Submitted by newsguy 1614d ago | article

Crysis 2 Performance: Six Popular GPUs Tested

GeForce.com asks, "how well will Crysis 2 run on your PC?" (Cryengine 3, Crysis 2, Crytek, EA, NVIDIA, PC, Tech)

Alternative Sources
newsguy  +   1614d ago
I wonder how well this will run on my rig.
joydestroy  +   1614d ago
yep, i'd like to see SLI performance. specifically on the GTX 460.

i'm thinking 60-70 fps on hardcore at 1680x1050
kancerkid  +   1614d ago
I can't believe that card runs so good. I am building a PC for my brother, and you can build a 600 dollar rig with that card.

1080P, here I come
inveni0  +   1614d ago
A single 460 with a 1090t runs the game at 30+ at 1680x1050 max settings. Don't ask me how I know.
FanboyPunisher  +   1613d ago

LOL! Consoleitis, game doesnt even stress a 580.
So much for graphics improvement over the first one.

Bullshit, not even going to bother.

You know how it runs? It runs like a console port that was pushed over to PC. Shit is a joke.
#1.2 (Edited 1613d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
andresegers  +   1614d ago
I'm screwed =(
AndyB  +   1614d ago
Performance is incredible if you consider how poorly Crysis ran.
bumnut  +   1614d ago
Thats because it doesn't have huge open levels.
MAJ0R  +   1614d ago
doesn't have as much leaves either, I get like 60 FPS in Crysis 2 but in Crysis 1 I get 40-50 with AA OFF

Crytek needed to change the setting to New York to be able to run it on consoles
arjman  +   1614d ago
Or maybe because they didn't want to make another game in the jungle?
Norio   1614d ago | Spam
ATiElite  +   1614d ago
Crysis ran poorly because DX10 is not that great. Crysis was like one of the first DX10 game to really pushed DX10. It suffered from optimization problems plus the fact that DX10 is just DX9 with so much crap dropped on top of it.

DX11 fixes all the problems with DX10 likie making it more streamline plus adds new features thus making optimization a lot easier for developers.
#3.2 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
mittwaffen  +   1613d ago
Actually you are wrong.
Every post from you i shake my head, very ignorant.

DX11 is not included with retail PC crysis, they are patching it. Those benchmarks are DX9.
Game wont look better, can only polished a shit console port so much.

I hope all ATI fans arnt as ignorant as you.
Crysis DX9 was what most people ran because Vista was a bloated cow for any gaming.

So we all ran it on XP DX9, i've read up on how their engine does its rendering. If i heard unoptimized about it..your just a fucking retard.

Farcry 1, crysis 1 all raped the H/W it was played on because it pushed the envelope of gaming on PC for YEAR to come.

You dont know shit, noob!@
#3.2.1 (Edited 1613d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Bounkass  +   1614d ago
Good job my GPU can handle it. I kinda expected it to, for that price, lol.
Fishy Fingers  +   1614d ago
Built a few PCs for friends (largely because of Crysis) and seems they should be happy with what I guessed would be enough. i5 2500k @ 4.6 and a GTX570.

Good performance compared to the original Crysis.
bumnut  +   1614d ago
Bad console port imo, it even says press start when the game loads up!

3 graphics options low, medium & high (with different names)

only 6 vs 6 (crysis wars was 16 vs 16)

I thought crytek said the pc version would not suffer because it is also on consoles.

I hope the full game has more options
#6 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Kakkoii  +   1614d ago
Sigh... there is no "port"ing going on here. The only reason it says press Start is because they didn't bother changing the graphic on that part for the PC demo. And most PC gamers know what press start means, usually meaning press Enter.

The engine isn't built for one console or another. It's built for all 3, the PC, PS3 and 360. You build the assets and engine on the PC, at PC graphics level. Then it compiles the game out for the consoles based on sets of restrictions and varying instruction sets. NO PORTING AT ALL.
enkeixpress  +   1614d ago
Planning on buying an Alienware m17x laptop (£1,399) just for this game.. as well as for the first Crysis.

