Crysis running at 2048 x 1536 @ 60fps on DirectX 10

[Arcada]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Hold on guys ...

"Unknown Core 2 processor" that it was running on ? What was it, for it to run at 60 FPS at such resolution ? Quad-Core maybe ? Don't put all your hopes in the GPU being the only element causing such a performance, it might as well be because it's combined with a great processor. I doubt anyone running a Single-Core will see the same results. I might be wrong, and I do hope I am, but Crysis hasn't been advertised for its beautiful graphics only, but also because it supports Multi-Core CPU's, don't forget that one guys.

http://www.techspot.com/article/37-ces-2007-in-pictures-partone/page2.html

"Running on a fast (single core) Intel CPU and a single Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX board, the game ran smooth for the most part on an impressive 2048x1536 resolution, with some choppiness noticed when things got really busy on the screen. "

dont skim over this part either-

"He mentioned they are about to reach alpha development stage, meaning the one playable level they were showing was still non-optimized code."

Its still single core FTW

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Arcada
Its still single core FTW

Unfortunately, the only way to get the best core is with a dual-core chip
Fortunately, there's the E4300 - should be OC'ing bliss

 

[teatime0315]

if this hold up to be true ... my upgrade for crysis shouldn't be too expensive. I LIKE!!!
only need to buy 1 8800GTX FTW!! @ 1280*1024 until i get a widescreen LCD.

 

[Arcada]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: Arcada
Its still single core FTW

Unfortunately, the only way to get the best core is with a dual-core chip
Fortunately, there's the E4300 - should be OC'ing bliss

This is true, but nothing wrong with FX55 and FX58! If you have one that is.

Just strange that they used a fast single Core2. Goes to show that really... multicore is yet still looking like it'll take till 2008 to really catch on for gaming.

The single core2's will be interesting if clocked high.
Best bang for buck, for gaming.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Arcada
This is true, but nothing wrong with FX55 and FX58! If you have one that is.
...
Best bang for buck, for gaming.

That's true. Truth be told, I didn't find anything wrong with my previous setups (A64 3000+ Venice @ 2.6GHz, A64 3700+ ClawHammer @ 2.6GHz, both S-754), just that I needed more RAM and decided to jump ship to DDR2 (+ CoreDuo).

A heavily OC'ed Sempy would be a killer budget gaming setup.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: josh6079

I have serious doubts Crysis is running at 60fps average at 2048x1536 right now, or anywhere close.

Why?

Because there are zero facts to back any of this up. It was "reported" to be running at 60fps/ By whom exactly? We dont know.

Originally posted by: josh6079They said it ran 60fps average at 2048x1536 but didn't say that it ran like that with max IQ. When they commented on the max IQ settings, they said:

This proves that any current DX10 rig will run Crysis perfectly smooth with all graphical settings max at a resolution of atleast 1600x1200.

My guess is that even if the resolution was 2048x1536, I doubt the IQ was maxed out at the same time.

If so, god that's nice!!

It doesnt prove anything. They guessed it was running at 1600x1200 based on hud sizes.
They guess it will run at 1600x1200 with all graphical settings at max, again with zero proof.

Ill be the first to admit Im wrong, and eat my words if a 8800GTX runs this game at these alleged settings and frames. I just dont think any card, ATi or NV will do it. The entire article is based on opinion, and speculation. Made to get headlines, which is certainly has. Im just not one to believe everything I read on the internet. I guess most people in this thread are.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: josh6079

I have serious doubts Crysis is running at 60fps average at 2048x1536 right now, or anywhere close.

Why?

Because there are zero facts to back any of this up. It was "reported" to be running at 60fps/ By whom exactly? We dont know.

Originally posted by: josh6079They said it ran 60fps average at 2048x1536 but didn't say that it ran like that with max IQ. When they commented on the max IQ settings, they said:

This proves that any current DX10 rig will run Crysis perfectly smooth with all graphical settings max at a resolution of atleast 1600x1200.

