PDA

View Full Version : Crysis turns up nose at quad


Pages : [1] 2 3

Rummy
11-07-07, 03:13 PM
http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/005860.html :thumbdwn:

Feyy
11-07-07, 03:21 PM
Wait for public release imo, or a swift patch after release, otherwise (po)

Only reason i got a Quad was for Crysis

Dreamingawake
11-07-07, 03:25 PM
Harsh.

I only have a dual core, but that is harsh.:thumbdwn:

malachi1313
11-07-07, 03:41 PM
Wait for public release imo, or a swift patch after release, otherwise (po)

Only reason i got a Quad was for Crysis

Same here!! Got an extra 2 gig of ram for it also...

JohnDio
11-07-07, 03:42 PM
I'm sure that both SLI and multi-core will be added via a patch ;)

agentkay
11-07-07, 03:51 PM
I wonder how these benchmark results could have been archieved if there was NO quad core support:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1438123&postcount=1

It can't be just the higher efficiency of some CPUs that explains the results or am I missing something?

J-Mag
11-07-07, 06:08 PM
Only reason i got a Quad was for Crysis

Hopefully you have learned not to trust marketing spins.


I wonder how these benchmark results could have been archieved if there was NO quad core support:

It can't be just the higher efficiency of some CPUs that explains the results or am I missing something?

Do we really know what these timedemos are doing? I've always thought that software rendering tests were worthless when you use your GPU to render in the real application...

Maybe an OS related thread is taking up the 3rd or 4th core. Would there be more OS stress if an application is using CPU/Mem vs a dedicated GPU render?

brady
11-07-07, 06:53 PM
Maybe an OS related thread is taking up the 3rd or 4th core. Would there be more OS stress if an application is using CPU/Mem vs a dedicated GPU render?

That actually sounds like a very reasonable explanation.

|JuiceZ|
11-07-07, 08:26 PM
I'm sure that both SLI and multi-core will be added via a patch ;)

x2, they would be stupid to do otherwise.

hokeyplyr48
11-07-07, 08:32 PM
well if you have nothing else running in the background the quad and single core(s) will match in performance. But with a quad you can leave lots of other thing up in the background and still maintain those frame rates without having to close anything.

Still doesn't explain what Cevat said, but the quad is still benefiting you even if you don't notice it.

Bman212121
11-07-07, 08:33 PM
The real question is how many threads the game runs. If it has enough threads then it should scale. Does the game actually load an e6600 all the way up or not? There might already be enough CPU for his tests which means that once SLI support is added the game might shift from all GPU bound to a little more CPU bound.

agentkay
11-07-07, 09:30 PM
Do we really know what these timedemos are doing? I've always thought that software rendering tests were worthless when you use your GPU to render in the real application...

Maybe an OS related thread is taking up the 3rd or 4th core. Would there be more OS stress if an application is using CPU/Mem vs a dedicated GPU render?

No we don't really know but it seems to be pre-recorded "actions" that are being played back at realtime and since a lot of phyics are involved it does put plenty of load on the CPU. Framerates are comparable to the actual demo framerate and they are affected by ingame settings and cfg settings.

I ran the CPU timedemo once at 1920x1080 and the CPU load on core1 was around 80-85% and core2 a little higher 85-90%. Then I reduced the resolution to 800x600 and this time both cores were very similar at about 90-95%.

I'm not exactly sure how expreview.com tested but since the tests were done at the same frequency it should reflect CPU efficiency and architecture incl. core count, at least thats the way I understood it.

SH64
11-07-07, 11:34 PM
Wait for public release imo, or a swift patch after release, otherwise (po)

Only reason i got a Quad was for Crysis
Same here. i have a Q6600 laying around here just for Crysis. i'll be so pissed off if the game dont make good use of it :mad:

SH64
11-07-07, 11:45 PM
No we don't really know but it seems to be pre-recorded "actions" that are being played back at realtime and since a lot of phyics are involved it does put plenty of load on the CPU. Framerates are comparable to the actual demo framerate and they are affected by ingame settings and cfg settings.

I ran the CPU timedemo once at 1920x1080 and the CPU load on core1 was around 80-85% and core2 a little higher 85-90%. Then I reduced the resolution to 800x600 and this time both cores were very similar at about 90-95%.

I'm not exactly sure how expreview.com tested but since the tests were done at the same frequency it should reflect CPU efficiency and architecture incl. core count, at least thats the way I understood it.
Yes i dont believe its hard for Crytek to cook up a timedemo that takes advantage of all 4 cores.
Capcom did that very well with their Framework engine in Lost Planet & the difference between 1 , 2 & 4 cores is day/night clear.

