PDA

View Full Version : inCrysis.com Q&A with Intel


Pages : [1] 2

Doc_InCrysis
07-26-07, 12:12 PM
A short but sweet response to questions asked by iC members:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6637

CaptNKILL
07-26-07, 02:22 PM
Dammit. My E6750 will be coming today and now we finally get confirmation that quad cores will provide a "significant" performance increase. :p

Oh well. If the game is worth it and needs an extra FPS boost I'll get a Penryn Xeon quad this winter. :)

Eliminator
07-26-07, 02:36 PM
i seriously doubt quad core will be much faster than a dual core

MaXThReAT
07-26-07, 02:38 PM
Very good read. The comment I find most interesting is:
Will the x64 version have a significant performance improvement over the x86 one?

With all others things being equal regarding hardware and driver performance then the 64bit version of Crysis will be the best performing version. The Sandbox level editor processes a large amount of data and is best run on a 64bit system.

So considering the rest of the Q&A I'll be putting together a quad core system this winter with 4gb and I'll actually have a use for 64-bit Vista.

JasonPC
07-26-07, 02:45 PM
That's interesting about the x64 information. I wonder if this will be the first game to support 64-bit well. Half-Life 2 was a joke and I think Far Cry didn't even get all the patches for its 64-bit version.

Doc_InCrysis
07-26-07, 06:26 PM
That's interesting about the x64 information. I wonder if this will be the first game to support 64-bit well. Half-Life 2 was a joke and I think Far Cry didn't even get all the patches for its 64-bit version.

Incorrect on both fronts. Chronicles of Riddick was first game to support 64-bit well. You can grab FC 64-bit here (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_875_10543,00.html).

JasonPC
07-26-07, 06:29 PM
It's all marketing though (concerning Far Cry). Hence why it's on AMD's site. I don't know about Riddick though.

Doc_InCrysis
07-26-07, 07:01 PM
It's all marketing though (concerning Far Cry). Hence why it's on AMD's site. I don't know about Riddick though.

I have no idea what you're saying with this marketing stuff. If you want to play FC in 64-bit, there is a patch that allows you. Does it matter where you grab it from? Is this better?:

http://www.gamershell.com/download_9084.shtml
http://www.gamershell.com/download_9089.shtml

German review of Riddick 64-bit (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.tecchannel.de/server/windows/429760/index15.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Driddick%2B64-bit%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_en___US218)

BTW, I know it ran well. I played it in 64-bit (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/452106891/m/8491034882?r=3671038982#3671038982).

Eliminator
07-26-07, 07:22 PM
i think he meant the first game to truly utilize 64bit... farcry doesnt really count as the 64bit patch was modified by some people to be able to use it under 32bit... also riddick 64bit really just had a 64bit exe... i tried it personally and there was no difference in performance at all

methimpikehoses
07-26-07, 07:22 PM
Glad to hear there's a reason I bought x64. Now will Crysis have the same bloody >2GB address issues all these other games are having?

and can we have a little demo leak pls, kthx

sl0ppy_sec0nds
07-26-07, 08:36 PM
i seriously doubt quad core will be much faster than a dual core

Using your logic, a dual core won't be much faster than a single core processor.:thumbdwn:

JasonPC
07-26-07, 09:20 PM
What I mean is that performance-wise and graphically, the same thing possibly could have been done in 32-bit. I'd have to see some benchmarks. At the time Far Cry came out, AMD was heavily marketing 64-bit and I'm sort of implying the whole 64-bit version was done just for marketing and not for any real gains in performance or visuals.

SH64
07-26-07, 09:22 PM
Dammit. My E6750 will be coming today and now we finally get confirmation that quad cores will provide a "significant" performance increase. :p

Thats because you dont listen! :p

Amuro
07-26-07, 10:21 PM
This is Intel. They say this probably just so they can sell more processors now. I'd wait for the benchmarks comparing dual-core and quad performance to see if there's really huge difference. Anyways, the game won't be out till mid Nov, and hopefully Yorkfield will be out by then.

CaptNKILL
07-26-07, 10:27 PM
Using your logic, a dual core won't be much faster than a single core processor.:thumbdwn:
Huh? :p

Bokishi
07-26-07, 10:37 PM
yah Penryn ftw!

delas52
07-26-07, 11:22 PM
Using your logic, a dual core won't be much faster than a single core processor.:thumbdwn:

I don't think you understood him.

Anyway consider this:

The performance jump from one video card to sli is larger than from sli to quad sli.

Doc_InCrysis
07-27-07, 08:49 AM
What I mean is that performance-wise and graphically, the same thing possibly could have been done in 32-bit. I'd have to see some benchmarks. At the time Far Cry came out, AMD was heavily marketing 64-bit and I'm sort of implying the whole 64-bit version was done just for marketing and not for any real gains in performance or visuals.

