@alexanrs, try a 64-bit run, should get a few fps boost.

Here's a 64bit run of my system, ran a 32bit one on page 2.

Mmm. I love a good benchmark thread.
Here's my turbocharged PIII running Crysis in Fugly Mode (800x600 Low, DX9/XP)

Full specs are:
PIII-S at 1575MHz. 150MHz FSB
2GB PC3200 @ 300MHz, 2-2-2-6
GeForce 6800GT, driver 307.83
SB X-Fi ExtremeMusic
QDI Advance 12T motherboard/VIA Apollo Pro 266T chipset
XP Pro SP3

philscomputerlab wrote:

PS: Under XP it seems you can only select High, not Very high. I will add a note to the first post.

Yes, that's because XP runs the DX9 version of the engine, which has less levels of detail (you can also run that on Vista and higher, with a commandline switch, I believe -DX9).
Mind you, the detail levels are not the same between DX9 and DX10. So if you run DX9 and DX10 both on High, they still look different. The DX10 version makes the most of DX10, using specially tuned algorithms based on the new texture formats and such, which you especially notice on the shadows, and also on the HDR colour grading.

Whats the absolut minimum for running crysis benchmark ?

A PIII 450Mhz with Radeon 95xx series card and 512Mb ?

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Mmm. I love a good benchmark thread.
Here's my turbocharged PIII running Crysis in Fugly Mode (800x600 Low, DX9/XP)

That's an impressive result and a unique and cool combination of parts.

Scali wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

PS: Under XP it seems you can only select High, not Very high. I will add a note to the first post.

Yes, that's because XP runs the DX9 version of the engine, which has less levels of detail (you can also run that on Vista and higher, with a commandline switch, I believe -DX9).
Mind you, the detail levels are not the same between DX9 and DX10. So if you run DX9 and DX10 both on High, they still look different. The DX10 version makes the most of DX10, using specially tuned algorithms based on the new texture formats and such, which you especially notice on the shadows, and also on the HDR colour grading.

It's just that under Vista+, the benchmark tool let's you run at Very high and DX9, at least I thought I did, so I assumed that was also the case under XP. But good to know that there is a benefit for playing this on newer operating systems.

matze79 wrote:

Whats the absolut minimum for running crysis benchmark ?
A PIII 450Mhz with Radeon 95xx series card and 512Mb ?

We're still finding out 😀

From what I gather a R300 based Radeon is required. I tried a PC 9200SE and it came up with a "not supported" message. The driver for this card has the words "pre R300 in it".

Seeing it runs on a Pentium III, and we've seen it run on 512 MB, maybe a Pentium II/III Slot 1 system with some crappy GeForce 6 LE/SE/VE whatever edition 🤣

Cool thing about Crysis is that gameplay is very smooth even on less than 60 FPS. I remember beating the game first on my 4870 with FPS around 40-45 and it still played very nice. Crazy engine for the time it was developed. If only we progressed from there, most engines nowadays would be capable of delivering stunning stuff.

i get an average Framerate of 10 fps on a Dual Coppermine 1Ghz, 2Gb Ram PC133, VIA Chipset, GeForce 6800GT 128Mb DDR1 (Leaktek).
Maybe it crashes currently sometimes, Power Supply turns off.

philscomputerlab wrote:

It's just that under Vista+, the benchmark tool let's you run at Very high and DX9, at least I thought I did, so I assumed that was also the case under XP. But good to know that there is a benefit for playing this on newer operating systems.

In that case that may be a bug. I'm quite sure that if you start the game in DX9 mode (even on Vista and newer OSes), that the "Very High"-setting simply isn't available. So the benchmark tool shouldn't allow you to select it either.

But yes, Crysis was pretty much the 'poster child' game for Vista/DX10. It was the first big game release with a full DX10-oriented engine and content.
There were some 'DX10' games released before Crysis, but they were of the 'checkbox' variety, and were just a DX9 game with one or two DX10-effects tacked on.
Crysis in DX10 stood the test of time very well, and even today at 4k resolution and Very High detail, it doesn't look all that dated compared to the latest games.
Not bad for a game from 2007.