CaptNKILL
11-08-07, 01:13 AM
This is why I went with a cheaper, cooler, higher clocked dual core.

I'm not going Quad until I KNOW that something I play will actually make use of it.

Greg
11-08-07, 02:12 AM
When I read threads like this, it becomes clear why publishers demand that developers put 'Supports DirectX10', 'best performance with Quad Core' etc. on the box. Of course its the sponsoring hardware vendors who make them put 'best textures with 64bit AMD' or similar on the box ;)

Hey just play the game and enjoy it. The reason I plan to get Quad core soon is so I can record TV and download files with one core, run the OS and sound and graphics drivers on the next, while playing Crysis on the remaining two. Maybe the sweet spot in 5 years time will be 64 cores?

LordJuanlo
11-08-07, 02:30 AM
Maybe we will get more performance with quad cores on Crysis when we have graphics cards that do not bottleneck the game as today cards

SH64
11-08-07, 03:32 AM
Maybe we will get more performance with quad cores on Crysis when we have graphics cards that do not bottleneck the game as today cards
In other words quad-cores are useless in Crysis now ? thats what the whole thread is about.

Legend
11-08-07, 04:04 AM
This is why I went with a cheaper, cooler, higher clocked dual core.

I'm not going Quad until I KNOW that something I play will actually make use of it.

There are a handful of games that currently make use of a quad and a whole lot more coming very soon. Also G0 stepping Quads overclock about as well and some even better than dual cores.

LordJuanlo
11-08-07, 06:19 AM
In other words quad-cores are useless in Crysis now ? thats what the whole thread is about.

In general gameplay I think so. And I also think you won't find a big difference between a 2.4 Ghz CPU and another overclocked to 3.6 Ghz. Sorry but our poor 8800 GTX/Ultras cards won't allow to take advantage of CPU power in Crysis, if you play with maximum detail at very high resolutions (1600x1200 or more). Maybe when the game fully supports SLI...

SH64
11-08-07, 06:27 AM
In general gameplay I think so. And I also think you won't find a big difference between a 2.4 Ghz CPU and another overclocked to 3.6 Ghz. Sorry but our poor 8800 GTX/Ultras cards won't allow to take advantage of CPU power in Crysis, if you play with maximum detail at very high resolutions (1600x1200 or more). Maybe when the game fully supports SLI...
Well then Yerli is to blame for not mentioning that.
why make people rush to purachse a quad-core for your game when its not going to take advantage of it in the current time. kind of BS & unresponsibility from him if you ask me.

BioHazZarD
11-08-07, 06:38 AM
Well i dont know what Cevat is smoking but he said this a few weeks ago to shacknews..

Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. 64-bit and higher memory will yield quicker loading times. We recommend quad core over higher clock.

six_storm
11-08-07, 08:40 AM
They will just patch the game later to make use of the quad-core CPUs. Remember, this game stretches into the next 2 years with new features.

TacoXPS2
11-08-07, 03:57 PM
Crysis demo is multi-core. I ran windows task manager under performance both cores were at 75% on my E6400 @ stock. I wanted to make sure so I went into BIOS and disabled core 2 and ran the CPU benchmark with rez @ 800x600 all medium settings. I averaged 24 FPS. Then went back and re enabled core 2, ran bench and got 38 FPS. Crysis is obviously using more than 1 core. I'm not sure why everyone thinks its single. I'm sure it doesn't use much resource on a quad, but dual definitely benefits.

Ran test on:
Windows XP SP2: nVidia 7950gt 169.04 drivers: 2 GB DDR2 @ 800: E6400 @ 2.13 Ghz

SH64
11-08-07, 04:04 PM
Crysis demo is multi-core. I ran windows task manager under performance both cores were at 75% on my E6400 @ stock. I wanted to make sure so I went into BIOS and disabled core 2 and ran the CPU benchmark with rez @ 800x600 all medium settings. I averaged 24 FPS. Then went back and re enabled core 2, ran bench and got 38 FPS. Crysis is obviously using more than 1 core. I'm not sure why everyone thinks its single. I'm sure it doesn't use much resource on a quad, but dual definitely benefits.

Ran test on:
Windows XP SP2: nVidia 7950gt 169.04 drivers: 2 GB DDR2 @ 800: E6400 @ 2.13 Ghz
No one said its not taking advantage of dual-cores .. we are talking about more than 2 cores (i.e. multiple cores or quad).
even with that mentioned , the usage of the second core is pretty minimal in comparsion to some other say UE3 games.
now i know your numbers say more than that , but remember others are using highly clocked dual-cores.