TR Forums

Ran across this article at PC Gamer:

http://www.pcgamer.com/10-years-later-w ... un-crysis/

Interesting timing, because I recently picked up Crysis, which I had never bought or played, from Gog.com just to see how it would run on an outdated system (and to see how it compared to its spiritual predecessor, Far Cry, which I played many times). Seems that with most settings on high and a few on very high (except AA, which is turned down to 8X) and 1680x1050 resolution, the game is very playable on -- wait for it -- an Intel i7-3770S (Ivy Bridge core) and an Nvidia GTX-460. Meaning, hardware that is respectively only about 5 and 3 years newer than the game itself, is plenty capable of running it. Keeping in mind, also, that the GTX-460 was only a midrange GPU when it launched.

I can even boost all settings to maximum and it's better than a slide show, although it's also not buttery smooth and the 99th percentile frame times would probably make one Scott Wasson climb the walls.

Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?

Surprisingly, Crysis doesn't require SSE2. I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine. Well, fine if you're OK with 21.3 fps at 800x600 with all details set to low.

ludi wrote:

Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?

Dumbest joke ever? Machines when Crysis was launched could play Crysis. Why should I bother?

ludi wrote:

Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?

Interesting that PC Gamer ran such an article, because Tom's Hardware also did a similar pair of articles:

• http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-10-year-anniversary-benchmarks,5329.html -> testing the flagship GPUs for the last 10 years
• http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-test-modern-gpus-ryzen,5335.html -> testing 10 currently mainstream GPUs

setaG_lliB wrote:

Surprisingly, Crysis doesn't require SSE2. I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine. Well, fine if you're OK with 21.3 fps at 800x600 with all details set to low.

There were probably still enough non-SSE2 systems around when it was released that they didn't want to eliminate that potential source of sales.

just brew it! wrote:

setaG_lliB wrote:

Surprisingly, Crysis doesn't require SSE2. I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine. Well, fine if you're OK with 21.3 fps at 800x600 with all details set to low.

There were probably still enough non-SSE2 systems around when it was released that they didn't want to eliminate that potential source of sales.

My guess is that even by 2007 there were probably still plenty of people wanting to play this with Athlon XP based systems, since they don't have SSE2.

LostCat wrote:

ludi wrote:

Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?

Dumbest joke ever? Machines when Crysis was launched could play Crysis. Why should I bother?

"Can it run Crysis?" has been a running gag since the game come out since the game was one of the most demanding titles at the time.

whm1974 wrote:

LostCat wrote:

ludi wrote:

Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?

Dumbest joke ever? Machines when Crysis was launched could play Crysis. Why should I bother?

"Can it run Crysis?" has been a running gag since the game come out since the game was one of the most demanding titles at the time.

LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.

just brew it! wrote:

LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.

It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.

LostCat wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.

It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.

Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.

LostCat wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.

It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

whm1974 wrote:

LostCat wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.

It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Not surprising. 6600GT was 3 years old at that point, and GPU tech was advancing rapidly.

just brew it! wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

LostCat wrote:

It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Not surprising. 6600GT was 3 years old at that point, and GPU tech was advancing rapidly.

FEAR was the game at that time that pissed me off since I couldn't play it even at 1024x768 and I started kicking myself for buying a video card with 128MB instead of 256MB.

just brew it! wrote:

Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.

But Rickrolling is specifically about tricking someone into clicking the link. No link, no Rickroll

Chrispy_ wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.

But Rickrolling is specifically about tricking someone into clicking the link. No link, no Rickroll

It's still an "oh yeah, this... " thing though.

just brew it! wrote:

Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.

I originally typed meme in the place of joke but I can't even remember the definition of meme. I'm sure if I cared I'd look it up.

whm1974 wrote:

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen.

AnandTech had already published their performance preview, it was public knowledge that the Core 2 Duo E6300 was to launch at the same $180 price as the Pentium D 930 would be dropping to (from $300+, can't remember if you paid that though) and would blow it away.

This advice was already shown in published articles to be correct, and obviously there was full detail less than a month later. There was an upgrade path there, too, for that Conroe build option, and overclockability.

I know the 6 years on Presler were painful, and sorry to be a bit harsh, but you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.

Presler == Netburst's Last Gasp, more or less.

Topinio wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen.

AnandTech had already published their performance preview, it was public knowledge that the Core 2 Duo E6300 was to launch at the same $180 price as the Pentium D 930 would be dropping to (from $300+, can't remember if you paid that though) and would blow it away.

This advice was already shown in published articles to be correct, and obviously there was full detail less than a month later. There was an upgrade path there, too, for that Conroe build option, and overclockability.

I know the 6 years on Presler were painful, and sorry to be a bit harsh, but you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.

Yes I know I should asked for advice back then, but I didn't. And as I recall the CPU, motherboard, and another 1 GB of DDR memory cost me less then $300 to upgrade from a Athlon XP rig with 1GB of memory, 2 PATA HDDs, and the GF 6600GT, and a pair of of DVD burners.

A whole new rig with "modern hardware" at the time would have cost me at least $700 or more.

whm1974 wrote:

Topinio wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen. [...] you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.

Yes I know I should asked for advice back then, but I didn't. And as I recall the CPU, motherboard, and another 1 GB of DDR memory cost me less then $300 to upgrade from a Athlon XP rig with 1GB of memory, 2 PATA HDDs, and the GF 6600GT, and a pair of of DVD burners.

A whole new rig with "modern hardware" at the time would have cost me at least $700 or more.

You were given the advice, though, and it would've been at most $50 more for the Conroe build (including a slightly pricier motherboard and a PATA HBA for the ancient drives you wanted to keep) which you could have saved up while you waited those few weeks.

Complaining now that you couldn't run Crysis 10 years ago on what was a blatant crapbox of a build called out before you ordered it, is i.e. a bit much.

Topinio wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Topinio wrote:

Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen. [...] you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.

Yes I know I should asked for advice back then, but I didn't. And as I recall the CPU, motherboard, and another 1 GB of DDR memory cost me less then $300 to upgrade from a Athlon XP rig with 1GB of memory, 2 PATA HDDs, and the GF 6600GT, and a pair of of DVD burners.

A whole new rig with "modern hardware" at the time would have cost me at least $700 or more.

You were given the advice, though, and it would've been at most $50 more for the Conroe build (including a slightly pricier motherboard and a PATA HBA for the ancient drives you wanted to keep) which you could have saved up while you waited those few weeks.

Complaining now that you couldn't run Crysis 10 years ago on what was a blatant crapbox of a build called out before you ordered it, is i.e. a bit much.

Yes I screwed up and I know that now, so you don't have to rub it in.

whm1974 wrote:

Yes I screwed up and I know that now, so you don't have to rub it in.

Sorry dude, not wanting to, but using that build as support for a position on games that cannot be run leads to discussing the build itself.

whm1974 wrote:

FEAR was the game at that time that pissed me off since I couldn't play it even at 1024x768 and I started kicking myself for buying a video card with 128MB instead of 256MB.

whm1974 wrote:

I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.

Minimum requirements, as pointed out earlier in this thread, weren't that onerous. Same with F.E.A.R.

setaG_lliB wrote:

I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine.

Reminds me of my PIII 550 back in 2000.

Why do you still have it?

End User wrote:

setaG_lliB wrote:

I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine.

Reminds me of my PIII 550 back in 2000.

Why do you still have it?

I've always liked pushing old platforms to the limit. This is one of those rare DDR P3 boards, so I can easily load it up with 2GB or more of DDR400 and go crazy with the timings. In this case, 2-2-2-6 @ 150MHz (300MHz DDR)

The performance is surprisingly good. It's actually capable of decoding 1280x720, 5mb/s L4.1 h.264 in software. I've also noticed that, on a DDR platform and overclocked to 1575MHz, the PIII can be nearly as fast as a P4 2.4A, so long as the program doesn't take advantage of SSE2 on the P4.

My R7 1700 and GTX 960 (on Win10 for this) at 1440p high/2xAA can't quite manage 60, and suffers momentary drops to sub-15 when particle effects get heavy. Haven't seen how much of a boost dropping to 1080p is worth, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some non-linear scaling in there. Very high couldn't even maintain 30, had entirely unreasonable amounts of input lag, and was unplayably crashy.

Even with graphics merely on high (-dx9), it still CTDs about every hour and crashes the graphics driver (which auto-recovers) about as often.

The real kicker is that I very nearly couldn't play Crysis at all, due to the DRM. (I bought it fair and square via Steam, to be clear.) SecuROM failed at something or other on game launch in both Wine and Windows, and none of the non-sketchy fixes did anything for it. The one that worked was aquiring binaries for Crysis Warhead and using them with Crysis 1's data. I don't own Warhead and this was therefore even sketchier than it sounds.