I'm playing Crysis 1 from 2007 with RTX 2060 and it lags on max graphics. Framerate drops below 10 sometimes. Wut...

Do people actually find enjoyment in crysis 1, it literally has nothing besides the graphics, How can that be enjoyable.

the suit abilities are fun enough to carry it through its short length IMO, warhead's campaign is actually much better

32 GB ram, RTX 2060, AMD Ryzen 5 2600, M.2 SSD

that's exactly the AA and resolution i have, i didn't really notice much of a difference lowering the AA but maybe it's the resolution?

32 GB memory

CPU is rarely a bottleneck in games but i can tab out and see if any core is at 100%

I mostly wanted to play it again just to see it in max graphics but it's pretty fun to stealth kill asians.

Attached: screenshot.jpg (2560x1440, 2.53M)

Dont ever use MSAA you fucking zoomer

Hm, it's not the CPU. Doesn't max out a core. Windows says the game uses 52 threads as well.

Attached: aaagh.jpg (2560x1440, 2.48M)

these are my options... even setting it to OFF does nothing

Attached: options.png (1735x1094, 1.88M)

Try running it in windowed mode and see if anything changes.

it's about the same (this is with AA set to OFF as well)

Attached: screenwin.jpg (2558x1440, 2.29M)

Then why is there?

I set the exe CPU Priority to high as well, didn't do anything.

It's just fun. You can approach missions in any way you want, no matter how fucking crazy and ridiculous. You can actually kill people with chickens.

>CPU is rarely a bottleneck in games

incorrect.

i don't want to discuss that in this thread but at the very least it's not a bottleneck in this 13 year old game with the modern cpu i've got

here's everything on very high except shaders set to low... the framerate bounces back and forth between 30 and 10 fps

Attached: shaderslow.jpg (2560x1440, 2.28M)

everything on low except objects quality which requires to quit current game... fps bounces between 45 and 15 fps. the bounce take 1 second from 45 to 15 and then another second from 15 to 45. strange

Attached: low.jpg (2560x1440, 2.32M)

get a better machine

For as forward thinking crysis was meant to be, it scales like asbolute shit on modern hardware even compared to other games of the time.

You can't even select a resolution above 1600x900 by default.

Crysis just doesn't like multicore CPUs. It can offload some stuff to up to four cores, but Crysis was made back when the devs expected single-core CPUs to be the norm for the foreseeable future, only with faster clockspeeds of up to something like 10GHz. That obviously didn't happen, so modern CPUs don't help that much with it.

That said, your frame rate does seem incredibly low.

this rig can barely run a calculator from 2010!

yeah gotta edit a text file

seems like Objects Quality does the most for fps, maybe the game doesn't have any low level of detail models that it swaps out as you get closer/further from it? then if there's a lot of stuff around you it gets very demanding.

Attached: everything maxed except second best object quality.jpg (2560x1440, 2.37M)

8xAA in that game effectively renders edges past 4K while in 1440p. So yeah, you're going to get shit performance.

Why are you even stressing yourself? It's not that good.

turning off AA didn't really do anything though

The game is heavily CPU bound as it only uses 2 cores at most and is extremely inefficient. It's just brute forcing and requires massive single thread performance. A 9900k clocked at 10Ghz wouldn't lock 60 fps max settings in every situation.

Crysis is a single core game, which is why it still runs like shit even on modern PC.

This is correct, but OP's system should still run Crysis always smoothly at min 50fps according to these benchmarks done with Ryzen and prev-gen GPU :

tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-test-modern-gpus-ryzen,5335-4.html

AMD's approach is having a shit ton of cores with even more threats, that make for an overall very powerful CPU.
Meanwhile Crysis was made in an era where very high clocked dual (maybe still single?`idk) cores were the standard.
So if it only uses one core, your high end Ryzen will still shit the bed.

Tried lowering to 1080p, with vsync it basically locks on 24 fps, without it goes up to 50 fps if i look into the ground... Otherwise around 24 fps.

Tried with
maxed
maxed without AA
maxed but high objects instead of very high
maxed but high objects instead of very high without AA

all get the same 24 fps, da fack. took screenshots but no point in posting all four of them, looks about the same.

also i dont really see much of a difference between AA x8 and off to be honest. the leafs on the trees always look like off?

Attached: 1080p_maxed.jpg (1920x1080, 1.39M)

>seems like Objects Quality does the most for fps, maybe the game doesn't have any low level of detail models that it swaps out as you get closer/further from it? then if there's a lot of stuff around you it gets very demanding.
I wouldn't be surprised if that setting was in charge of grass rendering distance, which would result in many more draw calls, which are processed by CPU. I was playing STALKER Call of Pripyat earlier this year with custom grass rendering distance and yeah, heavily increased was the sole reason for bad performance, even though GPU had way more than enough power.

Zen and Zen+ still have very good single core performance compared to Intel, it became even closer thanks to all the security mitigation for Intel CPUs. So if it bottlenecks with OP's CPU, it's not because it's a Ryzen.

the ryzen cpu should run the game very well at above 60 fps
it has a strong ipc and a high frequency
the problem is a driver or software issue
be quiet

Ryzens should smoke any Core 2 quads and i7 up to Broadwell in single core, it's just bad optimization.

Just one look at Ryzen 3 benchmarks is enough to prove you wrong there.

This guy fucks.

Attached: animated kek.webm (1280x720, 1.38M)

>the leafs on the trees always look like off?
MSAA doesn't take care of alpha objects, they only introduced it with DX10.1 and the performance tanked. You're might be better of downsampling the game from 4K, since MSAA is just lower performance downsampling. At 8xMSAA at 1080p, the edges of the objects are rendered at 8K, at 4xMSAA and 1080p it's 4K.

CryEngine is total balls. Even when it was new the world knew that cores were unlikely to get significantly faster and more parallelisation was the future. Despite that they released a single core engine with a couple of tweaks to minimally utilise other threads. At least when Valve did it they had the excuse of using a very old codebase that was designed when multi-core meant dual-cpu and server hardware only.
CryTek knew how to make specific things, like volumetric clouds and lighting, good subsurf, vegetation, physics based animation and deformation, voxels, and other stuff I can't remember right now. But they desperately needed a guy who understood transactions and locking mechanics and because they didn't the studio failed because they couldn't scale the engine to high-core counts and no one was going to buy a pretty engine that couldn't scale.

Run it at higher than 4 GHz OP. Try turning off smt, it's the hyper-threading