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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

gokanis

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2011
233
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]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[/citation]

Fanboy alert on nebun. Sometimes more cores are better than higher clocks. It just depends on how the game was written (a few take advantage of more cores, whether they do 6 or 8 is anyones guess). Id like to see some benchies also to see if the 6s and 8s are worthwhile for anyone rather than take nebun's word for it. If it was up people like him we'd be living in huts, worshiping just the Intel Gods, slaying the AMD heathens and not looking at the stars.

Im still stuck with a Q6600 O/C to 3GHz myself, have to wait on a sandy or the next gen intel/amd, whichever is faster (house poor). At least I was able to stick a Frozer II 6950 card on it, brought some new life back to my baby. I built AMD quads for the kids cause they were cheap and efficient for what they do.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I am thankful for the benchmarks but I personally dont look at them as a final performance purchasing decision in regards to fram-rate. My Core i7-950, 6GB of RAM and old GTX 260 crush any game I have played all @ max with AA & AF. Including Crysis with the high-res pack. I need DX11 which will be the only reason for an upgrade.
 
G

Guest

Guest
we need more CPU benchmarks with some hex core scaling and some lga1366 CPU.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]gokanis[/nom]Fanboy alert on nebun. Sometimes more cores are better than higher clocks. It just depends on how the game was written (a few take advantage of more cores, whether they do 6 or 8 is anyones guess). Id like to see some benchies also to see if the 6s and 8s are worthwhile for anyone rather than take nebun's word for it. If it was up people like him we'd be living in huts, worshiping just the Intel Gods, slaying the AMD heathens and not looking at the stars.Im still stuck with a Q6600 O/C to 3GHz myself, have to wait on a sandy or the next gen intel/amd, whichever is faster (house poor). At least I was able to stick a Frozer II 6950 card on it, brought some new life back to my baby. I built AMD quads for the kids cause they were cheap and efficient for what they do.[/citation]
It wasn't an unreasonable or unsubstantiated assumption to make on nebun's part. The i7-2600K (and even the i7-960 in some cases) outperforms the Phenom II x6 1100T by a pretty wide margin in multi-thread optimized workloads:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,2874-7.html

So it's pretty reasonable to assume based off of this information (and Intel's rather substantial advantage in games that can actually take advantage of 4 threads) that if Crysis 2 actually could take advantage of 6-8 threads, although I highly doubt it can, Intel's 4-core/8-thread processors would probably still have an advantage over AMD's 6-core processors.
 
G

Guest

Guest
What's weird is I have a GTX 550Ti, and I maxed out all the settings (even DX11) and got an average of 30fps (1280x1024) in DX11 mode with the hi-res textures.

 

utgardaloki

Distinguished
Mar 18, 2009
65
0
18,630
0
Crysis 2 is really the only game I've encountered that makes me feel like I'm missing something when I'm not playing it in 3D Vision mode; it's the definitive stereoscopic release, and if you’re at all interested in three-dimensional immersion, then this is the one to try.
That's just plain funny. Crytech said it too... "Crysis 2 is the new benchmark for playing in 3D".

?..

I have seriously never played a game where the 3D is supposed to work while actually working as incredibly bad as the built in crap 3D-engine in Crysis 2.
You get a depth slider a'la 3DS... great. Convergence settings anyone? So much for adapting your 3D to the actual eyes you happen to be born with. Now all I get is the gimmick. It sure is 3D but that's it. A guy standing 10 feet away feels like he is 5 feet away and flat like a card-board box. And that's at the most powerful depth setting.
So now I have to write my own auto config file to get it somewhat right. But guess what. By forsing greater convergence you inflate the stupid rendering technique of this game which makes the outlines of the shooter box "cut" itself out from the background. Not to mention the screwed up sides that get mirrored about an inch from the actual edge.
Good job Crytech.
And people actually like this crappy 3D?? I don't know what other gamers are after when playing in 3D but for me it's all about immersion from being placed inside the actual game. It's supposed to feel like I'm actually there. Not some "neat" effect that separates one "card-board box" from another. I've achieved that with every other game I've tried (rendering problems for some games aside). But this one barely works.
I rather play Crysis 1 in 3D even though the post processing rendering tends to get smucked up there.

