Crysis 2 Goes Direct X 11: The Ultra Upgrade, Benchmarked

[rantoc]

*thumbs up to CryTek!* They really came through for their fans. Crysis 2 looked good on Dx9 and now looks simply amazing with Dx11 and is fully playable on the higher end of the cards.

 

[haplo602]

there's a radeon 5670 mentioned on the setup page but none in the graphs. mistyped a 6570 there ?

 

[f-gomes]

Amazing graphics. Still, if you did get over all the downrating when the game came out, you'd notice that Crysis2 have always looked great, even in DX9. Impressive how pretty a game can be running on DX9, such an old api. Kudos, crytek. For both dx9 and dx11 versions.

 

[kettu]

[citation] Toms, how do 6 core phenom2's scale?? does it see improvement over 4 cores?[/citation]

That's what I'd like to also know.

 

[silo]

Seriously Tom's begin testing with multi-monitor resolutions, it's good and all with DX11 but please go all the way.

 

[zybch]

So will I be able to use these updates and high-res texture packs on my copy of Crysis 2 I purchased via steam before EA threw their pathetic hissy fit and removed it from the steam system?

 

[i_am_aronman]

It Amazes me how technology develops, One minute we have the 460 which is a reasonable powered graphics card, the WHAM! one 570 is better then 2 460's...just can't wait to see whats next...

 

[rohitbaran]

Should have thrown in Crysis with ultra details. It would have provided an idea as to how good is Crysis 2 coded than the original one, or maybe not!

 

[edwinjr]

I heard ultra texture patch only for windows 64 bit,
Is that true?

 

[Guest]

Single GTX 580.

GTX 580 SC from EVGA @ 1920x1080
i7-2600k @ 4.2Ghz
8GB Kingston 1600Mhz RAM

*VSync ON (60Hz Monitor)
Average - 50-55fps
Minimum - 25-30fps (Rarely hit minimum, sometimes in cutscenes, and in very complex, AI heavy environments.)
Maximum VRAM Usage - 1496MB

These arent necessarily perfect benchmark numbers but they are a good example of what a single GTX 580 is capable of. In short, definitely playable and enjoyable on a single GTX 580 (without 3D vision).

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]zybch[/nom]So will I be able to use these updates and high-res texture packs on my copy of Crysis 2 I purchased via steam before EA threw their pathetic hissy fit and removed it from the steam system?[/citation]

Yes. The patch will automatically detect your steam version and update without a hitch. (After downloading it from the Crysis website, steam will auto update to 1.9 but not the 2 extra packs.)

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]edwinjr[/nom]I heard ultra texture patch only for windows 64 bit,Is that true?[/citation]

Crysis 1 runs much easier (better framerates, VSync at 60, never drops below 60) than Crysis 2 with the new HiRes pack and DX11. Thats with my setup above, but Im sure others have gotten different results with the 2 games.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]Should have thrown in Crysis with ultra details. It would have provided an idea as to how good is Crysis 2 coded than the original one, or maybe not![/citation]

Wrong quote, my apologies.

 

[robwright]

I hope my two 6950s will at least be "serviceable."

BTW, is this game any good? I mean, besides visually? I was disappointed by Crysis, though I thought Warhead was pretty good.

 

[nebun]

it is time....this should have been done out of the box, not by the means of some stupid upgrade....much better look game....like i said it is time to finally put my liquid cooled 480 sli under some real stress hope my i7 920 @3.8 is not going to be my bottleneck

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]kettu[/nom][citation] Toms, how do 6 core phenom2's scale?? does it see improvement over 4 cores?[/citation]That's what I'd like to also know.[/citation]
a hexa core AMD chip is still slower when compared with a i7 quad....like it or not its the truth

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]edwinjr[/nom]I heard ultra texture patch only for windows 64 bit,Is that true?[/citation]
i hope its true, that way everyone will stop using the old 32bit and up to 64bit....you people are holding back progress

 

[brendonmc]

I agree with Don. It looked pretty damn good in DX9 but the new DX11 is mind blowing. Hats off to Crytek for delivering on their promise.

 

[malphas]

[citation][nom]flyboy86[/nom]Wish they would have included the 5770 in crossfire.[/citation]
Me too. If you double the framerate for a single 5770, then deduct 10% or 15% it will give you a fairly reliable optimistic or conservative estimate respectively though.

 

[spookyman]

Would a pair of GTX 590's be able to handle this game in SLI mode? How about triple SLI set up?

 

[ikaruga]

Here is someone who actually have a clue about the nasty true nature of this update not like TH🙁
Crytek licked nvidia's ass and betrayed the gamers and their customers🙁

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/838-1/crysis-2-dx11-performances-tessellation-loupe.html

 

[Guest]

@ Ikaruga: Wouldn't happen to have that site in English?

(and why do I think you have an axe to grind?)

 

[torque79]

As I recall, the original Crysis when it came out was not playable on any current graphics hardware on its highest settings with AA. Seems that gaming graphics progress has indeed slowed, since there are several options for cards that easily handle it now.

Granted, crysis 2 launch date was a while ago, but I don't think that's equivalent since it did not yet have the dx11 and highres patch to really push the boundaries.

 

[xuvial]

1) Why the hell wasn't a single 580 and 6970 tested, why only SLI which drastically fewer people have.
2) A GTX560 Ti was supposed to be tested (according to the Test System specifications), where the hell is the bench for it?

Overall I give this article a 3/10, so much irrelevant shit was benched. TomsHardware has gone even further downhill than I expected.

 

[ikaruga]

@ Ikaruga: Wouldn't happen to have that site in English?

(and why do I think you have an axe to grind?)

You can always use Chrome, it's not perfect, but you can read the site. (I don't speak french too😉)

Basically the dx11 patch was done inside the "meant to be played" (or payed?😀) program where nvidia gave money to Crytec to do dx11 patch for the game.

Now ATI currently much faster in rasterization, while Nvidia is better in tessellation. What they did in crysis2 to make Nvidia better is horrible. They tessellating fake scenes (like a whole sea under the city) to make the Ati cards struggle. But of course, if nvidia would need to rasterize that insane amount of tesselated polygons, ATI would still come out as a winner. So they run a special geometry shader after tessellation and remove the fake scenes before the rasterization phase.
According to PerfStudio tests, this slows down things by 30-50% for all players (a little bit more to ATI users). I can understand nvidia, they just want to survive until they can get money from igp market again from the ARM based chips, so they just do serious business (still nasty, but it's all about business) and anyway the whole gaming-hardware related PC indsustry would collapse in no time if people would only buy new hardware in every 5 years or so... so they just try to force us to buy new hardware as frequently as possible.

But Crytek should said "*** you!, we want the best for our gamers and customers" this is something I can't forgive.

Please excuse my English