Interesting how low the power consumption is in the original, despite max GPU utilization. I guess there are some old engine/API limitations that prevent the game from utilizing the full potential of the raster pipeline in modern cards. That could be a cool Digital Foundry analysis.
The main thing is, that it wasn't developed with console performance in mind, which usually is one of the main limiting factors in game developement. If you don't focus on that demographic and just see how far you can push the envelope, the result are games like Crysis. You could argue that it was a tech demo that was turned into an actual game
Only the vegetation and the five main characters. 😶 But the actual game assets are super nasty. Like the vehicles and the burned out civilian cars. They're basically PS2 era models that you'd see in an old GTA game, very low poly. And well. The KPA troops never looked that good. And then the ships crew characters all look like autogenerated facepunch models But like.. yeah man. Those face screenshots from before there was ever video recorded for crysis . Made direct10 look so cool
@Ioannis_Stf there are also people who play with motion blur enabled on a VA monitor that already has horrible ghosting & black smearing, and they see nothing wrong with it, visual diarrhea everytime you move the mouse/controller. Stop advocating for crap, we deserve better.
I remember back in 2008 going to the comptuer store, buying a new 8800GT 512mb. Then going to the video game store and buying this game. The guy at the counter asked me what GPU I had, being absent minded I just said "8600gt" because that was what I was upgrading from, and the guy just laughed at me.
And I remember working part time at a game CD store. My boss had only one copy of Crysis just for display cuz he thought nobody in our town could have PC strong enough to handle it.
Fun fact, the game can almost use 4GB of VRAM for 1080p, that means, the GTX1050 mobile 4GB is the minimum for 1080p 60fps maxed out settings for the OG 2007 version.
Missed the old days of browsing game cds in gameshops and talking to people there just nice random chats with random people but always a goodfeel place to go to
Remember seeing the visuals of Crysis back in the day.....all the way back in 2007. Blew many minds back then and still holds its own nowerdays, certainly better than some of the games being churned out in 23/24/ Thanks for the video Steve 🙂
2:45 Finally a test to see if the super high clocked 14th gen chips can hit 60fps. Digital Foundry tested the i7-8700k on Ascension which couldnt hit 60fps on that level.
To anyone not having tried Crysis from 2007 before, the game is super single threades and was kind of made with the asumption that future cpus would hit 9ghz... Case in point, 14900k is only running at 5%... RTX 4080? 99%
Seeing the CPU usage at 5% gives a hint about what the issue is (lack of multithreading). The 4080 Super being given a workout though is likely because of the resolution and ypu cranking up the antialiasing. At 4K, I would keep the AA off ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yep. A lot of people still seem to be under the impression that this game runs poorly because it was "too advanced for its time" or whatever, but in reality it's just terribly optimized on the CPU side to the point where it can basically only use a single core. -And as you suggested, if you set antialiasing to high or very high Crysis uses 2x or 4x "FSAA". AKA supersampling. Which obviously is crazy expensive at 4K.- edit: (nvm he's using 8x MSAA, still pretty expensive though) Funny thing is, assuming that's what we're looking at here, the 4080 Super still isn't maxed out. That's a 320w GPU, but it's only drawing 200w here. So it's still being bottlenecked by the CPU. 14900k is a 32 thread CPU. So 1 thread at 100% = ~3% total usage. The video shows 5%, so I would bet the game is just completely maxing one thread and using a little bit of a second, whilst the other 30 threads are asleep. If the game had decent multithreading, the 4080 Super could probably run the game maxed out at 90+ FPS even in unpatched Ascension, and probably 200-300 everywhere else.
I actually remembering hearing that Crytek predicted the future of CPU's was to stay at single core but to reach LUDICROUS clock speeds, like 20Ghz, so they 'future proofed' Crysis based on that idea, then multi-core CPUs became a thing around this time and clock speeds kind of plateaued in response, meaning the original release of Crysis was going to run like shit until we reached a point where our multi-core CPUs each have a 20Ghz per core.....until the remaster added in multi-core support. I still hope I live to see the day that someone benchmarks the original Crysis on a ridiculously strong single core
I've been watching your videos since 2016, and I just wanted to say that it's amazing to see how far you've come. You have an amazing channel, and your dedication and work doesn't go unnoticed. Thanks for another video!
Kids these days can't appreciate or understand how good Crysis looked in 2007 compared to anything else out there. It was such a leap forward in graphics that saying it was 10 years ahead of time is an understatement. Still looks better than most games coming out today and has a far more detailed and interactive environment, everything is physics based, every leaf on every bush or tree moves as you walk through it or shoot bullets at it, every piece of wood, bucket on the ground, fence, chair, shack, etc. is using real time physics to behave properly and can be destroyed. Every bullet you shoot at someone has weight to it and creates a realistic impact on rag doll bodies of enemies. It's not just the graphics that made Crysis hard to run, but physics too. Not to mention the size of the world, as the whole island was basically active at all times in every mission, with flying mods you can fly anywhere on the island and find npc's, etc.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now you're missing the point too. 8x AA was always pointless over 4x and terrible for performance cost/benefit, in fact that's why it's almost never included in the settings, and is infinitely more pointless and completely unnecessarily more taxing at 4K. With more reasonable AA settings like None or 4x, the results could have been actually telling and useful, these are pretty much pointless and useless.
