Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Crysis 2 demo on 2010 MBP was horrendous...

xi mezmerize ix

xi mezmerize ix

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 24, 2010
602
0
Maryland, USA
I thought that when Crytek announced that Crysis 2 would be less demanding than Crysis 1, I would be able to run it on the same settings as I do Crysis 1: medium to high settings at 1440x900 with 20-30 FPS. I at least hoped that I would be able to play the game in general. But in this demo, I played on low (Gamer) at 800x600 and was getting >20 FPS. WTF?!?!?!? I don't mind having low settings, but anything lower than native res just looks horrible (this goes for any game).

Specs are in my sig. Anyone having the same issue or know what's going on?

EDIT: I PLAYED IN BOOTCAMP.
 
Last edited:
http://www.geforce.com/#/Optimize/Guides/crysis-2-benchmarks

if you read that, might give you some insight. It's still demanding game, but at least on their "gamer" setting they say it's still better than medium/low setting in Crysis 1.

As for getting it to play better, that sucks, I"m guessing maybe the demo is not very well optimized.. but neither was Crysis 1 lol. You try the drivers they used in the benchmark? Could help.
 
uh try bootcamp
and crysis is graphic whore, try playing on a desktop?

and graphics ain't everything.
 
If you guys remember, the original Crysis ran crappy on every computer out there. Those guys really projected too far into the future imo. I would think that if it is slated for Xbox 360, it would have to be a little less demanding, no?
 
Go to activity monitor (um task manager) and put game at high priority. See if that helps.

You need to do this every time.
 
The GT330M is a terrible GPU for high performance gaming. Terrible.

It only looks great compared to the GPU it replaced, the 9400M, because the 9400M itself was terrible too.

The benchmarks for the GT330M are really low-to-medium end on 2010 games, and that's when paired with a quad-core i7 and the GPU has 1GB of RAM. In your MBP, compared to the benchmarks, the GT330M is crippled with 512MB of RAM and paired with a Dual Core i5.

Benches:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html

MBP is just not a gaming machine.

You can hope that Crysis2 might get further optimized over time with performance-related patches and/or Nvidia driver updates specifically addressing Crysis2.

Another possibility is that you've hit the RAM limit and Crysis2 is paging to the rather slow laptop drive. Load up the game, hit CTRL-ALT-DEL, and check your RAM usage. If you're using all of it, you need more RAM.
 
xi mezmerize ix said:
I thought that when Crytek announced that Crysis 2 would be less demanding than Crysis 1, I would be able to run it on the same settings as I do Crysis 1: medium to high settings at 1440x900 with 20-30 FPS. I at least hoped that I would be able to play the game in general. But in this demo, I played on low (Gamer) at 800x600 and was getting >20 FPS. WTF?!?!?!? I don't mind having low settings, but anything lower than native res just looks horrible (this goes for any game).

Specs are in my sig. Anyone having the same issue or know what's going on?

EDIT: I PLAYED IN BOOTCAMP.
Click to expand...

This is NOT a issue. Your MBP does NOT even meet minimum requirements. At minimum it requires an 8800GT which is 4 years old. An 8800GT is 5x faster than a GT330M. Why would you think it would run good? Since you are not meeting the requirements you are saying that its an issue when its clearly not.
 
Huntn said:
If you guys remember, the original Crysis ran crappy on every computer out there. Those guys really projected too far into the future imo. I would think that if it is slated for Xbox 360, it would have to be a little less demanding, no?
Click to expand...

Crysis did not run crappy on any computers that met the requirements. People will try playing on their outdated that does not meet requirements and blame the developers that it is poorly coded, like you. People who say stupid things like its unoptimized really grinds my gears. Crysis 2 demo on my PC ran it maxed with FPS always > 40 while that avg is around is a little above the 60s and i do not have an enthusiast PC.

As for the 360, that is a great feat. Making a game that looks as good as it does run on 6 year old hardware is amazing.
 
Ace134blue said:
This is NOT a issue. Your MBP does NOT even meet minimum requirements. At minimum it requires an 8800GT which is 4 years old. An 8800GT is 5x faster than a GT330M. Why would you think it would run good? Since you are not meeting the requirements you are saying that its an issue when its clearly not.
Click to expand...

The 8800GT (desktop) has a 3dmark06 at about 10k, the 330m around 7k.
10 is five times better than 7?
 
xi mezmerize ix said:
Have you seen the game on "gamer" settings with native res? It is still gorgeous. And it is better than running it at 800x600 on gamer which I had to resort to.
Click to expand...