My guess is that even if the resolution was 2048x1536, I doubt the IQ was maxed out at the same time.

If so, god that's nice!!

It doesnt prove anything. They guessed it was running at 1600x1200 based on hud sizes.
They guess it will run at 1600x1200 with all graphical settings at max, again with zero proof.

Ill be the first to admit Im wrong, and eat my words if a 8800GTX runs this game at these alleged settings and frames. I just dont think any card, ATi or NV will do it. The entire article is based on opinion, and speculation. Made to get headlines, which is certainly has. Im just not one to believe everything I read on the internet. I guess most people in this thread are.

This was all based on assumption. Arr this claims is probably made by some editor who doesn't know much about computer.

 

[deadken]

I skimmed through the three pages of this thread and I didn't see anyone ask:

WHERE'D THEY GET THE DRIVERS?!?!?!?!?

I have seen thread after thread asking for drivers for their 8800's and Vista. Then, I see this thread and am now confused... What did I miss?

(BTW: It's late and I have to go to work in the morning, so yes, I skimmed the thread... Sue me if I missed something, even something blatant)

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: josh6079

I have serious doubts Crysis is running at 60fps average at 2048x1536 right now, or anywhere close.

Why?

Because there are zero facts to back any of this up. It was "reported" to be running at 60fps/ By whom exactly? We dont know.

Originally posted by: josh6079They said it ran 60fps average at 2048x1536 but didn't say that it ran like that with max IQ. When they commented on the max IQ settings, they said:

This proves that any current DX10 rig will run Crysis perfectly smooth with all graphical settings max at a resolution of atleast 1600x1200.

My guess is that even if the resolution was 2048x1536, I doubt the IQ was maxed out at the same time.

If so, god that's nice!!

It doesnt prove anything. They guessed it was running at 1600x1200 based on hud sizes.
They guess it will run at 1600x1200 with all graphical settings at max, again with zero proof.

Ill be the first to admit Im wrong, and eat my words if a 8800GTX runs this game at these alleged settings and frames. I just dont think any card, ATi or NV will do it. The entire article is based on opinion, and speculation. Made to get headlines, which is certainly has. Im just not one to believe everything I read on the internet. I guess most people in this thread are.

So you're doubting the efficiency of DX10? Because if the power of a 8800GTX were in a console it would be able to do that no problem.

 

[imported_RedStar]

Jack Mamais is the Lead Game Designer for Crysis ...so he would know. It is he that stated the resolution.

A person who played the demo at CES noted that the 60fps was a "little forgiving" as in one intense scene the framerate dropped to between 5 and 10 fps.

as to performance here is what Jack M. says in the interview:

"6) Could you please tell us your system specs and explain how well Crysis is running on it?

I have an Athlon 3500+ Processor and a Radeon X1900 with 2 gigs of Ram and Crysis runs great on my machine at most settings. The official specs are not final yet, but rest assured it will run on 3 year old computers by the time we release our game.

Note: There is still a lot of optmizations to go, so this really is great news for all pc gamers. "

Now as to the earlier article that says it was running at 60 fps ...the only link i can find, so far, goes back to the inquirer:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36803



techspot just says:

"Running on a fast (single core) Intel CPU and a single Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX board, the game ran smooth for the most part on an impressive 2048x1536 resolution, with some choppiness noticed when things got really busy on the screen. We couldn?t help being impressed by Crysis graphics and gameplay versatility, so we put our word down on it, this should be on your top 5 game watch list for 2007"

but here is the picture people are talking about:
http://www.techspot.com/newspics/2007/ces07/CES2007047.jpg

(someone says that is a 30 inch model)

-------
edit2h and then there is this one:
http://www.crysis-online.com/images/news/ces2007/CES2007007.jpg

-------
The map is an alpha map.