No, 8x MSAA is just a complete waste. It doesn't improve image quality. Best to stick to 2x MSAA. Anything more than 2x is barely noticeable or not noticeable at all@@Google_Does_Evil_Now
8x msa its equivalent 16k native resolution. Btw. Not only this game suck when use x4 x8 msa. Tomb raider 2013 has same problem x8 on my 1440p monitor its equivalent 4k. When use x6 my 3070 about 50fps. When use msa x4 its 150-165hz my monitor has 165 max refresh. Same problem us a plague tale innocence if you are quality scale to 150 its native 4k. Your monitor see 1440p but gpu see native 4k. 😮
It feels like many modern games follow Crysis' legacy, unoptimized and relies on future technology to run smoothly 😂😂. Though I still love Crysis and its impact as a benchmark for pc gamers over a decade later.
I don’t think Crysis was unoptimized at the time. It’s just that they actually were pushing the boundaries of graphical fidelity. These days, games don’t push anything at all, and still run poorly. Which shows actual poor optimization.
Atlteast crysis have legit reson for being intensive , i mean crysis look way better than any single games at that time unlike newer aaa games which barely look batter than average pre 2020 aaa games but run way worse
This is the kind of benchmark (1080p of course) that the new 8000 Series APU's should be put under. It would be interesting to see how well an APU can handle a Desktop Killer title.
The original looks "natural" to you, because you live in the UK (no offense lol), I've seen this being said a lot, And as someone who lives in a place like where crysis takes place, I can confirm the remaster is more real and natural, you can almost go blind here at 11 to 2 pm if you see the ocean or sand, greenery is GREEN, everything shines and has tons of contrast, we are also happy and paint everything on bright colours. I find funny that statement thats all, also on Assassins creed Blackflag, that's how the Caribbean looks like its a bit overwhelming lol.
This game blew our minds back in the day, but it wasn't just the graphics, it was the AI, the atmosphere, the combat dynamics (especially on hardest difficulty), it was a great game, I played it through countless times, great memories
It's only demanding because it's mostly a single core game which can utilize a second core for some specific tasks. So it will run as fast only as a single core in your CPU. If it scaled as well as modern games do - you'd be seeing minimum FPS in hundreds. CPU utilization of 5% is all you need to know.
While I would not say Crysis had ultra realistic physics one of the things I liked about the original crysis was the sense of interaction one had with the world around them. Blowing up huts vehicles etc.. Just felt satisfying. Many modern games seem to be very static. Is this just me?
I miss back when developers allowed you to make their games look like ars so you could even play it. Most modern games only become slightly less difficult to run on the lowest settings.
this really saved me when I had a super crap pc as a kid, a lot of the times, being able to turn off shadows made the difference of being playable, guess what, nowadays barely any games let you turn them off....
What have game programmers been doing in the past 15 years? New games look marginally better and they have NON DESTRUCTIBLE environment! You can hammer a house or tree with a bazooka and it STILL STANDS! Look at this game here, 01:40. He throws a grenade and the tree a few metres away from the explosion shakes! There's so much attention to detail here. I remember hiding in the greenery near the beach, and as you hunker down, the sound gets muted a little as well, just like it would it real life. I could literally feel the wet sand at my face. Amazing game. Fun to play too.
Just started playing Crysis 2 remastered on an RTX3070 paired with an i9 9900k. Literally just purchased and downloaded it on Steam. It was on sale. It looks and plays well at 1440p at 120hz on high. The FPS does drop but is pretty consistent. Not that far in so dont know if I will have to tone down the settings. Looks to be a good game.
@@lostxtro7540 Right on. Thanks, I have a 3070 OC so probably will be about the same. Though I would want to run it on 3440x1440 so I would accept lower FPS for that trade off.
@@lostxtro7540 Do you think it looks improved enough to warrant a purchase? I mean, I saw trailers, and I’m not sure how much the graphics have improved from the original, which I already have.
The great thing about Crysis is that its not just eye candy, its also really great game. I think the remastered version isn't good enough though, afaik they remastered the console version of the game - thats just ridiculous, the console version was stripped back, so it'd be totally dumb to remaster that version.
There are 2 main reasons as to why the framerate can dip so low in Crysis. 1. The game is extremely single-thread limited. 2. Shader compilation stutter (yes, many older games have them too - even on DX9 and DX 10...)
Not as singlethreaded like Unreal Tournament 2004 (literally uses one thread, CPU load on the 14900K would be like 1%). Crysis has an absurd amount of vegetation and physics details, that hurts CPUs. You reduce rendering distance and helps CPU use for both the original and remaster, same as reducing physics quality.
@@deeziusnutsicanus3852 Yes, "most of the time". However, most of the time the game easily runs above 60 FPS, which should be the goal here in order to cap the framerate around 60 or a bit above or so and then let VRR take care of the rest. It is the heavy framerate drops and stutters that make this game still so demanding, even on a high-end system such as this one. Besides this I can tell you that running MSAA 8X is pretty demanding and overkill in this game, especially at 4K. WIth 2X, which is more than enough at this resolution, the game should run much faster. Also, don't forget that this is running uncapped, so the GPU is working tirelessly to hit 100% utilisation. Long story short, the cpu-limit only shows up in certain scenarios, such as the quick, but heavy slowdowns and stutters caused by physics, large amounts of AI, or asset streaming and of course during shader compilation stutter. If these issues weren't there, the game would probably never drop below 80 or 90 FPS, even with 4X MSAA on this system.
I'd love to try Crysis again after all these years on my three-year-old $6000 setup, but Origin doesn't accept Crysis CD keys for whatever reason, and I'm not paying $30 for a new license.