Oh no doubt, if the 360 is what you have to do, then go for it. Just saying that's the case about 360/PS3. Also it probably will be running at lower that 720p resolution natively, and just upscaled. That's no problem for me though as I'll probably be playing it on xbox 360 too. It's a bummer there's no "ghetto" config mode where it's like bunkass low graphics on PC hahah
 
cluthz said:
The 8800GT (desktop) has a 3dmark06 at about 10k, the 330m around 7k.
10 is five times better than 7?
Click to expand...

Ah, for some reason i was thinking it had 32 cuda cores instead of 48.
3DMark06 is old and very CPU dependent. Vantage P score for the 8800GT 6672 while 330M is 2495. So 5 times is a bit off, more like 2.5x faster but still as it stands GT330M does not meet minimum requirements. Crysis is also very Memory bandwidth dependent, which where its double bandwidth helps quite a bit. 25.6 vs 57.6. Also 128bit vs 256bit

OP, maybe you should get a fast SSD, that will help with your avg FPS, and especially Minimum. It helped quite a bit for me.
 
The original Crysis allowed you to customise the graphics settings with a great level of depth by changing text files in the game directory. Perhaps Crysis 2 is similar?

P.S. With those two YouTube videos, how come the FPS for both seem to be in the 20-30 range? Considering the graphics levels and resolution are quite different, I would have thought there would be a more obvious difference in FPS?
 
Erasmus said:
The original Crysis allowed you to customise the graphics settings with a great level of depth by changing text files in the game directory. Perhaps Crysis 2 is similar?

P.S. With those two YouTube videos, how come the FPS for both seem to be in the 20-30 range? Considering the graphics levels and resolution are quite different, I would have thought there would be a more obvious difference in FPS?
Click to expand...

Changing the graphics results in very small FPS changes...at least that was the issue I was having.
 
xi mezmerize ix said:
Changing the graphics results in very small FPS changes...at least that was the issue I was having.
Click to expand...

If I can say this correctly, my impression is that a better graphic card mostly allows you to up the graphics to a higher resolution but does not have a big effect on performance, so lowering the resolution does not necessarily result in a big jump in frames.
 
I bought a refurb 2010 15" MBP and tried gaming on it and agree it sucks for gaming. You can get by. But eh that's not what I want.

I returned it. Going to build a Windows pc.

I want to play the upcoming Battlefield 3 on the pc. I have a 360 but ... I think I'm migrating back to what I like best. gaming on the pc save for the hassles.
 
Last edited:
trip1ex said:
I bought a refurb 2010 15" MBP and tried gaming on it and agree it sucks for gaming. You can get by. But eh that's not what I want.

I returned it. Going to build a Windows pc.

I want to play the upcoming Battlefield 3 on the pc. I have a 360 but ... I think I'm migrating back to what I like best. gaming on the pc save for the hassles.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what I said before. but people just ignored me whatsoever because they are mess up with ****ing mac. mac is not really good for gaming. I have been proved this because I have PC and mac both. I can easily compare with each other. even there are new lines of macbook pro (sand bridge intel core processors) last week, I still won't try. mac is still not for gaming. can you believe that new macbook pro 13inch has no dedicated graphic card with that price? what do you do with intel HD 3000? do nothing. just work? yeah, it is damn fine. but for that price, you can have better machine on PC.

nowadays, it doesn't matter whether you have PC or mac. in my opinion, windows 7 is fine. I have no problem. of course, mac os x is more simple, efficient. I get that all the time, and experience. but for work efficiency? windows 7 is better. plus, last week, windows 7 service pack 1 was just released. my sony vaio F laptop is even better than ever.

oh, by the way, I red some articles about new mac os x 7 Lion. it requires core 2 duo intel based. so if you don't have that on your mac, you can't even try? is it a joke or another dirty Apple selling strategy?
 
Last edited:
Ace134blue said:
i do not have an enthusiast PC.
Click to expand...

Dude, your sig....you have an enthusiast PC..come on..you are mid top tier on everything...your OC is CRAZYINSANE on Air cooling and your GFX OC MHz is HOLY COW(I have a 460 running at HALF that and I get awesome FPS in just about everything but GTA IV)
So, bro, you have a bitchin PC that fully falls in the enthusiast category.
 
Huntn said:
If I can say this correctly, my impression is that a better graphic card mostly allows you to up the graphics to a higher resolution but does not have a big effect on performance, so lowering the resolution does not necessarily result in a big jump in frames.
Click to expand...

I always had the same rough rule of thumb, don't know if it's true for modern CPUs -

If you can play the game fine at lower resolution, but it becomes choppy at high res, your GPU is the limiting factor.

If the game plays fine at high res, but becomes choppy in big open scenes or when lots of characters are on-screen, your CPU is the limiting factor.

(If you can play fine in big empty rooms, but as soon as the other players join you die, your talent is the limiting factor :p )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back