even high on everything. :-(
PS: does anyone else's DVD make noise in the drive when its spinning up? It only happens with that particular DVD for some reason...- l00s3r, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3When I first put the disc in it chugs for about 20 seconds. The last game that happened with was KOTR.
- chingy1788, on 11/16/2007, -0/+6you have a gerbil in your DVD drive
- Stevethegreat, on 11/17/2007, -2/+2Crysis does not utilize Quad Core, you'll be fine with a dual core. 2GB memory is indeed a bit in the little side but that's only because Vista 64's RAM requierements are huge, I have seen the OS alone to utilize 1.5GB of memory on x64, that leaves you 500MB for the game. A game of such a magnitude needs at least 1gb. On Windows XP you won't struggle playing Crysis (even on very high) using the equipment you just wrote, provided you have a powerful card which is actually the key.
In fact PC gaming nowadays are the GX cards and that's that, Cevat Yerli made us believe that you have to have a Quad Core to play Crysis seamlessly, but that's a lie since an $120 e4500 dual core would do, if you up it to 333MHz FSB. - SoundBlstr, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0My DVD also clicked a bit. Not sure what's going on there...
- l00s3r, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3When I first put the disc in it chugs for about 20 seconds. The last game that happened with was KOTR.
- Lane, on 11/16/2007, -0/+22What they didn't mention is that in the multi player only DX10 servers have physics enabled destructive environment's and day night cycles.
- volacide, on 11/17/2007, -0/+11Why the ***** should that be a DX10 only feature? Seems like marketing and nothing more to me, try to get people to get Vista just for that.
I mean my DX9 system processes physics based destructive environments just fine and there's absolutely no reason a graphics API should make it any more efficient to play online. Physics enabled destructive environments and night and day cycles would be more difficult on the servers themselves than on a persons GPU.
***** this DX10 exclusive nonsense. - BearinG, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I didn't know that.. that's hilarious.
- volacide, on 11/17/2007, -0/+11Why the ***** should that be a DX10 only feature? Seems like marketing and nothing more to me, try to get people to get Vista just for that.
- FreDre, on 11/16/2007, -0/+5The first pic of Prophet is really weird.
Look at his eyes- Dustmuffins, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1That's Jester.
- chris9902, on 11/16/2007, -0/+10I think the review was spot on. It's not perfect but it's a fun game and one that really pushes every idea forward.
I hope other developers use the engine. That thing is a masterpiece and the fact they include the editor on the disk and will release an SDK for modders that makes it even more exciting. - sm4k, on 11/16/2007, -0/+9I'm surprised they spend that entire first page talking about how much the story sucks. It's almost like they forgot that FarCry had a lame story with unnecessary twists, too.
- jonnyeuchre, on 11/16/2007, -0/+15
I still compare everything to Battlefield 2 multiplayer. Man, I loved that game...- Ramble, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3Agreed, it is awesome, minus the idiotic kiddies of course.
- SleepingOrange, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3Heck I still play it.
- wrestlingnrj, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Just played last night, as well as BF2142. Those games are great
- Endeavorer, on 11/16/2007, -2/+6BF1942 was way better.
I still miss the mods (BFPirates, Galactic Conquest, etc.)- nonymous666, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1BF2 would have been better if the squads were utilitized by people as intended by the designers. So much fun to play that game in a squad that works together.
- BluesFan, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1I love BF2 too!....You know they are making battlefield 3
http://pc.ign.com/articles/826/826247p1.html - nonymous666, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Yup. Loved BF2. I don't get why COD4 multiplayer is getting so much hype. A lot of what it's that game (being able to call in artillery, UAVs), people act like it's the best thing "evar!" yet BF2 already has that, plus so much more.
- BearinG, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I actually like COD4 better than BF2.. and I played BF2 for a long time..
I'm sure I'll love the next one in the BF series.. - heartless_, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1CoD4 multiplayer refreshes the infantry combat aspect in a day and age where games are increasingly getting too big for their own good. BF2 would have been great if they could balance out the vehicles and stop rewarding jackasses instead of people that actually take the time to complete the objectives. Cruising around in a plane and dropping bombs on spawn points should not be the criteria for a first place finish.
