jmke

__________________

Roedi

R these real benches?

jmke

I'd say they are quite close to reality when comparing the different benchmark numbers from the web.

- Geforce 480 about 5~10% faster than HD 5870 = ~32.3fps
- Geforce 470 about 5~10% faster than HD 5850 = ~25.2fps

giving the early beta drivers, I'd say these numbers are close to real. But of course only time will tell. This friday official benchmarks are released.

__________________

blind_ripper

on a windows 7 beta version very good!

__________________
http://www.hwbot.org/signature/u5776.png

jmke

on the other hand, Crysis was released in 2007, we're close to 3 years later and still we don't have a single GPU card which delivers playable FPS at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF at the highest in-game settings.

at the same time, Crysis is pretty much the only game that really stresses current generation GPUs.
and it seems that CryEngine2 will be toned down

__________________

blind_ripper

its not stressing them, its just a crap engine!

__________________
http://www.hwbot.org/signature/u5776.png

jmke

wrong on both accounts.

Yes it's stressing the GPUs to their fullest.
No the engine is not crap, it may not be optimized to run on a console; in return you get awesome physics, most realistic lightening seen yet, immense amount of high res textures, facial animation, a live jungle etc.

you can't have AND this kind of images: http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...-engine-69111/ AND not require insanely fast hardware.

I would say, thank god Crysis is there to push VGAs to the limit , because neither Unreal or ID software is doing it anymore; they were responsible for the continued push for better VGA hardware each 6 months when Quake & UT were launched , with the introduction of HD consoles and the shift of the industry to making cross-platform titles, the PC has too much power; even at resolutions of 2560x1600 there are hardly any games that push a Radeon HD 5870 , let alone two of them in Crossfire.

CryEngine2 will be crossplatform, which translates into lower hardware requirements, less high res textures, overall less impressive GFX.

We won't see this kind of GFX: http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...-crysis-67477/ any day soon on PC; Metro 2033 which is a DX11 title pales in comparison to CryEngine

__________________

leeghoofd

Graphics are nice, but if they don't even play fluid on superpowerfull hardware 3 years laters, you have to wonder what's wrong.
Sorry but the CryEngine coding needed a big revision... I won't call Cryengine crap as it's still another level compared to current games, which is good but...

Frames per second and gameplay rule over detail and other mumbo jumbo in shooters ! I hope Cryengine 2 will be a good mix of graphic galore, yet remain playable at 1600 x 1200 on older hardware. Why can't these game programmers use the number of processor cores more optimal and optimise usage of dual GPU solutions ?

Then I would call it good coding !! The predecessor had far too many flaws... to me it was completely overhyped !

__________________

jmke

shaders , shaders and more shaders.

there's no butts, it may not run very optimized code, and the path they are testing with Ultra settings is gruesome on hardware, no matter what generation, it's no-holds barred rendering, and shouldn't really be used; if you set the in-game details to High and Shaders to Very High you'll get 99% identical image quality at +20-30% performance. the ultra setting is just to show off.

because no matter how you twist it, gaming is about running IN SYNC. which by default is something not inherent to multi-GPU and multi-CPU computing. Folding at home running different instances on GPUs and CPUs is not the same as the physics running on CPU1, AI on CPU2 , sound on CPU3 etc, it doesn't work like that, because it would cause unplayable conditions, where the AI is finished running before the physics are done, and the sound is still working; so they add code to keep the different threads in sync, this causes overhead, splitting the code in two and having it render the game properly is already quite an investment, because you'll be spending a lot more time on the same game engine, as if you were coding for single threaded systems. Now add it the complexity which increases by a nice factor and you have to invest a lot more money and resources.

single threaded code is not by default bad; nor is multithreaded code which stops scaling at 2 cores. It's a question of what's feasible, how much it costs, and what it is worth. In the ideal world Intel predicted 10Ghz CPU be 2010, single threaded. That would be "good". now they had to settle for a cap at maximum frequencies and they are expanding horizontally with more cores. problem is that very few applications and games benefit from more cores because not all manipulations can be split up in multiple threads, and sometimes it's faster to keep the code snippit run its course on a single thread, compared to splitting it up over multiple threads and then putting the results back together.

story wise Crysis was a lot better than Far Cry, Crysis Warhead is very solid story wise. Gameplay wise there is no such FPS game which offers this much freedom and not look ugly.

in my humble opinion it delivered very well on its promises. Come on, playing Predator in the jungle with realistic GFX and pretty OK AI is darn sweet. Even the recently released AvP game can't replicate the Predator like Crysis did with the nanosuit

__________________

jmke

^^^ chart in first post is found to be fake btw.



http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,70...fikkarte/News/

__________________