Crysis is the game that inspired me to build a gaming PC in 2009 when a friend of mine showed the game to me. I was close to graduating high school, so I decided to make that my senior project. Being a broke teen lead to a build consisting of an athlon dual core CPU and a Radeon hd 4670. Crysis didn't run well and the final boss was a slideshow, but I played it and I was SO happy!
Not for nothing, but I would like to see original Crysis FPS without the AA turned up to 8x at 4k resolution. Not for nothing, but not only does that kill your FPS, but is also probably unnoticeable at 4K resolution. 8x AA at 4k resolution is a little absurd.
I actually don’t think it should be expected for the newer release to run worse than the original. This is because 13 years is a really long time in technological terms. An updated version of the 13 year old game ought to be well optimized for hardware that didn’t even exist when the game originally released. A properly optimized version of a game with the foundational structure of a 13 year old game ought to run WAY better on modern hardware, than it’s older counterpart. The devs who did the remake really just shit the bed.
@@シミズルリ Yes, I think so. I suppose with new technologies aside, that haven’t been well optimized by their own rights. That said, most new games don’t even use ray tracing well anyway. There are games that do, which shows the truth of that claim. For example, Metro Exodus used ray tracing to improve the graphics, but that games runs really good for the eye candy it provides.
This is prime content and gets the point I have been trying to make for a few years now. WE NEED MORE PC ONLY TITLES!! Look at this! Look at the first 3 Stalker games! All of them without the console smudge tacked on uurgh.
I remember when I bought my First laptop in 2008 I played this game though the graphics setting was a medium and Absolutely love it. Such kind of Nostalgia I cannot feel from other things as this game. Real masterpiece👌
Why did the GT 710 cross the road? To get to the other side... because it heard the HD 630 was already running laps around the competition! Gt 710 vs hd 630
I actually thought the gameplay at the beginning was the remastered Crysis. It's unbelievable how well the 2007 release holds, especially on 4k. The remastered release is actually worse because the trees and rocks look plasticy.
Run it back in 2007 on my Athlon x2 + 7300GT. I was THE ONLY GUY in my neighborhood who was able to not only launch the game but actually play it on low graphics preset and 25-30 fps which was playable enough. And even with low graphics and 1024x768 resolution it was mind-blowing back then.
I remember precisely the day I walked into a futureshop (canadian equivalent of bestbuy) and seeing this game on a demo pc running on low settings. man how i miss those days....
I remember when Crisis first came out. It ran fine on a fellow workmates PC as far as I recall. He did have a top PC back then though, an 8800GT (or GTX, top end anyway) and a Q6700 Black Edition CPU. It amazes me modern systems have any issues with it now.
Wow! OG Crysis still looks sick!! I wish you could try some StarCraft 2 with that new pc.. I always struggle to run it over 85 FPS even on modernn harddware with all graphics settings maxed out! Amazing video as always :D
Loved the "Can it run Crysis?" quick setting button! I would say that 14900K + 4080 Super cannot run Crisis at 4K because 0.1% lows get too bad. I'd drop the resolution to 1440p because you cannot see much a difference anyway to 4K with any monitor sized smaller than 40".
My hatred for OG crisis is very real. Oh sure, when I upgraded to a Core 2 Quad, and 8800gts back then it claims I was getting 90fps in the demo, and yet it slogged the entire time more like 10fps. The audacity of it infuriated me to no end.
Just as a heads up the original Crysis version is best played using the x86 version and DX9 with one of the tricks to enable "Very High" graphics, DX10 is slower and less stable (both in frametimes and actual crashing) x64 is also slightly slower
I built an Intel Core 2 quad Q6600, EVGA 8800 GT Superclocked gaming rig just to play this when it first came out...I even added a 2nd 8800GT in SLI and still could only hope for 45-50FPS max but, man did it look "Glorious" for its time :)
Multi player was where the real testing took place. The processor was more important than the card, I low settings was the norm but I found a better hit register running on medium foam drops and all.
8x AA at 4K is way overkill. 😅 It is also interesting to note that the GPU utilisation metrics is highly unreliable. It was around 98% in both the original and the remaster but there was a 100W difference in power usage which indicates that the GPU was working a lot harder in the remaster. I've stopped watching the usage percentage to know if my GPU is getting stressed and instead check the power usage.
I remember, how much this this game back then really struggled to run at 40 - 50 FPS on 1920x1200 resolution on ATI HD 5870 and AMD HD 6970 paired to Core 2 Quad CPU. Now out of fun after couple of upgrades I tried the same on AMD Ryzen 9 7950X paired with AMD RX 7900 XTX on same 1920x1200 screen. I am using 120 FPS and 7950X sits at 4 - 7 % usage and 7900 XTX mostly runs 40 - 60 % usage. Back then Crysis was something in terms of being hard to run smoothly like today Cyberpunk or Alan Wake 2
Dear RandomGamingHD try also increase the drawing distance for all objects like grass, trees, stones, crates etc., like 10 folds and see what happens with you super card) I am getting in one particular map not far from the start of the game when you see the village from a hill where archeologist is taken hostage, around 36 fps. And I am playing 3440x1400 on a mighty RTX 4090 albeit my system is bit slower than yours but still, this masterpiece is still kicking all GPUs in their royal bottoms big time!
I remember upscaling far cry 1 to 4k via nvidia control panel and then running the game downscaled to my 1080p monitor,. It was so crisp and smooth and there were zero jagged edges.
I loved how demanding the original was, so that basically "can it run crysis?" meme was integrated into the remaster as an option. Cool part from devs.
