Crysis *NOT* optimized for Multi-Core, yet?

[Monolyth]

Neither opinion can be proven because we didn't code crysis or the other games. So argueing over if Crysis truely is not optimized, or is so well optimized that is uses alot less cores than other games is pointless, because nothing can be proven.

It's okay, I'm right.

[m3dude]

Normally I would agree with this,except I own and play games that make better use of my quadcore even at 1920x1200 (Bioshock,SC,Strangehold)
This tells me Crysis is not coded as well.

this makes no sense. they make better use? how are u quantifying this?

[Monolyth]

this makes no sense. they make better use? how are u quantifying this?

We can quantify it using these numbers:
Crysis - 42
Bioshock - 12
Supreme Commander - 60
Stranglehold - 76

[XDanger]

The AI in crysis is very good. Crysis environments are fully destructable, so this means that the AI constantly needs to evaluate the situation. We have never really seen this done before in a game so well.
Unfortunately my copy of crysis has indestructible plants.

[agentkay]

Check out this thread especially posts number 9, 14 and 15.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=103684

Mind you, that is based on extreme physics with more than 3200 wodden boxes that break into 4 or even more pieces each with their own physical values. I came to the conclusion that they capped the physics so there are enough CPU cycles left for the O.S., visuals, sound, AI etc. but the (physics) limitation is not very dynamic as it is shown between the different CPU's and clocks (mine, nekrosofts and jakups).

I hope Crytek will tweak the physics engine so that faster CPUs will receive a higher "limitation" than slower ones because that way extreme physics maps would be able to run smoother with every new CPU generation. There are many ways to tweak the engine so it is quite possible that the limitation can be changed by a single line in a cfg file.

[hell_of_doom227]

Physics, AI and some other things are so badly coded that it really chokes the system. Overall, Crysis is a crap from technical point of view in term of coding and executing whole project.

Btw AI is so retarded in Crysis and Physics is nothing spectacular. Sound sucks as well...

I can't believe you guys are still bothering with that game. I tried and i simply uninstalled the crap and never went back to it.

[SH0DAN]

this makes no sense. they make better use? how are u quantifying this?


Easy,there is something built into windows,that can be used to show how much cpu utilisation is used per core,per game.

Monolyth,if the next ten PC games that claim to use quadcore cpu's,make as much use,or more,as the three I mentioned over Crysis,Does that also then mean that Crysis is better written,or programmed or optimized then the first ten or 13 ? **** no !

Its far more likely that Crysis is not well programmed,and does not take advantage of quadcore chips as well as Crytek would have you beleive.

[v3rninater]

Now this is one complaint I (kind of) agree with. This game can be much more optimized for sure. But I don't understand why Crytek head hauncho would say that we could run ultra settings on 8800 E6600 2gigs ram??

Maybe at 800x600 but that's about it, if that. This patch better be a mind blowing patch cause I've already seen COD patch number 4 coming out or has already come out.

Now come on Crytek, I know they aren't known for their efficiency at getting patches out. Far Cry was a joke if you waited for patches, I just think that it's stupid a game takes forever to patch. Unless they have low number of employees or working on many numerous games.

[SH0DAN]

If the past is of any indication the patch for Crysis will be months late,and will have to be recalled due to bugs.

[m3dude]

Easy,there is something built into windows,that can be used to show how much cpu utilisation is used per core,per game.

Monolyth,if the next ten PC games that claim to use quadcore cpu's,make as much use,or more,as the three I mentioned over Crysis,Does that also then mean that Crysis is better written,or programmed or optimized then the first ten or 13 ? **** no !

Its far more likely that Crysis is not well programmed,and does not take advantage of quadcore chips as well as Crytek would have you beleive.

are u aware that bottlenecks can differ greatly depending on the workload? do you understand that the cpu and gpu each process different things? using your logic i could say all those games u listed are terribly optimized because they dont make full use of 8800 gtx in sli, but thats not the case, the bottleneck is just reversed in those games as compared to crysis

[GTVAPSAMTIK]

Tbh its no point if the game takes advantage of the extra cores only at low res / lower settings , the cores usage should be at its max even at high res with max settings just like how Lost Planet do.


You are right I was gonna say the same thing. I thought CRYSIS is totally optimized for latest hardware like Multicores and SLI

[m3dude]

go check core usage in the snow scenes where the gpu is the limiting factor. u can also compare performance from single to dual to quad.

[SH0DAN]

are u aware that bottlenecks can differ greatly depending on the workload? do you understand that the cpu and gpu each process different things? using your logic i could say all those games u listed are terribly optimized because they dont make full use of 8800 gtx in sli, but thats not the case, the bottleneck is just reversed in those games as compared to crysis


I understand what you are getting at,but anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise is all I am saying. ;)

It can easily be argued either way.

I am a fan of the game,and bought a copy on launch day rather then pirate it.I am not trying to trash the game or Crytek at this point.

I am just suggesting that the 'ops' in the game for more then 2 cores is likely over stated by Crytek.Hopefully this will change in the future. :)

[m3dude]

the game uses multicore just fine, if ur gpu is the limiting factor tho, how do u expect adding more cpu power to possibly help? doesnt even make sense. also, which anecdotal evidence are u talking about? ive NEVER seen a gpu limited game scale with more cpu power. its rly that simple.

again ill refer to those 3 games you listed, game at 1600x1200 on a g80, note your frames. add in a 2nd g80 at those settings and note ur frames. you will have virtually ZERO performance increase. until u alleviate the cpu bottleneck all the gpu power in the world wont do ****. same for crysis. when the cpu is sitting by waiting for the gpu to process shader and texture ops, wtf can it do but sit idle?

heres an analogy. lets say u want to build a desk, and god grants u 2 extra arms so u have 4 total to do it faster, but u have no legs so u need someone else to bring you the supplies. those 4 arms wont do you any good while ur sitting waiting for the supplies.