This is the specs it will have:

Case : Alienware M17x MLK : Base Space Black
Processor : Intel Core i7 Processor 720QM(1.60GHz,6MB cache)
Display : 17in WideUXGA 1920 x 1200 - Beyond HD (1200p) - Dual CCFL
Memory : 4096MB (2x2048) 1333MHz DDR3 Dual Channel
Hard Drive : 320GB (2x160GB) Free Fall Sensor Raid 0 "Stripe"(7200RPM) Dual HDD
Optical Drive : Slot Load Blu-Ray ROM Combo (Blu-ray read only, DVD, CD read and write) Drive
Power : UK 250V & Alienware 240W AC Adapter Power Supply
Battery : Primary 9-cell 85W/HR LI-ION
Graphics : Dual 1GB ATI GDDR3 MOBILITY RADEON HD 4870 cards
Wireless : Europe Dell Bluetooth 370 Card + Dell Wireless 1520 (802.11n) Half Mini Card
Keyboard : Internal UK/Irish Qwerty Keyboard
Operating System : English Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (64 BIT)
Mouse/Mousemat : Alienware TactX Gaming Mouse (5000dpi) + Alienware Gaming Mouse Mat (23..5cm x 29.5cm)
Ports : 4 Highspeed USB 2.0 Ports, 1 eSATA/USB 2.0 Combo (2-in-1 Port) With Powershare, ExpressCard Slot, HDMI, VGA.
Audio Ports : Audio In, Audio Out (Front Speakers), Audio Out (Center Speaker and Subwoofer), Rear Surround Audio Out Connector
Other : Lazer-Engraved Nameplate (Default/M17x), Documents/Manual, Resource DVD

It should be able to easily run Crysis 2 at max settings & high frame rate, I think. It's gonna' take a while to get it.. but I'm saving up :P
#7 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
bumnut  +   1614d ago
4870 isn't dx11 so you won't be able to max new games
enkeixpress  +   1614d ago
dx11..? Oh.. Well as long as I can play the game at hardcore with a decent framerate, I'm fine.

I just tried running the demo on my Acer Aspire 5920g laptop.. it was horrible, runs like a slideshow.. lol, so yes.. An Alienware m17x is what I need. :)

Maybe this one is better:

Display: 43cm (17") Wide UXGA (1440x900)
Video: CrossFire™ Dual 1GB ATI® Mobility Radeon™ HD 5870
Memory: 4 GB
Hard drive size: 500GB SATA 7200 RPM
Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
Optical drive: 8X DVD+/- RW Optical Drive (DVD & CD read and write)
Media drive: 8-in-1 memory card reader
Audio: High-Definition 5.1 Surround Sound
4 hi-speed USB 2.0
eSATA/USB 2.0 combo (2-in-1)
Headphone output
Microphone input
VGA (15-pin)
FireWire (IEEE 1394a, 4-pin)
Express card slot
Battery: 9-cell lithium-ion (up to 3.4 hours)
Camera: Integrated webcam
Wireless: Dell Wireless 1520 Half Mini Card (802.11n)
Dimensions: 15.98 x 12.65 x 2.11 in (405.89 x 321.31 x 53.59 mm)
Weight: 11.68 lbs (5.29 kg)
Color: Black

lol.. I'm pretty much just shopping 'round for the best specs for a Alienware m17x.. I'm sure I'll find a really good one on eBay or something once I have the money. :)
#7.1.1 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report
mrv321  +   1614d ago
Maybe not, the HD5870m can't run Crysis at it's highest.

Go for a desktop, TRUST me you could HALF your price and probably have a better rig.
likedamaster  +   1614d ago
Game's performance will still be bottlenecked by the 1.60ghz speed of the cpu. You might as well build your own pc, or grab a gateway desktop with way better specs @tigerdirect for 1200 american.
#7.3 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ATiElite  +   1614d ago
No it will not be bottlenecked. The Intel Core i7 hyper threading will kick in and push the CPU to 2.0 ghz.

Even turned off and running at 1.6ghz a 4 core Intel will not be bottlenecked because the GPU will be doing all the work anyway. The GPU and low voltage is the problem in that system. HD 4870 is DX10 and old. The voltage is low due to it being a laptop thus so many limiting factors come into play on the GPU side as far as it reaching it's full potential.

I do agree with getting a desktop....although building one is better than a Gateway!!
saint_john_paul_ii  +   1614d ago
why not just buy a desktop?

EDIT: it looks like my GTX 470 will handle crysis 2 very well.

just need to overclock my core i7 to 3.2ghz and and buy and extra 470 to sli the machine. i dont have a monitor with a ridiculous resolution, the native resolution on my monitor is 1920x1080 so im fine.
#7.4 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Thecraft1989  +   1614d ago
Wow buying gaming laptop is kind of stupid unless your on move all time and even then the laptop in question is bulky and hard to carry around. but buying one thats made by alienware (dell) is asking for trouble.

