Crysis Tech Preview

[josh6079]

Click

Crysis will feature out-of-the-box 32-bit, 64-bit, DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and multithreading support

Microsoft has basically rewritten the decade-old DirectX technology from scratch to take advantage of Vista's new driver model.

What's interesting is that Yerli told us that if you have Windows Vista and an older DirectX 9 card, you should still see better performance with Windows Vista than Windows XP, even if the hardware remains unchanged. "DirectX 9 on Vista will run faster throughout due to the better device driver model...which is a great thing because just upgrading the operating system on the same rig, you get a better gaming experience," he said.

According to Yerli, the 64-bit version "will bring a performance difference of up to 10 to 15 percent on each thread" compared to the 32-bit version.

My only question is didnt' they display the E3 demo on a X1900 Crossfire rig? If it was it seems wierd that:

Crytek's roots are in developing one of the first tech demos for Nvidia's GeForce graphics cards, and the company has been working with shaders and other advanced graphics features as long as anyone in the industry. Yet just as important is how the development team works together to solve technical and artistic issues.

"Our technology team works very closely with our production team, so they are not only aware of what the future is, but they all understand what is the real dilemma of pipelines, tools, and production issues...

Interesting read though and looks to be pretty promising and diverse. I just wish the story didn't sound so stupid.

 

[996GT2]

"While visually amazing, the frame rate struggled quite a bit throughout the demo. However, he noted that Crysis was running on dual graphics-processor-unit systems, while most other PC games at the show were running on quad GPU systems."

Well that really spells out good news for my SINGLE 7600GT...and I don't even want to think about the quality for people running 6600GTs or lower cards...

 

[Zenoth]

Do you think they were running the Demo with all/any in-games settings turned low or Off ? Surely not. Frame rate problems, I can understand that. People with lower-end GPUs will still be able to play it at "playable" f-p-s if they turn a few in-game options down or Off, especially Shadows and Lightning options as usual.

 

[996GT2]

Yeah, but if it's lagging in a multi-GPU setup with all options on, then even with options off and lower res it's still not going to get great framerates, and playing the game with the options off makes the game look nothing like what it's supposed to...

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, but if it's lagging in a multi-GPU setup with all options on, then even with options off and lower res it's still not going to get great framerates, and playing the game with the options off makes the game look nothing like what it's supposed to...

I'm pretty sure they must have been running it at some crazy Anti-Aliasing setting and an uber-high resolution (1920x1200 or something) to make it look OMGWTFBBQIWANTHATGAME to all the game journalists. Either way, it's pre-release software and we poor souls can all hope that they haven't started on the performance-tuning yet.

I have faith in Crytek. Far Cry was pretty playable - and pretty pretty too - on a Radeon 9600XT (what I played it on). Maybe their engine will pull a Source-type thing. Great for high-end, not totally craptastic for low-end. I can dream, can't I?

 

[Nightmare225]

Crytek aren't idiots, this game will work well on all current-gen cards, I'm betting.

 

[TheRyuu]

Crytek will HAVE TO make sure that Crysis will work well with lower end systems (like 7600GT's) otherwise you just lost ~80% of your $$$.

For other people (like me) with a very fast single (or dual) GPU(s) it'll just play and look better. With dual 7900GT's (700/1620mhz) it better play dam good. Spent some good $$$ for these.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, but if it's lagging in a multi-GPU setup with all options on, then even with options off and lower res it's still not going to get great framerates, and playing the game with the options off makes the game look nothing like what it's supposed to...

precisely why im dropping out of PC gaming, and picking up a 360 instead. this machine wont be mine by the end of the month, its going to some one who a) will make more use of it (i mean ive spent nearly £2500-3000 on this machine from its conception and now it see's little more use than internet/email/bit-torrent/msn) b) who isnt so fussy over graphics and hardware.


im at the point in my life now where i find myself buying books over games lol! and having spent £4000 on a fabulous second hand car (deal of the century as far as im concerned) i cant justify spending nearly a 1/4 of that on GPU's alone just to get choppy FPS with all the bells and whistles on and the res cranked up

(and dont play the hi-res card, if you own 700quids worth of GPU, its more than likely your gonna have a hi-res display to use them on)

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
and having spent £4000 on a fabulous second hand car (deal of the century as far as im concerned)

OT but out of curiosity, which car was it?? A classic or something fairly recent?? PM me if you don't wanna post it.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, but if it's lagging in a multi-GPU setup with all options on, then even with options off and lower res it's still not going to get great framerates, and playing the game with the options off makes the game look nothing like what it's supposed to...

precisely why im dropping out of PC gaming, and picking up a 360 instead. this machine wont be mine by the end of the month, its going to some one who a) will make more use of it (i mean ive spent nearly £2500-3000 on this machine from its conception and now it see's little more use than internet/email/bit-torrent/msn) b) who isnt so fussy over graphics and hardware.


im at the point in my life now where i find myself buying books over games lol! and having spent £4000 on a fabulous second hand car (deal of the century as far as im concerned) i cant justify spending nearly a 1/4 of that on GPU's alone just to get choppy FPS with all the bells and whistles on and the res cranked up

(and dont play the hi-res card, if you own 700quids worth of GPU, its more than likely your gonna have a hi-res display to use them on)

Believe me you'll be back. There will be an irresistable PC game that you must have and you'll end up building and/or buying a new PC to play it.