I feel like the 7800x3D would have been a better choice of CPU for this, but that would have required an entirely different motherboard and motherboards are expensive
Ah yes classic AMD boyo sliding in the 7800X3D mention whenever someone dares to use an Intel equivalent chip for a game. News flash, it would've been hella worse, because Crysis loves single thread and high frequencies, things that the 7800X3D is anemic in.
The first two thirds of this game are absolutely excellent.... and then you spend the rest of the game shooting at the sky, at pixel sized flying aliens.
Nice, installing Crysis as I write this, remaining time 4 minutes 50 seconds... but seriously, Cryengine was always a GPU melter. Basically, I bought a gaming PC after seeing it running Crysis 1 as a demo in PC shop. Next day I returned and bought that same machine. Good times.
I ran this game on high with ray tracing on on my 7800xt, Ryzen 7 7700 non x and 32 GB of DDR5 6000mhz memory and had issues were I can run this game at say 120fps, 75fps whichever as it's a capable PC and it would hold that frame rate with good frame times even during combat and explosions but randomly the refresh rate/fps would just half. I even tried a 100hz display same thing frame drops to 50 randomly during seemingly non stressful situations and I knew it's not fps drops in the normal way as it half's exactly what your frame cap is and just sits there. So it's not a hardware issue. Crysis 1 was the only one that did this. What fixed it was going into my settings changing the frame cap apply it and then change it back. This was on the remastered version
I think the original game was a lot more stressful on a single-core, or maybe 2 cpu cores that was becoming a standard at the time. I also remember running a DVI to HDMI cable out to a TV as a 2nd screen and the game liked to default to 24Hz but you could set a custom resolution to 'trick' it to allow 60.
Maxing out AA at 2160 is probably gratuitous, doesn't add anything to image quality but heavily impacts FPS and frame times. Slightly confused by the CPU stats and multi-core utilisation, AFAIK both versions of Crysis use a single core (two threads?) and frequency determines how well a CPU handles the game (the 5.67GHz for the 14900K is way beyond what anyone had even 5 years ago, let alone back in the late 2000's)
It's still impressive how far ahead the visuals for this game actually were.. even by todays standards!
Yeah a very impressive game indeed. Video compression doesn’t do it justice
The fact that it doesn't have dogshit TAA makes it automatically superior to today's games
Interesting how low the power consumption is in the original, despite max GPU utilization. I guess there are some old engine/API limitations that prevent the game from utilizing the full potential of the raster pipeline in modern cards. That could be a cool Digital Foundry analysis.
The main thing is, that it wasn't developed with console performance in mind, which usually is one of the main limiting factors in game developement. If you don't focus on that demographic and just see how far you can push the envelope, the result are games like Crysis. You could argue that it was a tech demo that was turned into an actual game
Only the vegetation and the five main characters. 😶
But the actual game assets are super nasty. Like the vehicles and the burned out civilian cars. They're basically PS2 era models that you'd see in an old GTA game, very low poly.
And well. The KPA troops never looked that good.
And then the ships crew characters all look like autogenerated facepunch models
But like.. yeah man. Those face screenshots from before there was ever video recorded for crysis . Made direct10 look so cool
Good to see the OG crysis still causing a crisis
Haha yeah
lmfao best thing i read today
😂
BADUM TIS
For a game that was released in 2007, it still looks amazing
It doesn't contain nasty TAA that blurs everything in motion so visually it is superior to many dogshit unreal engine games of today
@@AverageDoomer69 That is sadly true
@Ioannis_Stf there are also people who play with motion blur enabled on a VA monitor that already has horrible ghosting & black smearing, and they see nothing wrong with it, visual diarrhea everytime you move the mouse/controller. Stop advocating for crap, we deserve better.
@@JokerX350 TAA=🤮
Well, back in 2007 nobody could run it. So I'm not sure that counts.
I love that there is a "Can it run Crysis?" graphics setting!
not sure they said settings will be 4+2
rt and physx should still customizable from my understanding
prob coming from updates the other 2
The remastered version is a disgrace to the Crysis legacy
@@ViceZone No it's not dummy
Wow, it took a decade worth of human evolution to run this game, truly a modern marvel.
😁
A decade? This game is from 2007!
@@xenotone3284a decade and a half 😅
All it takes is one community patch though.
@@EggplantHarmesan Decade and a half and a fifth of a decade
I remember back in 2008 going to the comptuer store, buying a new 8800GT 512mb. Then going to the video game store and buying this game. The guy at the counter asked me what GPU I had, being absent minded I just said "8600gt" because that was what I was upgrading from, and the guy just laughed at me.
And still laughs :D
ngl Crysis did and dug a big hole in our souls and our pockets
And I remember working part time at a game CD store. My boss had only one copy of Crysis just for display cuz he thought nobody in our town could have PC strong enough to handle it.
Fun fact, the game can almost use 4GB of VRAM for 1080p, that means, the GTX1050 mobile 4GB is the minimum for 1080p 60fps maxed out settings for the OG 2007 version.
Missed the old days of browsing game cds in gameshops and talking to people there just nice random chats with random people but always a goodfeel place to go to
The fauna, the colors, the atmosphere, the shadows.
This game has a grate atmosphere!
This is not RandomGaminginHD anymore, this is RandomGamingin4K!
Back to hd soon. Maybe even sub hd 😁
4K IS high definition haha
@@RandomGaminginHD 144p ?!?!
RandomGaminginUHD, you might say,,
@@kakashuuu *0.144p* coming soon
Remember seeing the visuals of Crysis back in the day.....all the way back in 2007. Blew many minds back then and still holds its own nowerdays, certainly better than some of the games being churned out in 23/24/ Thanks for the video Steve 🙂
It was late 2007, on my own first computer, Core2Duo E4400, 512MB ram, ATI Sapphire x1950gt, and I spent hours with the game after class..