CoD4 has some retarded issues with airstrikes and such, but overall it is masterfully done multiplayer with enough flavor to keep players coming back. At least players have a chance at killing the artard calling in airstrikes unlike BF2's nearly impossible to shoot down aircraft.- rs89rs, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0but still CoD4 requires some serious processing and graphics power. i think i'll stick with BF2
- BearinG, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I actually like COD4 better than BF2.. and I played BF2 for a long time..
- digitallysick, on 11/16/2007, -7/+2will crysis run in linux with cedega or wine?
- chingy1788, on 11/16/2007, -1/+5Optimise Linux for gaming
www.microsoft.com - max420, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2HaH! It barely runs on my XP and Vista installation. Runs better in XP in DX9 mode, and with some proper console settings, it can look almost as good as DX10.
The game runs like ***** in Vista in DX10 and DX9 mode, I never get more then 20fps in vista, and about 30 in xp.
Its too bad, I was looking forward to the game, I guess I will have to wait a year or so until I get a new PC. - 9a3eedi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Dream on..
- chingy1788, on 11/16/2007, -1/+5Optimise Linux for gaming
- quentinp, on 11/16/2007, -2/+16Been enjoying it so far, Far Cry reborn! (in terms of a more open ended shooter experience). Fun moments so far:
- checkpoint with like 6 guys in a heavy truck, plus sentries - cloak, move in closer, send a rocket then immediately go prone and cloak when I can
- causing a guard tower to collapse with a grenade
- setting a jeep on fire to draw soldiers to a certain area
- ramming a building which then collapsed on top of my jeep
Sure beats the heck out of, "Oh noes a Gunship Gordon..Oh looky a rocket launcher the one thing that can harm gunships!" (not that I didn't enjoy half life, but it's nice to be off the rails!) - MerryMortician, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I have to say I'm loving every minute of crysis so far.. but im afraid i might not touch it again other than to show off my system once i get my hands on the full new version of UT3
- spiritditch, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4I have to drink 3 pots of coffee and 12 lines of cocaine to keep up with the intensity that is UT3.
- spiritditch, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4I have to drink 3 pots of coffee and 12 lines of cocaine to keep up with the intensity that is UT3.
- SleepingOrange, on 11/16/2007, -2/+3It's a good game, but really misses the boat when it comes to hardware requirements. I play on a 2.2 GHZ Dual core, 2GB RAM 7900GT system, and it chugs even on medium settings. Too bad. It would have been nice if it was optimized for slightly weaker computers.
- breakspirit, on 11/16/2007, -1/+8This is not a game designed for nor advertised for weakling computers. I'd much rather have a game that drives the hardware makers to create better stuff, rather than have games that always look *****. On the other hand, this game even makes my 8800gtx sputter. Guess it's time for SLI.
- pantsbandit, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1And why do people always complain "it's not optimized for my computer". There are plenty of games that run on slow/old computers just fine, why does crysis need to too? FFS, get a Wii and leave us PC gamers alone.
- gwolf, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Beware sound card issues, Crysis does sound on the CPU so be sure to update drivers. I fought with my system a lot the first day but finally got it to run smooth with DX10 once I got the sound issues out of the way. Can only run most settings at medium of course but my lowly 8800 gts seems to make the best of a bad situation. Runs better under DX9.
- BearinG, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1"....that drives the hardware makers to create better stuff.."
That's what I hate about PCs.. sure it pushes the manufacturing business.. but is there really a point in coming out with a new video card every week? can they not take more time and create the best stuff instead of adding 10mhz and reselling it as a brand new product? I would think that PCs would evolve much faster if they took long enough to produce new products instead of minor things adding up.. that way your computer could stay "good" longer.. developers could keep optimizing on similar hardware and we would have much better products in general (software/hardware).
I'm not being naïve here, I understand that people will keep buying new stuff every week, that's the point of a business right.. instead of doing a 5Ghz processor, we'll do the 4.0, 4.2, 4.5, 4.8 first.. even if the same processor works just fine at 5Ghz
They COULD skip some steps... but then they wouldn't make as much money. - SleepingOrange, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I've been a PC gamer since doom, comanche 1, and f117 stealth fighter (ahh microprose). I hate consoles. I've only owned 3 console games in my history of gaming.
I just bought my new machine... spent nearly $3000 on it, and it barely runs crysis on medium settings. They should have delayed it 2 more years and it would have been more timely.
Half life 2 smokes even on my crappier gaming machine...