 

[Vallybally]

"While visually amazing, the frame rate struggled quite a bit throughout the demo. However, he noted that Crysis was running on dual graphics-processor-unit systems, while most other PC games at the show were running on quad GPU systems."


Ahem. Ok anyone else think this trend is getting way out of hand? Ain't no way I'm paying 1 to 2 Gs or more to have a quad GPU system in order to keep up with modern games. I certainly hope that 95%+ feel the same way and only rich kids go for it...

IMO SLI should have died with the 3dfx vodoo craze... these guys need to take a page from Intel/AMD and work on smaller, less heat/power draw IMO.

 

[OCNewbie]

It seems game devs and GPU chip makers are in cahoots to make sure the hottest, best looking games will only run ideally on TWO cards of the current generation. More $$$ for the chip makers, that sux for the end-user though =( I want a single card solution that works well with games.

 

[josh6079]

So far the general consensus seems to be that more GPU's isn't the answer most want. Instead I think everyone wants higher quality single GPU's that can answer to demanding software when it is something still current. Waiting for hardware to emerge to play a game that predates it one or two years is IMO stupid. But, it is what drives the industry. Something has to cause the technology to advance.

On another note, I think that Crytek is doing what they need to in order to make sure this game plays well with a wide range of systems. I can see why console gaming is picking up--constant upgrades, diminishing hardware providers (AMD + ATI), coupled developments ("TWIWMTBP" Nvidia developmental relations) are just a few reasons why PC gaming itself seems to becoming more compact and coporate.

We'll see how this plays. I like to hear how they are trying to be flexible though. I bet it is pretty hard to make a game that launches in between a revolutionized DX version and a evolutionized DX version.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

"Yes, that means Crysis is multithreaded, which means that it can make maximum use out of dual-core systems. Where's all that processing power going? Well, part of the CPU's time will be taken up by Crytek's proprietary physics engine (called CryPhysics, of course), and it's the reason why you'll be able to saw apart trees with gunfire and why vegetation will bend and deform when someone passes by--or when the force of explosions blow them back. "

it'll be interesting to see how their handling of physics will turn out (wonder if it'll be as advanced as ageia's solution).. i guess it'll settle a lot of arguments on the viability of the second CPU core or xfire/sli for processing physics instead of the ageia phy card.

also, an interesting article on physics cards related to this issue -

Ttomshardware - Is Ageias Physx Failing
(that video clip of shooting out the flag is pretty awesome... )

 

[Ackmed]

Sadly, unless the Crysis engine is picked up, and more games are made of it, a whole lotta hoopla is made over not much substance. If it follows Farcry's path. Farcry was an awesome game to me, and many others. Its graphics and gameplay were great. So far above anything else in the outside graphics dept. to me. Yet no other game used its engine. The multiplayer was pretty poor, with lots of bugs. Some good mods came out, but thats about it. Hardly any reason to pick up the game again after you beat it.

And it was the first SM3 game that came out, if I recall. If they try to push DX10 hardware on us, with the game the same way... its going to be a whole lotta fighting over what in reality will probably mean very little, if nobody picks up the engine. And it just goes to waste again.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Believe me you'll be back. There will be an irresistable PC game that you must have and you'll end up building and/or buying a new PC to play it.

LINK :beer:

 

[TanisHalfElven]

ok god. you don't need a x1900xt to play th latest games. a 6600gt level can play any game available today. you only need x1900xt CF or quad sli if you want high resolutions.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
ok god. you don't need a x1900xt to play th latest games. a 6600gt level can play any game available today. you only need x1900xt CF or quad sli if you want high resolutions.

You don't even need that. Even Oblivion runs good on my single X1900XTX, and everything else is playable to. I agree though, another GPU in the case would result better performance at those same resolutions, but I think that CF and SLI both are way overrated.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
ok god. you don't need a x1900xt to play th latest games. a 6600gt level can play any game available today. you only need x1900xt CF or quad sli if you want high resolutions.

You don't even need that. Even Oblivion runs good on my single X1900XTX, and everything else is playable to. I agree though, another GPU in the case would result better performance at those same resolutions, but I think that CF and SLI both are way overrated.