Gar-bitch
 
G

Guest

Guest
I am running Crysis 2 with he DX11 patch and Hires @2048x1536 all ultra on a i5 2500k@4.6Ghz on a XFX 6950 2gb card with no issues at all..very cool
 

cburke82

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2011
1,126
0
19,310
22
A few thoughts on this article. First still no AA on this benchmark? Is there a reason not to use AA? It seems they never use AA when benchmarking Crysis 1 or 2. Has there been a reason stated for this that I missed? Also It seems that if they had tested a 4.oghz AMD Phenom ii X 4 it would not have been very far behind a sandybridge i5 of the same clock. It seemed to go up about 3 FPS with every 500mhz so at 4ghz the AMD would have been only 2-4 FPS behind avg it out to 3 and I think saving $50 to only get 3 less FPS is not to bad of a deal? Was the 4ghz not tested because people have trouble getting a Phenom 2 up to 4ghz? Im a noob in terms of building PC's and got mine up to 4ghz on air just fine. Other than those 2 things great review and hopefully this game gets a bit cheaper so I can take it for a test drive lol.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I own a Corei7 920 with 12 GB RAM and a single Geforce GTX460 1GB.
I did extensive testings and comparisons, and found (like this article also states) that most improvements are not noticeable unless you are scrutinizing the enviroment. The only ones i deem very noticeable are:
Tesselation, Parallax Oclussion Mapping and the High Res Texture Pack.

So on my rig i played the game with DX11 enabled, all settings on Extreme but Objects in Ultra (to enable tesselation and POM) and with High Res Texture Pack enabled as well.

I use a 46" HDTV as my main monitor and i set the resolution to 1600x900.

With this configuration i can say that it´s the most impresive and best looking game i´ve ever seen, when i show it to my "console" friends they can´t believe the computer is rendering all on realtime i have to give them the mouse and keyboard ton convince them its not a prerendered movie.

Well done Crytek.

Looking foward to Crysis 3.
 

jurassic512

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2010
152
0
18,690
1
I have to say i'm pleased and disappointed by this review.
pros:
with what hardware they did test, it did give good results
cons:
where is the 2600K with HT? 6 core CPU's? are we just assuming no game can use more than 4 threads now?

That would be silly. I don't know if you had an intel or AMD 4 core beats on hand, but that is what i'd like to see. Even some memory tests. It's more work, but it would be worth it. I'm fond of lengthy reviews though. I would read 20+ reviews on cdrinfo for optical drives because its fun and enjoyable. I don't think there is any such thing as a review/roundup/test/comparison that is too long. Keep it up Tom's... I'm not going anywhere regardless. You've earned your spot on my bookmark bar long ago!
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
4
[citation][nom]jurassic512[/nom]I have to say i'm pleased and disappointed by this review.pros:with what hardware they did test, it did give good resultscons:where is the 2600K with HT? 6 core CPU's? are we just assuming no game can use more than 4 threads now?That would be silly. I don't know if you had an intel or AMD 4 core beats on hand, but that is what i'd like to see. Even some memory tests. It's more work, but it would be worth it. I'm fond of lengthy reviews though. I would read 20+ reviews on cdrinfo for optical drives because its fun and enjoyable. I don't think there is any such thing as a review/roundup/test/comparison that is too long. Keep it up Tom's... I'm not going anywhere regardless. You've earned your spot on my bookmark bar long ago![/citation]

Thanks for the feedback Jurassic!

The game's been out a long time, and we have to assume that most people have either made the call to buy it or skip it. With that said, we still wanted to test the effects of these new patches using a sampling of hardware. That means picking and choosing a range (rather than trying to test every single component a reader might have).

With that in mind, it's safe to assume that your -2600K will have far less impact on the final results than whatever graphics subsystem you're using.

Hope the data we did present was still useful to you!
Best,
Chris
 

Soma42

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2010
195
0
18,710
9
I would've liked to see a few more single graphics cards tested, GTX 560ti instead of the 550 for one.

Also, interesting to see that there's not a huge difference between 2 and 4 cores. I would've expected a much bigger gap...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS