On dx9 on xp I can max the game out.

On dx10 with vista, I needed 4 gbs on ram just to play it on high.

You should also consider that it is only logical that the game’s performance is different under DirectX 10. Microsoft has made changes to the rendering pipeline, for example, which allow developers to deliver stunning visual which are quite fast to render considering their complexity but which of course still need a lot of processing power.

I think that crytek’s work on the cry engine 2 is stunning. Considering the quality of the visuals, the game is really fast and it is amazing that the physics are as bug free as they are.

I have never seen anything like it before in real time…

When I played through the game in DX9 mode I was able to turn all the settings up to HIGH and have a really good playthrough … the game looked fantastic and the fps stayed nice and smooth (until that last cut scene which I know something is wrong with that and they will fix it). I was playing in 1680×1050 and like I said it did look really nice … however it still doesn’t impress me like Gears did for whatever reason.

Now using DX10 I cannot keep everything on high and get good fps … it becomes a slide show … and that sucks because the Crytek devs were promising that the DX10 performance would actually be a bit better than DX9. Now the new Nvidia beta drivers do help out alot and that is why I was able to run the game with DX10 with all the settings on medium and get playable frames but still they lagged behind DX9 … some places it was really bad.

So in summary play the game in DX9 if you have a pretty high end system but it is not an Ultra system. You will still love the graphics and have a really good time because for the most part the frames are nice.

Now my PC is nothing special: Opteron 185/8800 GTS 320/2GB RAM – My cpu is was OCed to 2.73Ghz and my GTS to 580/866. I am going to upgrade to a Q6600 but I am waiting for some real benchmarks on Gears, UT3, CoD4, and Crysis (WiC should be used as well).

ps- gears of war graphics = ut3 demo graphics. including sniper rifle. dont worry, gears was god and ut3 demo is great.

I so thought the same, but crysis was actually designed for the 7800gt for the dx9 end of graphics. This is what I was told by crytek in the beta, but I’m having problems hitting 40 fps on high on dx10 with 2 8800gtx :-\

Physics :

Trees
Items, barrels,cans,other crap

But the players don’t move?! I like to see people roll or something in that nature, this game will be madly over hyped.

Like Anu said, UT3/Gears looks so much better. The water/jungle amazing, the graphics amazing. But the gameplay is falling short, it just feels like another shooter to me, where DOOM 3 and Half life 2 actually changed it

Doom 3 brough you darkness, made you think. Some might say different but not only did DOOm 3 change the graphics end it also brought you into the game. Brought in you in the game, the lighting was amazing, the engine was awesome.Atleast the people somewhat moved, crysis they just stick to the ground.

Half life 2, ground breaking graphics, still I feel the game fell short from doom 3. But still,brought you 2 amazing mods and many more like TF2,Natural Selection 2, TS 2 is coming out too. Where DOOM 3 gave you the freak factor/horror, piece together the story and etc with amazing lighting to give you the feeling of being a lone.

Half life 2 completely pwned other games in other areas with physics. The rag doll is what made me love CSS. The graphics was amazing, both DOOm 3 and CSS made my stomach drop. I couldn’t believe it, with crysis it just feels like another game, nothing really new. I feel crytek relied way to much on the graphics end of the game, yeah the suit probably will change gaming for this genre.

But, Just something is missing. I feel with the hype it would own in all areas…

Graphics (check)
Physics (good)
Player physics (blows)
Water (like far cry, amazing)
AI ( I noticed sometimes the guys would aim straight up in the air).

Overall the game is amazing, but It completely didn’t live up to the hype. I was all excited to play the MP, let down. Then this, let me down yet again. I’m hoping the game will be a lot better on the single player.

Fair enough the demo may need optimising, but get yourself an 8800 series card and then play it some more. It’s a next-gen game designed fo next-gen hardware.

And UT3 is a completely different engine, you simply can’t do a direct comparison between the two. Crysis is MUCH more open in terms of it’s envirments and has a completely different set of heavy AI/Physics routines which will hit any rig hard.

Rich.

The best example I can give you all is Half-Life 2. I mean yeah I complained a lot about it taking 6 years but as we all know it was worth the wait. When it came out the game could run on tons of PCs showing that the team put a great deal of work into the optimization of the Source engine. The Crytek team needs to take a page out of that book and get this new IP right the first time. But I just have a feeling that EA is really anxious to get this out the door … especially with Army of Two being delayed until next year. Here’s hoping though.

Also if you have Vista it automatically loads with DX10 and if you want to you can then choose the “Very High” choices and if you think it looks amazing in DX9 then you will be blown away by how it looks with “very high” settings. Of course you can’t use AA or your PC will become a slide show.

It is really something that this game demands so much. I can’t see this game selling a huge amount of copies out the gate unless they really do some major optimizing. As it is if you are a Vista user and don’t have at least an 8800 GTX and a quad core processor then you don’t have a chance in hell of running this on a even all high settings. If you want to use the Very High settings you will definitely need an SLI setup of GTX gpus and that is really lousy.

Heck my system is an Opteron 185 dual core OCed to 2.8 Ghz (faster than an FX-60 so it is pretty good for a dual core cpu), 2GB Ram, and a 8800 GTS 320MB Oced to 580/866 (over 1700 effective) and I will say that with things set to medium in Vista using the 163.75 beta drivers I get pretty decent performance. I can up the textures to Very High and it still is pretty cool. But that is all. Now when I launch the DX9 version I can put everything on HIGH and get decent frames but really it is not playable. But the interesting thing is when I turn the setting for Volumetric and Shaders back down to medium then things are pretty smooth. Of course this is without using AA. I refuse to even try AA until the optimized retail version comes out.

I know how much we all want this game but I really don’t think it is ready for prime time … no way. They need to spend at least one more full month on optimizing the game for XP yeah but really they need to get the DX10 stuff working well because that is really their strong selling point over UE3 and games like Gears of War PC (which I am totally stocked about … just have to get my Windows compatible game pad next week when I pick up all my other accessories (new Blue Controller, IM keyboard for the 360 controller, points, XBox Live 12 month subscription, and three games … VF5, Timeshift, and The Simpsons) ) and without that then Epic will win the Shooter wars on the PC.

I think so many people will have problems with this on the PC … and I foresee a ton of patches and gpu driver updates. The solution as always is just to port this game to the 360 … of course it will use the medium textures but still at least a stable fps would most likely occur.

Bottomline: Nice demo but Crytek really has more work to do if they really expect this game to do well. This is one of those instances when releasing a demo that has major performance issues may really hurt the bottom line. They may need to release another demo once they fix the optimization issues.

Now excuse me while I go back to UT3! And while I wait for my copy of Gears PC to come in the mail.