So it is not hard to believe the performance will be unparalleled


60fps ..i can't substantiate that claim yet . Although we do know that is NOT an average as everyone mentions the choppiness in certain action sequences.

edit: duh, they link to the "earlier article" at the bottom: that links to the inquirer. Had i noticed that first i coulda saved some time (as i had assumed they ment one of their earlier articles. hehe)

 

[Nightmare225]

60 FPS without being in alpha is just plain-amazing. That would mean everything from a 7600GT upwards will be able to run it "well"

 

[n7]

No one noticed that first pic shows a Crysis video played back on media player?

I remain skeptical...albeit hopeful.

 

[kman79]

If the game was running on the system seen on one of the screenshots, I think that system would be an open cased Dell XPS, the new Watercooled model. At least it looked similar to some of the pictures that I've seen of the computer.

I'm in the process of either building a new computer or just buying a pair of 8800 GTX cards. I really do not want to invest on an intel build because I won't be happy unless I go with the evga board and a 6700 C2D and matching RAM, and that right there is almost another grand on top of the video cards.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Maybe DX10 will live up to its crazy promises.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: allies


So you're doubting the efficiency of DX10? Because if the power of a 8800GTX were in a console it would be able to do that no problem.

Im doubting pretty much everything in this "article" or whatever you want to call it. Efficiency? Why do you think it will be so much more efficient?

You cant compare a console, to a PC FPS wise. There are far too many variables, and differences.

There are several games out not that cannot be played like they are claiming Crysis is. Crysis looks much better too, I just dont think it will play as fast as they are claiming. Again, with zero facts to back it up right now. And as I said above, Ill eat my words gladly if Im wrong. But I dont think I am.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: allies


So you're doubting the efficiency of DX10? Because if the power of a 8800GTX were in a console it would be able to do that no problem.

Im doubting pretty much everything in this "article" or whatever you want to call it. Efficiency? Why do you think it will be so much more efficient?

You cant compare a console, to a PC FPS wise. There are far too many variables, and differences.

There are several games out not that cannot be played like they are claiming Crysis is. Crysis looks much better too, I just dont think it will play as fast as they are claiming. Again, with zero facts to back it up right now. And as I said above, Ill eat my words gladly if Im wrong. But I dont think I am.

From what I've read, DX10 should make things much easier for programmers. Instead of wasting time making the game playable for a range of computers, they can focus on maximizing performance as a whole, similarly to consoles. I don't know if this is true or not, but I hope it is.

Also, I haven't agreed nor disagreed with the "article" I am hopeful that it's true, but I'm not one to claim the article is wrong in order to say "I told you so" if performance isn't up there.

 

[Munky]

If the article is true, that only means that the shaders in Crysis arent too complex for the 8800gtx the run smoothly at high res. Theres no way such high performance at that resolution can be attributed to DX10 efficiency improvements - in modern games you'd still be shader-limited even on a 8800gtx, regardless if it's DX9 or DX10. But without knowing the exact settings used, it's hard to tell how well the game will really run at max IQ levels.

 

[imported_RedStar]

"...Theres no way such high performance at that resolution can be attributed to DX10 efficiency improvements - in modern games you'd still be shader-limited even on a 8800gtx, regardless if it's DX9 or DX10. But without knowing the exact settings used, it's hard to tell how well the game will really run at max IQ levels.
"

Doh...you are arguing against yourself. Unified shaders baby! Everything works all the time unlike the old hardware ...one reason right there why games will be faster on unifiedS hardware (you know like the 8800/r600 series)

As for people who don't understand why direct x 10 efficiency is such a big deal...read up on the subject.

It has been posted around enough times.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: RedStar
"...Theres no way such high performance at that resolution can be attributed to DX10 efficiency improvements - in modern games you'd still be shader-limited even on a 8800gtx, regardless if it's DX9 or DX10. But without knowing the exact settings used, it's hard to tell how well the game will really run at max IQ levels.
"

Doh...you are arguing aginst yourself. Unified shaders baby! Everything works all the time unlike the old hardware ...one reason right there why games will be faster on unified hardware (you know like the 8800/r600 series)

As for people who don't understand why direct x 10 efficiency is such a big deal...read up on the subject.