Save yourself the problem and build yourself a desktop for half that amount that will last a lot longer and be more upgradable.
TOSgamer  +   1614d ago
Unless you honestly need a gaming laptop I'd just buy a cheap laptop and a desktop for games with that kind of money.
bumnut  +   1614d ago
If you are going to spend all that $ on a laptop I would make sure you get a DX 11 capable one so it is not outdated when you buy it.

Not really into gaming laptops myself but you should be able to find one that is DX11 capable
Killzoned  +   1614d ago
Do not buy an Alienware PC, it is OVERPRICED, do yourself a favor and pop to PCSPECIALIST website
You can grab yourself a GTX 580 and I5 2500K with 4-8GB RAM, 1TB HDD for around 1-1.3g

I5 2500K Quad Core
GTX 580

All this for 1214 Pound
If you wish to upgrade to an i7 2600K it would be 1303 pound
#7.8 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Snakefist30  +   1614d ago
Thanks For The Advice!
ATiElite  +   1614d ago
Alienware? Why? They are so OVERPRICED.
If you need a laptop then you need a laptop but if you don't have to have a laptop I suggest you go build yourself a PC. More power less money. at least buy the parts nad have a friend put it together if you don't know how. Hell you can build a laptop too.

Do Not get a laptop with a HD 4870. those are old and they are not DX11 get one with a HD 6970.
DigitalPiracy  +   1614d ago
Seriously? Buy a desktop.
Kakkoii  +   1614d ago
Why not build a more powerful desktop PC for less money?
PS3BURN  +   1614d ago
No one cares
plb  +   1614d ago
I can run in hardcore mode but only 720p..1080p gets a bit stuttery. Will wait till full version with hopefully more options. BTW, best looking game everrrr
#9 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
theonlylolking  +   1614d ago
GTX 560 Ti easily the best for the price.
solar  +   1614d ago
i plan on picking one up in the next couple of days. joy!!
da305kratos  +   1614d ago
FYI- Running it 1920x1080, Advanced Settings, Solid 30 fps...20-25fps on hardcore...

For some reason, i dont think its at the same level Crysis and warhead visually, just doesnt seem to have the wow factor, we'll see once full game comes out...

945 Deneb 3.0 Ghz
ATI Sapphire 5750 1GB (stock)
4 Gigs DDR2
Kon  +   1614d ago
The "wow" factor for this one is much higher than in the last crysis
da305kratos  +   1614d ago
very true...i'm personally pleased it running this well on my pc, wasnt gonna upgrade for this game. Hopefully no game pushes me to crossfire till BF3 is out...

btw, Crysis 2 Multi was pretty fun last night. Combat was satisfying, weapons felt good...
PS360PCROCKS  +   1614d ago
Mine runs like a dream in 3D and in 1080P on my 50" Panasonic. I'm a noob so I don't know how to pull up the frames or whatever. but I have a i5 2500k and SLI 560Ti with 8gb ram and win 64 bit, I wanted DX11 support though. Beta is sorely lacking, kind of a joke on Crytek's part to not let PC gamers truly "max" it out.
da305kratos  +   1614d ago
got to agree with u on that...from my understanding its DX9 (the demo), should have been DX10 atleast...cant really benchmark it when no one is really gonna run it in DX9
MegaMohsi  +   1614d ago
nice gtx 460 performs well, if it's slowed paced like the original Crysis running it at hardcore 1900x1080 with an avg of 32.4 fps should be more than enough to play it.
da305kratos  +   1614d ago
u should be fine, see my post above on the performance of my 5750, ur card is more powerful
Kon  +   1614d ago
I know the demo is DX9. But i managed to score 60FPS with everything on max, HD5670.
da305kratos  +   1614d ago
60 fps? What res? I ran it 12 players,1920x1080, Advanced settings and it was pretty solid at 30 with my 5750 (ur 5670 being slower)...hmmmm

idk photobucket seems to resizing my pics...

Related image(s)
#13.2.1 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
josh14399  +   1614d ago
so my gtx 460 is recommended 1680x1050 on hardcore. I'm just hoping the fps is consistent and doesn't drop large amounts when there is lots of shit happening. crysis 1 does this and its annoying.
MegaMohsi  +   1614d ago
it happened mainly in the ice levels towards the end, the jungle area was consistent for the most part. Warhead was way more stable for me running it in 64bit mode on Win 7 and way more consistent FR.
ATiElite  +   1614d ago
either the Cryengine 3 is super duper optimized along side the streamline programming of DX11 or...

This review was done minus AA and AF maybe with some other graphical features turned off. Plus it dam sure wasn't DX11 mode because the 8800gt and 260 GTX are DX10. These numbers seem too high cause Metro 2033 brings GPU's to their knees. Turn DOF on and it breaks them down to their ankles.