- pantsbandit, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1And why do people always complain "it's not optimized for my computer". There are plenty of games that run on slow/old computers just fine, why does crysis need to too? FFS, get a Wii and leave us PC gamers alone.
- popfrogs, on 11/16/2007, -2/+2So basically this game is Doom 3 all over again from a technical standpoint. I'll just play it when it comes to the PS3 in the future.
- JagoX, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Except this game has actual depth to it and isn't 1990s gameplay with 21st century game technology.
- gwolf, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I don't think the PS3 could run this in a million years. If dual SLI rigs with overclocked multicore cpu's are having trouble the PS3's 256 M GPU wouldn't even boot this beast.
- popfrogs, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1The Crysis guys have been recruiting PS3 programmers all year. They plan on bringing this or something similar to the PS3, and with the SPE's doing the heavy lifting, it can probably pull it off.
- JagoX, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1@ gwolf:
Ah I love it when people do something stupid like comparing PC hardware to console hardware. LOL
Consoles are dedicated gaming systems (as opposed to having to run an OS, plus AV software, etc. like PCs) so just b/c the PS3 has a 256MB GPu in no way means that it is in capable of producing the same quality.
- warriorscot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1It runs fine you just have to turn stuff down a little, its running on my 3000+ 1gig of ram and an x800 pretty well, sure my system is in desperate need of an upgrade( and is getting it after i have paid my tuition fees and got my next paycheck, but its getting the job done and not half bad more than acceptable.
- max420, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2These are my specs, and the game really chugs:
Pentium D - 3.0ghz (dual core pentium 4 essentially).
8800GTX, 2gb of ram, and an xfi sound card.
the game never goes higher then 25 fps or so.- Whiskeytorofalc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1hmm, strange, on the demo, my single cored venice 3000+ running at 2.25 ghz with an old OC'd 6800GT runs fine for me, 45 FPS with it on medium, so i upped the physics :D
maybe its time to update the drivers and defragment?
- Whiskeytorofalc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1hmm, strange, on the demo, my single cored venice 3000+ running at 2.25 ghz with an old OC'd 6800GT runs fine for me, 45 FPS with it on medium, so i upped the physics :D
- breakspirit, on 11/16/2007, -1/+8This is not a game designed for nor advertised for weakling computers. I'd much rather have a game that drives the hardware makers to create better stuff, rather than have games that always look *****. On the other hand, this game even makes my 8800gtx sputter. Guess it's time for SLI.
- drinking12many, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I boughtit but im afraid my rig is too old to play it well.. probably will do ok on med but not much more. Im still running a 2.4 dual opteron and a 7800gtx its getting close to upgrade time again.
And I still play BF2 when I can as well... like someone said above minus the kids its still kick @ss - wannapiece, on 11/16/2007, -10/+1This is bullsh*t.. they only used the demo its so obvious and the demo isn't optimized for anything its a damn demo... go buy the full version then review it you tards.
- MXracer250f, on 11/16/2007, -1/+4The developers have already stated the demo is exactly the same as the full retail game in terms of optimization. So ***** off.
- The_Pope, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1It wouldn't even matter if the demo was different because this was reviewed using full game code from EA. So yeah, ***** off :P
- max420, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1You my friend are an idiot. If you had played the full version you would know that its identical to the demo in every respects, same EXE file and version number. So the same optimizations from the full game were in the demo. The game chugs on the computers of everyone I know, and I know people with quad-cores and dual 8800gtx's.... although the quad core dual 8800 guy gets an average of about 30fps, so the game is quite playable (DX10 everything on high). The game itself is just super demanding.
- cardjoe, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Nope. I reviewed the game and, being a professional website, we just get the full code a long time before you do. Jealous? You should be. N00b.
Hell, we even did a demo impressions article on the demo when it was first released as a closed beta, so there's little point in us doing the same again.
- MXracer250f, on 11/16/2007, -1/+4The developers have already stated the demo is exactly the same as the full retail game in terms of optimization. So ***** off.
- bigz, on 11/16/2007, -0/+9It's funny that there's two copies of the full retail version of the game sitting on my desk, which we've had since Tuesday. It'd be great if you could back up your baseless facts, but wait... you can't.
