Was the leopard graphics update firmware? Otherwise it wouldn't affect windows. However, I'll be installing a 64bit windows vista tomorrow, and then i'll manually go through and ensure my drivers work. After all that I'll run the game again and do it at many different resolutions with many settings. This will take me some time though. I'll try to get a nice writeup going sometime next week.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Crysis On New Mac Pro With 8800!!!
- Thread starter ildondeigiocchi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Was the leopard graphics update firmware? Otherwise it wouldn't affect windows. However, I'll be installing a 64bit windows vista tomorrow, and then i'll manually go through and ensure my drivers work. After all that I'll run the game again and do it at many different resolutions with many settings. This will take me some time though. I'll try to get a nice writeup going sometime next week.
Don't knock it until you try it. Maybe there is a firmware patch in the update. Who would know but Apple.
As far as I can tell you're the only one having this problem. I would consult help in a PC forum. I'm absolutely sure PC people have more experience diagnosing PC problems.
Other than that how is your hardware running on the Mac side?
As far as I can tell you're the only one having this problem. I would consult help in a PC forum. I'm absolutely sure PC people have more experience diagnosing PC problems.
Other than that how is your hardware running on the Mac side?
Leopard Graphics Driver Update (hence the name) - Is ONLY updating drivers for OS X. No firmware update as well. But there is an Apple updater app in your Bootcamp partition for Apple Updates.
Once in Bootcamp you need to goto nVidia and d/l the latest drivers. Apple is usually quite behind on Windows Graphics Drivers. So if you did not install those you will probably have issues.
Also the Demo is does not contain the 1.1 update for Crysis which increases performance as well.
I don't think your having a problem, your just setting the bar to high for a game that is much more detailed than the other games you are comparing it to.
Try running it a 1280x800 resolution. Also turn down some of the graphic options to medium. Even a workhorse like the Mac Pro with a single non SLI Graphics card is no match for the Ultrahigh settings in Crysis
The name is not Leopard Graphics "Driver" update. Hence the possibility of anything graphically involved.
Possible...
But it does not change anything for BootCamp since it only effects the Leopard OS. It can't because OS X normally cannot see or write to an NTFS partition which is BootCamp. If it added a new firmware to the card, so be it. But being up to date on the Graphic Drivers for the windows side is a must.
Well I do know that when you install Windows on a Mac you have to re-insert your Leopard disk for boot camp stuff. Not that I'm saying there is a boot camp driver in the update, but it does mean that Software update could look for boot camp partitions in your system in the future, and issue a boot camp driver update from the Mac side.
You also have a choice of NTFS partition, or FAT. NTFS can not share files back and forth with windows and OS X but a FAT file partition will allow it. That's why I chose it on my partition. It looses a tad bit of performance, but I need to share files. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered installing windows.
You also have a choice of NTFS partition, or FAT. NTFS can not share files back and forth with windows and OS X but a FAT file partition will allow it. That's why I chose it on my partition. It looses a tad bit of performance, but I need to share files. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered installing windows.
Figgered I get this post back on track.
As soon as I get my 8800GT in a month or so
I'll post some really detailed Tests from the Crysis Speedtest files. Until then all I know is that my ATI 2600XT Rocks for the game. It more than playable at tested with FRAPS min 19, Max 25, Avg 21 and this is running at 1280x960 on a 8 Core MP 2.8Ghz
Figgered I get this post back on track.
As soon as I get my 8800GT in a month or so
I'll post some really detailed Tests from the Crysis Speedtest files. Until then all I know is that my ATI 2600XT Rocks for the game. It more than playable at tested with FRAPS min 19, Max 25, Avg 21 and this is running at 1280x960 on a 8 Core MP 2.8Ghz
Me too. I'm just waiting for windows to arrive. Had to pay Microslosh for a copy. I should have it by Thursday. Never thought I'd have to buy MS$ software in my life, but with Crysis on the PC, and Mass Effect going to PC I'm definately playing a few games. I also want to use Softimage XSI, and Zbrush 3.1 so I have no choice.
I found this Benchmarking tool
It works great and will allow us to have some good benchmarks that are accurate
Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.05 Final
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1791
I ran the test Assault Harbor 4 times here are the results for a 2.8Ghz,8 Core,2GB,2600XT
Please note the Graphical settings area.
2/17/2008 2:52:47 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-harbor, Demo-Assault_Harbor
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: Custom
Custom Quality Values:
VolumetricEffects=Low
Texture=Medium
ObjectDetail=High
Sound=High
Shadows=Low
Water=Low
Physics=High
Particles=Medium
Shading=Low
PostProcessing=Low
GameEffects=Medium
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 4100, Recorded Time: 132.23s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 180.15s, Average FPS: 22.76
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.76 at frame 3201
Average Tri/Sec: 2246078, Tri/Frame: 98688
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.14
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 172.99s, Average FPS: 23.70
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.76 at frame 3201
Average Tri/Sec: 1789062, Tri/Frame: 75485
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.18
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 169.83s, Average FPS: 24.14
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.98 at frame 3647
Average Tri/Sec: 1692339, Tri/Frame: 70099
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.19
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 167.42s, Average FPS: 24.49
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.98 at frame 3647
Average Tri/Sec: 1817518, Tri/Frame: 74216
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.18
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 2:52:47 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Overall Average FPS: 24.11
It works great and will allow us to have some good benchmarks that are accurate
Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.05 Final
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1791
I ran the test Assault Harbor 4 times here are the results for a 2.8Ghz,8 Core,2GB,2600XT
Please note the Graphical settings area.