It has been posted around enough times.

Unified shaders are still shaders, and will put plenty of stress on a video card at that res. Unified shader programs might be arranged and processed more efficiently, but at high res and IQ settings the performance is still limited by the amount of math work that the gpu has to perform in a shader program, not how the program is arranged. This math processing load will not become easier because of improved API efficiency.

 

[imported_RedStar]

i don't think you understand what a unified shader is nor what parallel computing means
to GPU processing.

Lets boil it all down to this:

I will be quite happy to wait and then say i told you so --The joy of direct X 10 computing using an 8800/r600 variant.

So it is only fair, that should it all prove a sham ...i will be equally accepting of the "i told ya so" from the naysayers.

I will certainly not claim any credit ..as, of course, i rely on external sources to string together info. I am not privy to any direct info. I just filter the stuff...like the rest of you.

So let's see who has the better filters...
I have already handed out crow to those who said the 8800 did not have unified shaders

Challenge? You bet your GPU! hehe

 

[Munky]

Which unified shaders are you referring to? The unified shader hardware that's already being used on the g80 even in DX9, or the actual shader programs that combine separate VS/PS operations into the same program? Here's an example of a some shader ops:

float a = b.x * b.x + b.y * b.y;
float c = 1 / sqrt(a);

These are math operations that will be computed for many pixels each frame, and the performance mostly depends on how fast the gpu can crunch the math. It has to do the same math regardless if the API is DX9 or DX10 or OpenGL. Care to explain how DX10 will magically make the work so much eaasier?

 

[TOAOCyrus]

Originally posted by: munky
Which unified shaders are you referring to? The unified shader hardware that's already being used on the g80 even in DX9, or the actual shader programs that combine separate VS/PS operations into the same program? Here's an example of a some shader ops:

float a = b.x * b.x + b.y * b.y;
float c = 1 / sqrt(a);

These are math operations that will be computed for many pixels each frame, and the performance mostly depends on how fast the gpu can crunch the math. It has to do the same math regardless if the API is DX9 or DX10 or OpenGL. Care to explain how DX10 will magically make the work so much eaasier?

Supposedly DX 10 massivily reduces overhead among other things allowing the GPU to spend more time rendering graphics and less time doing other crap. I havent seen the slides in a while but it used to be something like 50-50 rendering vrs overhead in the time it takes to render a single frame. Now its something like 80-20.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TOAOCyrus
Supposedly DX 10 massivily reduces overhead among other things allowing the GPU to spend more time rendering graphics and less time doing other crap. I havent seen the slides in a while but it used to be something like 50-50 rendering vrs overhead in the time it takes to render a single frame. Now its something like 80-20.

Yes, I'm aware that DX10 will supposedly reduce the API overhead and increase efficiency. But I'm skeptical if it'll make much difference at high resolutions using complex shaders.

 

[josh6079]

It doesnt prove anything. They guessed it was running at 1600x1200 based on hud sizes.
They guess it will run at 1600x1200 with all graphical settings at max, again with zero proof.

Ill be the first to admit Im wrong, and eat my words if a 8800GTX runs this game at these alleged settings and frames. I just dont think any card, ATi or NV will do it. The entire article is based on opinion, and speculation. Made to get headlines, which is certainly has. Im just not one to believe everything I read on the internet. I guess most people in this thread are.

I didn't say that I believed it either, just that if it's true that it would be really nice.

 

[imported_RedStar]

While i think what i have stated is clear enough, i will add that direct X 10 is everything included before the number change as well as the added features and the hardware necessary to run the spec. I would not have thought this needed to be mentioned though.

Meanwhile..i wait, patiently