Snayperskaya wrote:

Cool thing about Crysis is that gameplay is very smooth even on less than 60 FPS. I remember beating the game first on my 4870 with FPS around 40-45 and it still played very nice. Crazy engine for the time it was developed. If only we progressed from there, most engines nowadays would be capable of delivering stunning stuff.

Yes, I started playing Crysis on Vista with DX10 on an 8800GTS320. Initially it wasn't very playable, since there were bugs in Crysis, the nVidia drivers and in Vista itself, mostly related to memory-management, and especially poor on a 320MB card.
But after some patches were released, it became quite playable. My setup would generally not go above 25-30 fps, but that was good enough to play the game.
I have replayed it a few times since. When I got my Radeon 5770, I could play it with 4xAA enabled (the 8800GTS320 could only play it with no AA). And I played it again once I had my 1080p screen.
And recently I got a GTX970 and a 4k screen, and although it won't do much more than 30 fps in 3840x2160 and 4xAA at Very High, it's very playable and it still looks great.
Crysis 2 and 3 add some DX11 features to the mix, such as tessellation, but it doesn't make that much of a difference in practice. The original Crysis already had very nicely detailed geometry, and used POM to simulate displacement mapping, which worked quite well in practice.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Tried a FX 5500 🤣

That reminds me, I tried running this benchmark with an FX 5950 Ultra a couple days ago. The exact same thing happened:

So what's the crappiest GF6? 6200? 🤣

I believe that there are some 6100 mobile chips, that should be slow... or going the 6200 way, the 64-bit variants should be horrible xD

HP unleashed a plague of cheapo Athlon systems with nForces that have 6150SEs on board. Up to 2008. Yeah, that's not good stuff. I do have such a board with it though...

calvin wrote:

HP unleashed a plague of cheapo Athlon systems with nForces that have 6150SEs on board. Up to 2008. Yeah, that's not good stuff. I do have such a board with it though...

Oh I got a board with nForce 4 chipset 😀

It crashed the first run right away, second went fine. 32 bit and nothing overclocked.

Damn, what a nice system!

Pentium G2130
Radeon X1900 XTX
2 GB DDR3 1066 Mhz
Asrock H61MV-ITX
Windows XP SP3

DX9 1280x1024, high -> 19.38 fps

And now one GPU generation later 😀

Pentium G2130
Radeon HD 2900 XT (default clock - 743/1660 MHz)
2 GB DDR3 1066 Mhz
Asrock H61MV-ITX
Windows XP SP3

DX9 1280x1024, high -> 34 fps

Scali wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

PS: Under XP it seems you can only select High, not Very high. I will add a note to the first post.

Yes, that's because XP runs the DX9 version of the engine, which has less levels of detail (you can also run that on Vista and higher, with a commandline switch, I believe -DX9).
Mind you, the detail levels are not the same between DX9 and DX10. So if you run DX9 and DX10 both on High, they still look different. The DX10 version makes the most of DX10, using specially tuned algorithms based on the new texture formats and such, which you especially notice on the shadows, and also on the HDR colour grading.

Being able to select Very High only on DX10 was mostly a much needed publicity stunt for Microsoft and their Vista marketing. As explained by this article, it's easily possible to force Very High settings under DX9/XP, and the results are nearly identical with playing the game in DX10 Very High settings.

And here's a Socket 939 system.

Athlon 64 3700 @ 2.64GHz
2GB PC3200 @ 440MHz, CL2.5
GeForce 6800GT, driver 307.64
Gigabyte K8NSC-939 - nForce3 250gb chipset
XP SP3 and Win7 SP1

Test 1: WinXP, Low, 800x600

Test 2: Win7, Very High, 1280x1024, DX9. A complete slideshow. For about a half an hour, the 6800GT was truly hating its life. 😁