2/17/2008 2:52:47 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-harbor, Demo-Assault_Harbor
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: Custom
Custom Quality Values:
VolumetricEffects=Low
Texture=Medium
ObjectDetail=High
Sound=High
Shadows=Low
Water=Low
Physics=High
Particles=Medium
Shading=Low
PostProcessing=Low
GameEffects=Medium
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 4100, Recorded Time: 132.23s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 180.15s, Average FPS: 22.76
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.76 at frame 3201
Average Tri/Sec: 2246078, Tri/Frame: 98688
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.14
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 172.99s, Average FPS: 23.70
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.76 at frame 3201
Average Tri/Sec: 1789062, Tri/Frame: 75485
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.18
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 169.83s, Average FPS: 24.14
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.98 at frame 3647
Average Tri/Sec: 1692339, Tri/Frame: 70099
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.19
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 167.42s, Average FPS: 24.49
Min FPS: 15.29 at frame 2492, Max FPS: 36.98 at frame 3647
Average Tri/Sec: 1817518, Tri/Frame: 74216
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.18
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 2:52:47 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Overall Average FPS: 24.11
I ran the 32bit version in Vista64. The 64bit version was slower by about 10% for whatever reason. My DX9 numbers for 1600, 1680 and 1900 resolutions are weird. All around the same. I re-ran those resolutions later again and got the same thing so not sure why they are so close yet in DX10 it changes a lot.
Test was run on default island map on the full version of the game. Time was left unchanged at 9 (I assume that was 9am since there was sunlight) and I set it for 2 passes per setting. Vsync off and it was full screen.
Machine is a Q6600 box at stock 2.4 speed with an 8800GT 512MB card. There is 8GB ram in the box but during the demo It showed just over 1GB used for the game.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 7:25:11 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 44.61
Run #2- DX9 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 38.73
Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 39.17
Run #4- DX9 1400x960 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 37.38
Run #5- DX9 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.72
Run #6- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.87
Run #7- DX9 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.84
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 7:57:07 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 41.86
Run #2- DX10 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 36.87
Run #3- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 37.02
Run #4- DX10 1400x960 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 34.70
Run #5- DX10 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 23.91
Run #6- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 27.71
Run #7- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 21.91
Test was run on default island map on the full version of the game. Time was left unchanged at 9 (I assume that was 9am since there was sunlight) and I set it for 2 passes per setting. Vsync off and it was full screen.
Machine is a Q6600 box at stock 2.4 speed with an 8800GT 512MB card. There is 8GB ram in the box but during the demo It showed just over 1GB used for the game.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 7:25:11 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 44.61
Run #2- DX9 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 38.73
Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 39.17
Run #4- DX9 1400x960 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 37.38
Run #5- DX9 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.72
Run #6- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.87
Run #7- DX9 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.84
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/17/2008 7:57:07 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 41.86
Run #2- DX10 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 36.87
Run #3- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 37.02
Run #4- DX10 1400x960 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 34.70
Run #5- DX10 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 23.91
Run #6- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 27.71
Run #7- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 21.91
Nice Framerates!
I hope I get those when I get my card! I'm starting to get to areas in the game that really mess with the 2600XT's framerates.
I'm sure you will have no probs once in the 8800 arrives You will really enjoy the much more steady framerates and the eye candy with everything on high.
You will really enjoy the much more steady framerates and the eye candy with everything on high.I'm sure you will have no probs once in the 8800 arrives
Your not using a Mac Pro correct?
Thats right. Not a Mac Pro, but pretty much the same 8800GT so scores should be very similar. Actually I read somewhere that Crysis does not make very good use of anything more than 2 cores so a 4 or 8 core will not be fully used.
Copied from contoursvt's post~
Machine is a Q6600 box at stock 2.4 speed with an 8800GT 512MB card. There is 8GB ram in the box but during the demo It showed just over 1GB used for the game.
Could you retest with AA. I think you scores should stay about the same. IMO, you are just wasting the bandwidth of the card without it.
XP Pro SP2, which is upgradable to any version of vista when I choose to do so.
I didn't go with Vista because of Crysis.
I tested at 2x and 8x to see the effects. I only did it in DX9 but its to show the percentage decrease in performance.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/18/2008 11:47:14 AM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 42.59
Run #2- DX9 1280x720 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 37.16
Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 33.28
Run #4- DX9 1400x960 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 31.99
Run #5- DX9 1600x1200 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 24.57
Run #6- DX9 1680x1050 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 24.57
Run #7- DX9 1900x1200 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 24.57
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2/18/2008 12:13:27 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 39.43
Run #2- DX9 1280x720 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 33.50
Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 28.44
Run #4- DX9 1400x960 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 20.92
Run #5- DX9 1600x1200 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 13.60
Run #6- DX9 1680x1050 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 13.78
Run #7- DX9 1900x1200 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 13.62
Nice results! Not as low as I thought. If the card were overclocked I think you could regain the few fps lost. But it does show (for at least 2x AA) that the performance hit really isn't that big. With 8xAA that just isn't enough bandwidth available.
Not to get off the FPS topic altogether, but I've been playing the Crysis demo on my Mac Pro (3.0, 8800GT), and it gives me a headache. I've tried all kinds of different settings. Even at 1024x768 the blurring when you turn look from side to side gets to me. Maybe I'm just not made to feel comfortable in Windows.
Maybe you're sitting too close to the screen. Most people who have issues with headaches or feeling sick are too close. You need to see the frame of your monitor fairly easily from what I've read.
Also I think lowering the setting to medium instead of high will disable the motion blur.
Also I think lowering the setting to medium instead of high will disable the motion blur.
You were able to choose DX9 instead of DX10 in vista... That is kewl, but I still think that I will get better performance in XP Pro. We'll see.
You might get a few fps at low resolution, but when you start getting to 1680x1050 or more, I think it will be all limited by the power of the card and not the OS at all.