Ok, this is not what you said in your original reply though. You implied that there hasn't been a 64-bit game to date that hasn't run well which was not right. Riddick and FC 64-bit ran just as well as it did in 32-bit. While there were little to no gains shown, this is more than can be said about running most games on Vista vs XP.

As for visuals, let's just start with there's no such thing as a 64-bit texture, model, or anything else normally associated with visuals. What the 64-bit architecture allows for is increased memory register access. This allows for more "visual stuff" to be temporarily stored in RAM which increases performance.

Perhaps this review (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/far_cry_64-bit/) will help you. Keep in mind though, think these guys forgot that one of the main differences with 64-bit vs 32-bit FC was the increased view distance. This puts more on the screen at any one time and will affect performance:

Normal FC Pier level:
http://gotfrags.net/projectx/images/44_AMD64/pier.jpg

64-bit patch hacked onto XP + Enhanced Content + textures from my mod Project X:
http://gotfrags.net/projectx/images/44_AMD64/pier_44.jpg

As you can see, there's about 4K more polys being rendered and almost twice the view distance (1500 vs 800.) This screen shows a 7 FPS (16%) loss over vanilla FC and it was worse in other areas. Ultimately I had to axe the content out of the mod as normal vid cards (this was 6800GT) couldn't handle it on the 32-bit platform.

As the FiringSquad review says, the FC 64-bit patch was more of a port to 64-bit. Crysis is being developed from the ground up with 64-bit functionality. In fact, as this Q&A states, most of the development is being done in 64-bit. Note x64 Edition at the top:

http://crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/entity.jpg

CaptNKILL
07-27-07, 08:55 AM
I don't think you understood him.

Anyway consider this:

The performance jump from one video card to sli is larger than from sli to quad sli.
Not only that, but games have to be programmed to utilize more than two cores, just like they have to be programmed to use more than one.

If all of the heavy stuff is loaded onto the first 2 cores and a few minor (but still important) things are loaded onto the third and possibly fourth, there will be far less benefit from going dual to quad than from single to dual.

Still, the more cores games use the better. Its the only way we're going to eliminate CPU bottlenecks without running at 20Ghz.

Eliminator
07-27-07, 09:02 AM
Not only that, but games have to be programmed to utilize more than two cores, just like they have to be programmed to use more than one.

If all of the heavy stuff is loaded onto the first 2 cores and a few minor (but still important) things are loaded onto the third and possibly fourth, there will be far less benefit from going dual to quad than from single to dual.

Still, the more cores games use the better. Its the only way we're going to eliminate CPU bottlenecks without running at 20Ghz.
yup thats exactly what i meant... and going from single to dual core will have a bigger impact than dual to quad core

Tygerwoody
07-27-07, 09:36 AM
you couldn't pay me to use a 64 bit operating system just for one freaking game. I don't care if using a 64 OS gives me a 200% increase in frames per second(which it will really only be 1% or something stupid like that :rolleyes:), there is not way I'll deal with the instability of a 64 OS.

This will stand true at least for another 1-2 years before I convert over.

delas52
07-27-07, 11:08 AM
you couldn't pay me to use a 64 bit operating system just for one freaking game. I don't care if using a 64 OS gives me a 200% increase in frames per second(which it will really only be 1% or something stupid like that :rolleyes:), there is not way I'll deal with the instability of a 64 OS.

This will stand true at least for another 1-2 years before I convert over.

I have no stability problems with vista64, maybe you should actually try it. :rolleyes:

JasonPC
07-27-07, 01:46 PM
Vista 64-bit seems just fine (I've been running it with no trouble). XP 64-bit is another story though. As long as your hardware is compatible with Vista 64-bit you should have no trouble.

Tygerwoody
07-27-07, 02:14 PM
I have no stability problems with vista64, maybe you should actually try it. :rolleyes:
Maybe YOU aren't qualified to make that judgement?

Vista 64 bit is KNOWN to be buggy(as is 64 bit XP). This is common knowledge. Just because you are uneducated and trying to push others your non-Knowledge, does not mean I'm going to install a buggy OS. Vista 32 bit works fine. Vista 64 bit still has loads of problems with instability.

Windows Vista 64 is about as compatible with programs as a Mac Computer or a PC with Linux. The reason I use Windows in the first place is for compatibility. Vista 64 sure as hell does not have that yet.

loafer87gt
07-27-07, 02:16 PM
Don't want to go too far OT, but what the known issues with Vista 64? My copy of Vista 64 Business edition just arrived and I was going to install it on my machine. Should I hold off?