If we'd reviewed the demo, surely we would have published a review of Crysis about three weeks ago when it came out. Tard. - chingy1788, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3Athlon 4000+ At 2.8GHz, 1GB RAM, 6800GT
Runs on medium - high i can play it
it looks awesome
changing the resolution doesn't seem to do a lot- The_Pope, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Another gig of RAM should be pretty cheap for you - 2GB is a good idea just in general, not just for Crysis
- chingy1788, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Problem is, the people who built it put 4 256 sticks in...
so
i cant just buy another 1GB and stick it in...
and its DDR1...
- chingy1788, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Problem is, the people who built it put 4 256 sticks in...
- Shaflugi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+36800 GT on medium-high?? I have a 7600 And it barely runs on low-medium! And the resolution makes a HUGE difference in performance on my machine..
- chingy1788, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Texture on Med, Object on low, shadow and shader on medium, rest on high
its runs at 1280x1024 at a playable fps
- chingy1788, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Texture on Med, Object on low, shadow and shader on medium, rest on high
- Gizza, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1You must be playing that on 640x480 or something. quad core Q6600 with a 7900gt runs chopping on the lowest settings at 1920x1200.
- SleepingOrange, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1yea... what the heck is he talking about?
I have a Core2 Duo, 7900GT, 2GB 800mhz ram and the max I can play is 1024x728 with all settings on medium.
- The_Pope, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Another gig of RAM should be pretty cheap for you - 2GB is a good idea just in general, not just for Crysis
- Dustmuffins, on 11/17/2007, -2/+5http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html
For your SERIOUS tweakers out there. - stampeder, on 11/17/2007, -1/+11680X1050 looks just as good as 1920X1200, running incredibly smooth with everything on Very High except for volumetric, shadows, and post-processing, which are all on medium. OC'd Q6600 with 4gigs RAM, Vista 32bit, 8800Ultra. I'm quite happy with the performance, aside from the physics engine going haywire every once and a while.
- JDiZZle300Z, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I got a x2 2.4, a 1950pro, 2 gigs of ram, and i play this at 1920x1080 at a very playable 20fps with all settings at medium except the physics related stuff which is all high. speaking of 20 fps being playable, how come 20 fps is playable in this game but no others, howed they pull that off?
- Citizenvoid, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Hey all, I've read nothing but complaints about how this game runs on systems far stronger than mine. I run an AGP rig! AMD Athalon 64 3200+ single core (socket 939) , 2GB dual channel DDR400 ram, and an ATI X1650 pro 512MB DDR2 AGP, SATA1, on a 22" wide screen. This game runs smooth at max resolution with settings on low. I have three settings on high including textures and physics. Water I left on low, and I have no control over object detail (grayed out). The rest on medium, but I have a good playable result I am still graphically impressed with. My "weakling" system runs it great. I'll post again with actual res., settings, and frame rates. Driver config was a huge part of this, and I just found a hot fix on ATI's website for many of their cards regarding Crysis.
- Citizenvoid, on 12/02/2007, -0/+0This game runs best under 64bit environment, it's memory usage utilizes higher volumes, and kills the constant streaming on 32bit. as well under DX9.0c there is at least 15% increase in performance from DX10. To force DX9.0 on Vista right click the desktop icon for the game, and set to XP mode. Watch your frame rates jump. Also defrag after install, the game is 12 gigs, nothing like trying to find you 're keys when your room's a mess. I've been juggling this game between my roomies comp. and mine we both have the same card but his is PCI-E and mine is AGP, he runs Vista, and I run XP. In the end I have sound on low, cause it comes off the processor in this game, and that's it. The rest I got to medium, shaders, textures, effects, and physics are on high, and my res is at 1450 x 900. I do get a little chop when driving into a heavily wooded area, but it looks great. Don't be discouraged just do your home work. I'm about to OC my card to giver a little breathing space, or strangle it!! lol
- wowcheatsgold, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0To the dismay of much of the population of WOW, and the online community, girls do play video games. What makes a girl play a game online? Are they looking to pick up boys? Are they so socially inept that they can’t talk to anyone in the real world? Are they just plain ugly? Or are they really just a guy pretending to be a girl? None of these things are true. They play the game for the same reason everyone plays. They play for entertainment. Though women in the real life are striving for equality in a male dominated world, and arguably making progress, the ladies playing online games have a much harder task in front of them.
http://www.wow-gold-cheap.us/
http://www.wow-gold-cheap.us/content/video.html
http://www.wow-gold-cheap.us/content/news.html
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by