Yepp my single x1900xt runs games at 1920x1200 with details on high. I honestly think crysis will run on 1 card setup's just fine especially if it supports all that crap like 64bit, multi threading etc because that will give a boost to those of us with good cpu's but not high end gpu's.

BTW I wish more people made engines like the source engine. That is probably the best engine ever made - my 6800gt ran HL2 at freaking 1600x1200, and that is by no means a bad looking/old game. Madd props for source on that.

 

[josh6079]

BTW I wish more people made engines like the source engine. That is probably the best engine ever made - my 6800gt ran HL2 at freaking 1600x1200, and that is by no means a bad looking/old game. Madd props for source on that.

I really like COD2 and its engine. (I think it uses the Unreal one, but am not sure). It seems to be a very stable game, but I agree Sources has always had the best stable/playable/visual ratio as far as games go. Crytek has interested me with what they have done and what they want to do. I think anything is better than FEAR's. Great game (one of my favorites actually) and great graphics and gameplay, but there comes a point when you know that it isn't the hardware that is slugging your performance in the gut.

 

[Vallybally]

It seems game devs and GPU chip makers are in cahoots to make sure the hottest, best looking games will only run ideally on TWO cards of the current generation. More $$$ for the chip makers, that sux for the end-user though =( I want a single card solution that works well with games.

Unless game developers are compensated for taking such a risk, I don't see why they would do it. For example, if this Crysis game turns out to be only really playable on a dual/quad GPU system, they will hardly sell games at all. I mean seriously, what % of computer users/gamers have 2 high-end GPUs? Less than 10% I'm sure, that's a huge chunk of the market to brush off.

 

[BassBomb]

crytek did a good job of making their game playable on many systems... unlike doom at the start

half life 2 and far cry were good examples, that could be playable on a variety of setups

i believe crytek will still take this to heart in even playing games in medium/low settings (on the lower end of support cards) will still look good and be playable

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: josh6079

BTW I wish more people made engines like the source engine. That is probably the best engine ever made - my 6800gt ran HL2 at freaking 1600x1200, and that is by no means a bad looking/old game. Madd props for source on that.

I really like COD2 and its engine. (I think it uses the Unreal one, but am not sure). It seems to be a very stable game, but I agree Sources has always had the best stable/playable/visual ratio as far as games go. Crytek has interested me with what they have done and what they want to do. I think anything is better than FEAR's. Great game (one of my favorites actually) and great graphics and gameplay, but there comes a point when you know that it isn't the hardware that is slugging your performance in the gut.

Are you kidding? no offense but I think COD2 had the worst engine, it was ported from the 360 and it plays like sh1t on pc (very smooth on 360 though). Just check out reviews and see how badly it runs on high end-hardware. Very poorly coded engine for pc.

 

[josh6079]

Are you kidding? no offense but I think COD2 had the worst engine, it was ported from the 360 and it plays like sh1t on pc (very smooth on 360 though). Just check out reviews and see how badly it runs on high end-hardware. Very poorly coded engine for pc.

Mine plays fine. I never have had any problems with that game, and it looks awesome. In COD2 you can look at things that are near and far at the same time and it doesn't hurt your frames. With FEAR, I noticed that my frames could be hurting even when there wasn't much to display on the screen. I don't know, just my opinion. COD2 hasn't been glitchy for me, FEAR has been awkward, but very fun.

 

[RobertR1]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, but if it's lagging in a multi-GPU setup with all options on, then even with options off and lower res it's still not going to get great framerates, and playing the game with the options off makes the game look nothing like what it's supposed to...

precisely why im dropping out of PC gaming, and picking up a 360 instead. this machine wont be mine by the end of the month, its going to some one who a) will make more use of it (i mean ive spent nearly £2500-3000 on this machine from its conception and now it see's little more use than internet/email/bit-torrent/msn) b) who isnt so fussy over graphics and hardware.


im at the point in my life now where i find myself buying books over games lol! and having spent £4000 on a fabulous second hand car (deal of the century as far as im concerned) i cant justify spending nearly a 1/4 of that on GPU's alone just to get choppy FPS with all the bells and whistles on and the res cranked up

(and dont play the hi-res card, if you own 700quids worth of GPU, its more than likely your gonna have a hi-res display to use them on)

I'm on the same boat. My 360 gets way more play time than my PC. Also, for quite some time I don't see any PC games that I really care about but quite a few 360 games that I want to play.

I really like Live. It's really hassle free for demo's and online play. With Street Fighter II coming out tomorrow, I'll be spending a lot of time on there.

I'll build a new PC when vista is out but wont' be upgrading as usual to keep with the times. It's just now worth it.

Also, I'm having much more fun with my hd dvd player and hd dvd's than any money I've spend on a high end GPU Now that's an IQ jump!