Fun time..
I was scared that the dog was going to take a Jonny Cash on the computer when it walked past 😂
I was relieved it didnt do a donald trump
@@jesuschrist2284Donald dump
@@FilmGamerCom donald trump is slang for number 2, just like jonny cash is slang for number 1
2:45 Finally a test to see if the super high clocked 14th gen chips can hit 60fps. Digital Foundry tested the i7-8700k on Ascension which couldnt hit 60fps on that level.
Was it 10900k? Im not sure now.
This is why technology moved away from single core CPUs. With 14900K you get 15 cores that do nothing in Crysis and it shows.
To anyone not having tried Crysis from 2007 before, the game is super single threades and was kind of made with the asumption that future cpus would hit 9ghz... Case in point, 14900k is only running at 5%... RTX 4080? 99%
Yep. Also, the 5% is the average. It says nothing about the % of the different cores.
Seeing the CPU usage at 5% gives a hint about what the issue is (lack of multithreading). The 4080 Super being given a workout though is likely because of the resolution and ypu cranking up the antialiasing. At 4K, I would keep the AA off ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yep. A lot of people still seem to be under the impression that this game runs poorly because it was "too advanced for its time" or whatever, but in reality it's just terribly optimized on the CPU side to the point where it can basically only use a single core.
-And as you suggested, if you set antialiasing to high or very high Crysis uses 2x or 4x "FSAA". AKA supersampling. Which obviously is crazy expensive at 4K.- edit: (nvm he's using 8x MSAA, still pretty expensive though) Funny thing is, assuming that's what we're looking at here, the 4080 Super still isn't maxed out. That's a 320w GPU, but it's only drawing 200w here. So it's still being bottlenecked by the CPU.
14900k is a 32 thread CPU. So 1 thread at 100% = ~3% total usage. The video shows 5%, so I would bet the game is just completely maxing one thread and using a little bit of a second, whilst the other 30 threads are asleep.
If the game had decent multithreading, the 4080 Super could probably run the game maxed out at 90+ FPS even in unpatched Ascension, and probably 200-300 everywhere else.
I actually remembering hearing that Crytek predicted the future of CPU's was to stay at single core but to reach LUDICROUS clock speeds, like 20Ghz, so they 'future proofed' Crysis based on that idea, then multi-core CPUs became a thing around this time and clock speeds kind of plateaued in response, meaning the original release of Crysis was going to run like shit until we reached a point where our multi-core CPUs each have a 20Ghz per core.....until the remaster added in multi-core support.
I still hope I live to see the day that someone benchmarks the original Crysis on a ridiculously strong single core
showing how worthless it truly is. what a waste of silicon.
apparently the problem comes from the LUA ai script
@@thesyndrome43Remaster is still poor at supporting multi core cpus. Original crysis using 5 6% and remaster 10 to 12%.
I've been watching your videos since 2016, and I just wanted to say that it's amazing to see how far you've come. You have an amazing channel, and your dedication and work doesn't go unnoticed. Thanks for another video!
Kids these days can't appreciate or understand how good Crysis looked in 2007 compared to anything else out there. It was such a leap forward in graphics that saying it was 10 years ahead of time is an understatement. Still looks better than most games coming out today and has a far more detailed and interactive environment, everything is physics based, every leaf on every bush or tree moves as you walk through it or shoot bullets at it, every piece of wood, bucket on the ground, fence, chair, shack, etc. is using real time physics to behave properly and can be destroyed. Every bullet you shoot at someone has weight to it and creates a realistic impact on rag doll bodies of enemies. It's not just the graphics that made Crysis hard to run, but physics too. Not to mention the size of the world, as the whole island was basically active at all times in every mission, with flying mods you can fly anywhere on the island and find npc's, etc.
8x msaa is a lot for 4k so you could probably lower it and claw back some performance. or use DLDSR
Yeah, that was like intentionally dumb and ruined the point of the video. It would have been much better to see the FPS at 4K NoAA and 4x.
The purpose was to show maximum beautiful detail and to see if modern high tier hardware could run Crysis in full HD. It just about can.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now you're missing the point too. 8x AA was always pointless over 4x and terrible for performance cost/benefit, in fact that's why it's almost never included in the settings, and is infinitely more pointless and completely unnecessarily more taxing at 4K. With more reasonable AA settings like None or 4x, the results could have been actually telling and useful, these are pretty much pointless and useless.
No, 8x MSAA is just a complete waste. It doesn't improve image quality. Best to stick to 2x MSAA. Anything more than 2x is barely noticeable or not noticeable at all@@Google_Does_Evil_Now
8x msa its equivalent 16k native resolution. Btw. Not only this game suck when use x4 x8 msa. Tomb raider 2013 has same problem x8 on my 1440p monitor its equivalent 4k. When use x6 my 3070 about 50fps. When use msa x4 its 150-165hz my monitor has 165 max refresh. Same problem us a plague tale innocence if you are quality scale to 150 its native 4k. Your monitor see 1440p but gpu see native 4k. 😮
RIP Chicken 😢
00:25 OMG I thought the good boy (dog) was gonna pee against the PC :D
It feels like many modern games follow Crysis' legacy, unoptimized and relies on future technology to run smoothly 😂😂. Though I still love Crysis and its impact as a benchmark for pc gamers over a decade later.
