https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/there_is_no_card_out_there_that_can_run_crysis_remastered_at_4k_max_settings_at_30_fps/1
 
Crysis Remastered is due to launch on PC on September 18th, bringing with it enhanced visuals, ray tracing and graphical settings which will crush any modern PC. As part of the company's pre-launch live stream, the developers of Crysis Remastered have confirmed that "there is no card out there" that can handle Crysis Remastered when the game is running at 4K under its "Can it Run Crysis" graphical preset. Even today's strongest graphics card can only run these settings at 4K sub-30 FPS framerates. 

Crysis Remastered is more than a mere HD reskin of the original. The game features all of the advanced features which have come to CryEngine since the release of Crysis in 2007. One of the main additions to Crysis Remastered is the games SVOGI Global Illumination system. In addition to this, Crysis Remastered also features remastered high-resolution textures, real-time reflections, updated underwater visuals, "State of the Art" Depth of Field effects, Enhanced graphics effects and ray-tracing effects. When 8K displays become available, gamers should know that Crysis Remastered was developed with 8K ready assets in mind, ensuring that the game is ready for the post 4K era. 

Thankfully, PC gamers should have a much easier time running Crysis Remastered using its lower graphical presets. You can read Crysis Remastered's PC system requirements here. 
 
"Can it run Crysis" is an old statement that will soon be refreshed in my opinion. "Can it run Crysis: Remastered" is the new statement. 

Sajin
Two 3090's with a custom sli profile should be able to push the game above 60+ fps at max settings in 4k.

You're probably correct. But I must tell you... What came to my mind when I read this...
 
Bernie Mack in the first Transformers movie yelling "FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS"...

It’s a year away

Lots of triangles. 

No thanks, I'll just stick to the original release. I don't think it looks much better than the original release, and I'd rather have the higher FPS.

 
I'm not impressed with the remaster version.    Finding a sci-fi like shooter visual comparison (not gameplay), the Crysis Remaster doesn't even look as 1/5th as good as Call of Duty Infinite Warfare, for example. In my opinion of course...

Mandalorian1977
I never played Crysis. Is it because the game looks THAT amazing and detailed, or because it just doesn't run that well? Like, how good can it be that no card can even run it? 

You're talking about two entirely different things, so we need to clarify.
 
Crysis (2007) is a PC game, designed and coded for PC hardware and the sensibilities of PC gamers. In fact, it was one of the last AAA PC games released before the Great Consolization of 2008.
 
It is an extremely well-coded and -optimized game which delivered awesome performance at lower settings on even low-end GPUs (like the 8500GT), while also providing high settings that delivered an experience no other game came close to--and hardware demands no other game came close to either.
 
~8 months after release Crysis could be fully maxed out on a GTX 260--at 1280x800 [Note #1: I just checked my old benchmarks--it was actually 1920x1200 w/no MSAA] and 25 fps (a perfectly playable, low-latency 25 fps, unlike many other games) [Note #2: I forgot that this was in DX10. With the "DX9 Very High Tweak" it was 40 fps with virtually identical visuals]. I could have gotten much higher framerates if I had been willing to lower settings--maybe high, or medium--but I wanted the best experience, and back then I was okay with that framerate (not anymore...not even close).
 
Remember: this was before 60 fps became the expected minimum PC standard. And as far as resolution, the F.E.A.R. ReadMe from just 2 years before Crysis referred to anything above 1024x768 as "high resolutions" and warned players not to use them on (then) current-gen cards. Just putting things into perspective.
 
It's true that Crysis was unfortunately not coded for multi-core CPUs, and therefore the framerate won't get near as high as it otherwise would at a given setting, but that does not mean that it is unoptimized. I finished my 6th playthrough a few months ago, and at 4K I maintained a VSync-locked 60 fps. That was not only at maxed settings, but with many, many parameters increased far above default via config files.
 
So-called "Crysis Remastered" on the other hand, is a Port-of-a-Port-of-a-Port of a very different game. It's the XBox 360 cut-down-and-compromised version of Crysis ported to XBox One, and then ported to PC. It's a very different game than Crysis in many, many ways, and on top of that, it's a terribly-coded toss-port.
 
It's literally designed for 2013 console hardware (and Switch!), so you can decide for yourself what you think about the idea that no card can even run it.

I am playing it on a 3090.  All this proves is what a terribly optimized game this is.  Getting 30 FPS on Very high in some spots meanwhile Doom eternal which looks infinitely better maxed out at 200+ fps.

hershy67
original one still cant be maxed.

Please stop spreading misinformation! 
 
I fully maxed out Crysis @ 1920x1200 in 2008 on a GTX 260 (original, not Core 216) (Vista), and by 2014 I was maxing it at a VSync-locked 60 fps @ 1920x1200 on a GTX 770 in DX9 mode (Win 7).
 
Several months ago I completed my first 4K playthrough on a 2080 Ti at a VSync-locked 60 fps (Win 7). That was with 4xMSAA, increased FOV, and many significantly increased config file parameters.

They just purposely made it so it would work your gpu to death regardless if it was a 3080 or 3090. Just an ongoing joke that the game was never optimized correctly. Current games look better because you can tell they reused textures, just polished them up.

ReZpawN
...they literally pushed out a game that cant be played and said they will patch it later

I couldn't imagine running a business that way. But a fool and his money are soon parted, and there are apparently enough fools among gamers that an unscrupulous company can actually get away with this kind of thing.

isaiahsix8
Really at this point I am more interested in a card that can max MSFS.

It's the coding that's limiting performance on PC, not a lack of processing power--as usual.
 
What FS2020 is doing, fundamentally, is the same thing that telephones have been doing for a decade: Streaming satellite imagery according to basic LOD principles. What FS2020 is doing in addition to that does not require a massive amount of processing power.
 
Anyone who is sceptical about this can simply wait to see what the Series S or X deliver with their known hardware capabilities and compare that to what a PC with a given CPU/GPU is delivering.

isaiahsix8
...(because what game/sim is really optimized on PC)...

Exactly: For AAA, only the true PC games released prior to the Great Consolization of 2008. That's why I said "as usual".
 

isaiahsix8
...it sounds like you haven’t turned off the data stream and tried to run MSFS at 4K max settings on a 3090.

I'm not following you? If you're referring to a GPU being maxed out, that could mean that what is being rendered is very demanding....or it could mean that the application is poorly coded and/or poorly optimized. Since FS2020 almost certainly--like all other major AAA games since 2008--uses rendering techniques and optimizations designed for console architecture and not PC, it almost certainly does not make efficient use of the PC hardware.
 
But like I said, if I'm wrong, we'll find out when we see what it looks like and how it runs on the new consoles.