I will wait for Hardware Canucks to do a review using MAX setting everything on 8xAA 16xAF DX11 mode
as i don't trust benchmarks from card makers, especially Nvidia.
#15 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MegaMohsi  +   1614d ago
Metro 2033 was also notorious for its poor coding and optimization. Since it is the beta I do assume that a few of the graphical features were unavailable so I think the numbers may be a bit skewed. I definitely don't expect to play this game maxed out but if i can play hardcore at 1920x1080 with 30fps avg with no AA, I'll be happy with it.
DigitalPiracy  +   1614d ago
Well I just tried it out. Looks okay but not as good as Crysis IMO. The smaller environments aren't as impressive and some of the textures are atrocious. Runs at a solid 60fps on hardcore with an HD6970 and i7 950. Too bad the gameplay sucks. Hopefully the SP is good enough to warrant a purchase.
therapist  +   1614d ago
lol...wow...that is a fun ass game!!!

with 2 470's sli and i7920 it runs at avg. framerate of 48-60
I am running in Hardcore at 1920x1080 and man is it fu@kin SEXXXY!!!

My one complaint is all the fun graphical sliders are missing, though I'm sure at release they will be included, if not, I guess I'll have to mess with the config files

Graphics wise this game literally DESTROYS every other game ever made

honestly, games like uncharted 2, alan wake and killzone 3 look last gen, the only game that still looks better, while a totally different game is some areas of metro2033, but honestly this is the multiplayer, I am 100% sure there will be areas in the single player that will utterly destroy metro2033

The gameplay is 100% BADASS, I have not had this much fun with MP since BFBC2, the gameplay eradicates blackops, killzone3, halo reach and I think it may take over my bfbc2 time as well

Kudos to crytek
#17 (Edited 1614d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
hoops  +   1614d ago
Most people on this site have no idea what is going on in the background with the Cyengine. It's amazing what Crytek has done with this engine...and especially how they have it running on the consoles.
Kudos for Crytek
Toman85  +   1614d ago
I have soon a pc with GTX 580 and i7 950 with 12GB Ram :)
Gonna run this at 60 fps on 1080p in hardcore mode!!
dirthurts  +   1614d ago
You could save a whole lot of money and still run this game at 1080p 60.
12gb ram? What are you thinking? Anything above 4gb and you will see no performance increase.
Toman85  +   1614d ago
I have too much money to spend I guess ;). That 12 GB Ram only cost me around 50$ more than 6 GB!
hoops  +   1614d ago
I have not tried the demo yet, but when I get around to it, I want to see how my two 5970's in quad cross-fire handle this game
ATiElite  +   1614d ago
Wow two HD 5970....I'm sure your gonna have problems running it. :)

actually I'm being serious. may be a chance that the drivers aren't ready for HD5970 Quad CF and the game fails to run. Several games have had this problem the first week of release but AMD took care of it VERY QUICKLY.

And the first person that post "AMD has bad drivers" go choke yourself. Nvidia = The Way it Burns your house down.
dirthurts  +   1614d ago
More cards = more problems.
I'm a single card guy.
Crossfire irritates me. All current games run great with a good single card, so why bug yourself with more than one?
StarScream4Ever  +   1614d ago
The alone AMD in the audience would raise his hand and say,
"Excuse me, I have a problem with that graph."

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Spider: Rite of the Shrouded Moon - Official Trailer | PS4, PS Vita

56m ago - A secret society built Blackbird Estate for a specific reason. Not even the family living there t... | PS4

MechaNika Review: Not As Innocent As She Appears | AppUnwrapper

1h ago - AppUnwrapper writes: "MechaNika, by Mango Protocol, is a very odd little game. It has a cutesy, h... | PC

Devil May Cry 4 Special Edition (XB1) Review

Now - Ken revisits the fourth entry in the saga of Dante (and Nero). | Promoted post

Planet Minecraft Contest Underwater Wonderland; Deep Sea Submission

1h ago - From the creators behind BlockWorks, they submitted one of the best builds in the Planet Minecraf... | PC

9 Games That Are Better Played Drunk

1h ago - There’s only one thing that can top an all-night gaming session with friends, and that’s an all n... | Culture

Best Buy Deal of the Day: Buy One 3DS Game, Get 50% Off 2nd

1h ago - Gamerdeals: "Buy One 3DS Game, Get 50% Off 2nd as part of the Best Buy Deal of the Day!" | 3DS