Yeah it’s a legendary game tbh, just for how it’s shaped the world of benchmarking alone
I don’t think Crysis was unoptimized at the time. It’s just that they actually were pushing the boundaries of graphical fidelity.
These days, games don’t push anything at all, and still run poorly. Which shows actual poor optimization.
Except their graphics are shit at the same time
At least crysis actually looked the part.
Atlteast crysis have legit reson for being intensive , i mean crysis look way better than any single games at that time unlike newer aaa games which barely look batter than average pre 2020 aaa games but run way worse
This is the kind of benchmark (1080p of course) that the new 8000 Series APU's should be put under. It would be interesting to see how well an APU can handle a Desktop Killer title.
04:22 hurricane physics 🤤
The original looks "natural" to you, because you live in the UK (no offense lol), I've seen this being said a lot, And as someone who lives in a place like where crysis takes place, I can confirm the remaster is more real and natural, you can almost go blind here at 11 to 2 pm if you see the ocean or sand, greenery is GREEN, everything shines and has tons of contrast, we are also happy and paint everything on bright colours. I find funny that statement thats all, also on Assassins creed Blackflag, that's how the Caribbean looks like its a bit overwhelming lol.
That’s a good point. Usually quite dull here haha
@6:38 Rest in peace little chicken dude you will be remembered 😂
4:06 a moment of silence, immediately preparing to retry the level
This game blew our minds back in the day, but it wasn't just the graphics, it was the AI, the atmosphere, the combat dynamics (especially on hardest difficulty), it was a great game, I played it through countless times, great memories
It's only demanding because it's mostly a single core game which can utilize a second core for some specific tasks. So it will run as fast only as a single core in your CPU. If it scaled as well as modern games do - you'd be seeing minimum FPS in hundreds. CPU utilization of 5% is all you need to know.
Crysis still looks amazing! And look at the Ram usage, only 1100-1200MB and about 4Gb Vram, thats amazing!
While I would not say Crysis had ultra realistic physics one of the things I liked about the original crysis was the sense of interaction one had with the world around them. Blowing up huts vehicles etc.. Just felt satisfying. Many modern games seem to be very static. Is this just me?
i cant belive a game made two decades ago needs a 4080 Super to run
There was a time and a company that made games scalable for the future.
I miss back when developers allowed you to make their games look like ars so you could even play it. Most modern games only become slightly less difficult to run on the lowest settings.
this really saved me when I had a super crap pc as a kid, a lot of the times, being able to turn off shadows made the difference of being playable, guess what, nowadays barely any games let you turn them off....
and they still look bad on highest by comparison, too
if you install the ascension performance fix, it runs so much better
What have game programmers been doing in the past 15 years? New games look marginally better and they have NON DESTRUCTIBLE environment! You can hammer a house or tree with a bazooka and it STILL STANDS! Look at this game here, 01:40. He throws a grenade and the tree a few metres away from the explosion shakes! There's so much attention to detail here. I remember hiding in the greenery near the beach, and as you hunker down, the sound gets muted a little as well, just like it would it real life. I could literally feel the wet sand at my face.
Amazing game. Fun to play too.
Just started playing Crysis 2 remastered on an RTX3070 paired with an i9 9900k. Literally just purchased and downloaded it on Steam. It was on sale. It looks and plays well at 1440p at 120hz on high. The FPS does drop but is pretty consistent. Not that far in so dont know if I will have to tone down the settings. Looks to be a good game.
Nice, I was just looking at that game on the Steam store. How much of the CPU is it using for you? I have a 10600k.
Not had MSI afterburner running. But I suspect your CPU will perform the same or better than mine. I think the game is more GPU bound.@@brando3342
@@lostxtro7540 Right on. Thanks, I have a 3070 OC so probably will be about the same. Though I would want to run it on 3440x1440 so I would accept lower FPS for that trade off.
@@brando3342 Not had MSI afterburner running. But i think is more GPU bound and your CPU should perform the same or better than mine
@@lostxtro7540 Do you think it looks improved enough to warrant a purchase?
I mean, I saw trailers, and I’m not sure how much the graphics have improved from the original, which I already have.
The great thing about Crysis is that its not just eye candy, its also really great game. I think the remastered version isn't good enough though, afaik they remastered the console version of the game - thats just ridiculous, the console version was stripped back, so it'd be totally dumb to remaster that version.
Finished remaster at 4K RT on with my 6700 XT recently.
The colours in the remaster look like Far Cry 1.
There are 2 main reasons as to why the framerate can dip so low in Crysis.
1. The game is extremely single-thread limited.
2. Shader compilation stutter (yes, many older games have them too - even on DX9 and DX 10...)
Not as singlethreaded like Unreal Tournament 2004 (literally uses one thread, CPU load on the 14900K would be like 1%).
Crysis has an absurd amount of vegetation and physics details, that hurts CPUs. You reduce rendering distance and helps CPU use for both the original and remaster, same as reducing physics quality.
GPU is at 99% most of the time, it's legit GPU limited
@@deeziusnutsicanus3852 Yes, "most of the time". However, most of the time the game easily runs above 60 FPS, which should be the goal here in order to cap the framerate around 60 or a bit above or so and then let VRR take care of the rest. It is the heavy framerate drops and stutters that make this game still so demanding, even on a high-end system such as this one.
Besides this I can tell you that running MSAA 8X is pretty demanding and overkill in this game, especially at 4K. WIth 2X, which is more than enough at this resolution, the game should run much faster. Also, don't forget that this is running uncapped, so the GPU is working tirelessly to hit 100% utilisation. Long story short, the cpu-limit only shows up in certain scenarios, such as the quick, but heavy slowdowns and stutters caused by physics, large amounts of AI, or asset streaming and of course during shader compilation stutter. If these issues weren't there, the game would probably never drop below 80 or 90 FPS, even with 4X MSAA on this system.
I'd love to try Crysis again after all these years on my three-year-old $6000 setup, but Origin doesn't accept Crysis CD keys for whatever reason, and I'm not paying $30 for a new license.
but can it run half life at 144p ?
Not sure!
Pretty sure it can run HL2 at 8K no problem.
Crysis is the game that inspired me to build a gaming PC in 2009 when a friend of mine showed the game to me. I was close to graduating high school, so I decided to make that my senior project. Being a broke teen lead to a build consisting of an athlon dual core CPU and a Radeon hd 4670. Crysis didn't run well and the final boss was a slideshow, but I played it and I was SO happy!
Not for nothing, but I would like to see original Crysis FPS without the AA turned up to 8x at 4k resolution. Not for nothing, but not only does that kill your FPS, but is also probably unnoticeable at 4K resolution. 8x AA at 4k resolution is a little absurd.
That chicken's death will not be in vain. For the good of the video. RIP sir.
Original ends up looking more realistic solely due to its colour grading alone
I actually don’t think it should be expected for the newer release to run worse than the original. This is because 13 years is a really long time in technological terms. An updated version of the 13 year old game ought to be well optimized for hardware that didn’t even exist when the game originally released.
A properly optimized version of a game with the foundational structure of a 13 year old game ought to run WAY better on modern hardware, than it’s older counterpart.
The devs who did the remake really just shit the bed.
Do you really think so? Ray tracing is pretty hard to run.
@@シミズルリ Yes, I think so. I suppose with new technologies aside, that haven’t been well optimized by their own rights. That said, most new games don’t even use ray tracing well anyway. There are games that do, which shows the truth of that claim. For example, Metro Exodus used ray tracing to improve the graphics, but that games runs really good for the eye candy it provides.
Run it with the community patch
Games back then had so much depth... You can feel the depth of crisis it's so calm and so full idk how to explain
This is prime content and gets the point I have been trying to make for a few years now. WE NEED MORE PC ONLY TITLES!!
Look at this! Look at the first 3 Stalker games! All of them without the console smudge tacked on uurgh.
I remember when I bought my First laptop in 2008 I played this game though the graphics setting was a medium and Absolutely love it. Such kind of Nostalgia I cannot feel from other things as this game. Real masterpiece👌
Why did the GT 710 cross the road?
To get to the other side... because it heard the HD 630 was already running laps around the competition!
Gt 710 vs hd 630
Good work 👍
I actually thought the gameplay at the beginning was the remastered Crysis. It's unbelievable how well the 2007 release holds, especially on 4k. The remastered release is actually worse because the trees and rocks look plasticy.
17 years later i can't believe it, still looks great. i remember my 8800gt when this came out.
Run it back in 2007 on my Athlon x2 + 7300GT. I was THE ONLY GUY in my neighborhood who was able to not only launch the game but actually play it on low graphics preset and 25-30 fps which was playable enough. And even with low graphics and 1024x768 resolution it was mind-blowing back then.
I remember precisely the day I walked into a futureshop (canadian equivalent of bestbuy) and seeing this game on a demo pc running on low settings. man how i miss those days....
Last time I played Crysis to completion was about a decade ago. Why don't I remember a flying level? So weird.
I wonder will we be getting remaster of the remaster versions of the games in the future.
This is one of the most important video games in the evolution of gaming
I remember when Crisis first came out. It ran fine on a fellow workmates PC as far as I recall. He did have a top PC back then though, an 8800GT (or GTX, top end anyway) and a Q6700 Black Edition CPU. It amazes me modern systems have any issues with it now.
Wow! OG Crysis still looks sick!! I wish you could try some StarCraft 2 with that new pc.. I always struggle to run it over 85 FPS even on modernn harddware with all graphics settings maxed out! Amazing video as always :D
Loved the "Can it run Crysis?" quick setting button! I would say that 14900K + 4080 Super cannot run Crisis at 4K because 0.1% lows get too bad. I'd drop the resolution to 1440p because you cannot see much a difference anyway to 4K with any monitor sized smaller than 40".
Think I ran this on a q6600. And gtx460, came to it a few years late but looked great and still does. It's also a good game, not a tech demo
3:28 that's a very pretty video card IMO
Consistency on the remastered version is impressive.
My hatred for OG crisis is very real. Oh sure, when I upgraded to a Core 2 Quad, and 8800gts back then it claims I was getting 90fps in the demo, and yet it slogged the entire time more like 10fps. The audacity of it infuriated me to no end.
Amazing to see how good that game looks after 15 years
Just as a heads up the original Crysis version is best played using the x86 version and DX9 with one of the tricks to enable "Very High" graphics, DX10 is slower and less stable (both in frametimes and actual crashing) x64 is also slightly slower
My experience was the opposite - better framerate in DX10 than DX9.
I built an Intel Core 2 quad Q6600, EVGA 8800 GT Superclocked gaming rig just to play this when it first came out...I even added a 2nd 8800GT in SLI and still could only hope for 45-50FPS max but, man did it look "Glorious" for its time :)
Not playing the PC port of the Switch port?
Multi player was where the real testing took place. The processor was more important than the card, I low settings was the norm but I found a better hit register running on medium foam drops and all.
8x AA at 4K is way overkill. 😅
It is also interesting to note that the GPU utilisation metrics is highly unreliable. It was around 98% in both the original and the remaster but there was a 100W difference in power usage which indicates that the GPU was working a lot harder in the remaster. I've stopped watching the usage percentage to know if my GPU is getting stressed and instead check the power usage.
I remember, how much this this game back then really struggled to run at 40 - 50 FPS on 1920x1200 resolution on ATI HD 5870 and AMD HD 6970 paired to Core 2 Quad CPU. Now out of fun after couple of upgrades I tried the same on AMD Ryzen 9 7950X paired with AMD RX 7900 XTX on same 1920x1200 screen. I am using 120 FPS and 7950X sits at 4 - 7 % usage and 7900 XTX mostly runs 40 - 60 % usage.
Back then Crysis was something in terms of being hard to run smoothly like today Cyberpunk or Alan Wake 2
Dear RandomGamingHD try also increase the drawing distance for all objects like grass, trees, stones, crates etc., like 10 folds and see what happens with you super card) I am getting in one particular map not far from the start of the game when you see the village from a hill where archeologist is taken hostage, around 36 fps. And I am playing 3440x1400 on a mighty RTX 4090 albeit my system is bit slower than yours but still, this masterpiece is still kicking all GPUs in their royal bottoms big time!
I remember upscaling far cry 1 to 4k via nvidia control panel and then running the game downscaled to my 1080p monitor,. It was so crisp and smooth and there were zero jagged edges.
Why not use DSR to get 8k working on 4k monitor ?
8k > MSAA x8 just FYI ;)
Finally, I've seen a PC that can utilize the "Can It Run Crysis?" settings! Not bad at all!
does DXVK work with the original release?
Yes, but only gives meaningful improvements in DX9.
G'day Random,
2:33 🤔Hot Shots. Cost comparison down here...
What do I think about the parts in the build i9-14900KF $869AUD + PNY RTX4080SUPER VERTO Overclocked $1699AUD = $2568AUD Vs...
R7 7800X3D $589AUD + XFX Speedster MERC 310 RX7900XTX $1579AUD + Gigabyte B650M DS3H $239AUD + G.Skill Flare X5 32GB (2x16GB) 6000-CL32 (AMD) $169AUD Total = $2576.
Rather have the Intel build
@RandomGamingHD you didn't include the Ascension Performance Fix... did you?
This is the star ciTizen engine right?
the game is so demanding that even the video lags a bit in the ascension part
Hopefully you'll also test 2nd and 3rd release!
Hey bro can you check out the quadro p4000 if its good for gaming
I loved how demanding the original was, so that basically "can it run crysis?" meme was integrated into the remaster as an option. Cool part from devs.
For consistency, I seem to recall running it at 720p on a GTX 470 and a Phenom X3. The good ol' days! 😄
I feel like the 7800x3D would have been a better choice of CPU for this, but that would have required an entirely different motherboard and motherboards are expensive
Ah yes classic AMD boyo sliding in the 7800X3D mention whenever someone dares to use an Intel equivalent chip for a game. News flash, it would've been hella worse, because Crysis loves single thread and high frequencies, things that the 7800X3D is anemic in.
160 bucks for a mobo isn't that bad dude
Ah man, I wish the doggo had weed on it. I know you wouldn’t have been happy but it would have been comedy gold.
I have started to play the game again in remastered version and it's so much better. But the Graphics back then...have been just wow.
when it comes to vibe colors . it gives me tarkov vibes when you turn saturation to 100
The first two thirds of this game are absolutely excellent.... and then you spend the rest of the game shooting at the sky, at pixel sized flying aliens.
Nice, installing Crysis as I write this, remaining time 4 minutes 50 seconds... but seriously, Cryengine was always a GPU melter. Basically, I bought a gaming PC after seeing it running Crysis 1 as a demo in PC shop. Next day I returned and bought that same machine. Good times.
Would dxvk help running this better?
The fact that i played this game on my intel hd 4000 4gb ram and finished it(same for CRYSIS 2) at lowest settings of course
00:27 idk why i expected the dog to stop and piss on it
I ran this game on high with ray tracing on on my 7800xt, Ryzen 7 7700 non x and 32 GB of DDR5 6000mhz memory and had issues were I can run this game at say 120fps, 75fps whichever as it's a capable PC and it would hold that frame rate with good frame times even during combat and explosions but randomly the refresh rate/fps would just half. I even tried a 100hz display same thing frame drops to 50 randomly during seemingly non stressful situations and I knew it's not fps drops in the normal way as it half's exactly what your frame cap is and just sits there. So it's not a hardware issue. Crysis 1 was the only one that did this. What fixed it was going into my settings changing the frame cap apply it and then change it back. This was on the remastered version
3840x2160 + 8xMSAA Equals to 7680x4320 no AA same fps performance.
Bro how are your temps so low... liquid nitrogen??
I think the original game was a lot more stressful on a single-core, or maybe 2 cpu cores that was becoming a standard at the time. I also remember running a DVI to HDMI cable out to a TV as a 2nd screen and the game liked to default to 24Hz but you could set a custom resolution to 'trick' it to allow 60.
Maxing out AA at 2160 is probably gratuitous, doesn't add anything to image quality but heavily impacts FPS and frame times. Slightly confused by the CPU stats and multi-core utilisation, AFAIK both versions of Crysis use a single core (two threads?) and frequency determines how well a CPU handles the game (the 5.67GHz for the 14900K is way beyond what anyone had even 5 years ago, let alone back in the late 2000's)
Should've used DXVK on Crysis as well
Wow, a 4080 super is needed to make a 4 years old game to run at 4k at 80 fps. A real melter