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

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]the reason i tell people to get a 6850 minimum even for lower res...games like this. Toms, how do 6 core phenom2's scale?? does it see improvement over 4 cores?[[/citation]
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]a hexa core AMD chip is still slower when compared with a i7 quad....like it or not its the truth[/citation]
[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.[/citation]
[citation][nom]jurassic512[/nom]6 core CPU's? are we just assuming no game can use more than 4 threads now?That would be silly.[/citation]
These are some benchmarks that include a Phenom II x6 1100T.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/crysis-2-dx11-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmarks/5


I think it's pretty clear that Crysis 2 makes little if any use of the additional threads. You'll see the maximum performance benefit with a 4-core processor (preferably Intel i5 or i7, especially if you're running lower resolutions), beyond that Crysis 2 doesn't scale.

 

[jmvanderleeuw]

Great. So now the turd smells nice AND looks pretty? Better graphics for a crappy Console-to-PC port with awful interface, controls and gameplay. Awesome.

 

[Guest]

Well, Looks like my i7 2600k and GTX 570 are gonna have a tough time.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]crisan_tiberiu[/nom]i have a GTX 460 1 GB, and yes, the benchamrk what Toms did its accurate. Maxed out on 1080p i have 20 -21 FPS. Core i7 2600k its bottlenecked by the GTX 460. I buyed the card last december.. so i dont wanna upgrde yet or i should? oO[/citation]

Yes, a single GTX 460 is an insult to that CPU.

 

[king smp]

I play Crysis 2 at 1920x1080 DX9 Gamer with a Core2Duo 3.0ghz/HD 5670 and it looks great
Must be awesome on DX11
I have to work on convincing the wife a new system is needed
for "work" purposes LOL

 

[kittle]

No i7 980x benchmarks?

I'll have to see how it performs on mine, but with an older GTX 285 card. Glad it has 2gb of vram.

 

[cabuck]

Odd, the hardware configuration page references the nVidia 560Ti gpu as one of the test units, but there is no related data reflected in the FPS graphs.

 

[verbalizer]

the reason i tell people to get a 6850 minimum even for lower res...games like this. Toms, how do 6 core phenom2's scale?? does it see improvement over 4 cores?

I doubt you would see any improvement with the 1090T vs 965BE.
I'd stay with the 965BE IMOp..
and it seems the card in the sweet spot is the GTX 570;
just one can get you by for starters and then SLI'ing them will be very very optimal..

 

[Guest]

Hello,

First of all I would like to thank you for your excellent article!

You told in your article about problems with DirectX 11 and 3D in Crysis 2. I dont know if this will have anything to do, but I guess it's worth a shot:

I usualy play my games with v-sync on, and I use FRAPS to measure the frame rate. When I play the game on DirectX 9 mode, the game caps at 60 frames per second, so it's working with a 60 Hz refresh rate. When I change the game to DirectX 11, the frame rate caps at 50 fps, so it means the monitor's refresh rate is changed to 50 Hz. Maybe this is causing some sync issue with the 3D active glasses. I don't have the necessary equipment to test this, but I guess the logical reasoning behind it makes sense, and it might be worth a shot.

Now about the article, one thing I was curious was if in other graphic preset levels (the ones that don't have the exclusive DirectX 11 features), is performance better running on DirectX 9 or 11?

Once again, thanks for your hard work and great article!

Regards,

Brotoles

 

[machvelocy]

thank you crytek

 

[f-gomes]

"Crysis 2 was gorgeous on release in DirectX 9 mode, and hardcore DirectX 11 evangelists who refused to play this title until the Ultra Upgrade patch was released only failed to enjoy the title sooner."

Exactly!

 

[f-gomes]

[citation][nom]Brotoles[/nom]When I play the game on DirectX 9 mode, the game caps at 60 frames per second, so it's working with a 60 Hz refresh rate. When I change the game to DirectX 11, the frame rate caps at 50 fps, so it means the monitor's refresh rate is changed to 50 Hz. Maybe this is causing some sync issue with the 3D active glasses. Regards,Brotoles[/citation]

Hey, Brotoles, you're wrong. Rendered frames per second have NOTHING to do with refresh rate. One thing is how fast your system can render images. Other thing is how meny times per second your display is refreshing. V-sync is good for saving power and avoiding tearing (when you have part of the present image and part of the previous image being displayed at the same time), but it will NEVER have any implication on refresh rate.

 

[f-gomes]

[citation][nom]GTX 260 still works[/nom]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.[/citation]

Wow, now that is one special GTX260 you have there... Or are you playing at 640x480? 'Cause there's no way you can max out Crysis or Crysis 2. Heck, you can't max out a lot more games with a GTX260, unless you're playing at a resolution well suited for a '96 14" crt monitor.

 

[darkchazz]

I had the patches installed , and holy hell, didn't know they could make it look THAT good :O
And of course it makes my overclocked gtx 560ti cry

 

[xsamitt]

I have a monitor that does 2550 by 1440..
I am about to build a new rig.....Any ideas on what I'd need to max out crysis 2 on ultra?

Thanks

 

[verbalizer]

I had the patches installed , and holy hell, didn't know they could make it look THAT good :O
And of course it makes my overclocked gtx 560ti cry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spExsvmJ-RE

 

[spookyman]

I am curious how AMD's new APU processor would do with Crysis 2

 

[hpfreak]

The system requirements are high... SSDs... how much more do you benifit from using one in Crysis (2) ?

 

[mapesdhs]

[citation][nom]crisan_tiberiu[/nom]i have a GTX 460 1 GB, and yes, the benchamrk what Toms did its accurate. Maxed out on 1080p i have 20 -21 FPS. Core i7 2600k its bottlenecked by the GTX 460. I buyed the card last december.. so i dont wanna upgrde yet or i should? oO[/citation]

That's why I bought two 460s last year. You could just buy another, the
charts show it'll run nicely. Which version do you currently have? I assume
the charts are using reference cards, so if your 460 is an oc'd version
then adding a 2nd oc'd version will be even better than the chart data implies.

Good call to iam2thecrowe for asking about the 6-core. 8)

Ian.

 

[GNCD]

I'm a sucker for water effects. Holy $#it on the improved water rendering. Crytek is making our PCs cry again. Keep it up!

 

[clonazepam]

You say it favors sandy bridge, I say it favors intel period.

Run the same benches on a Q6600 at 3.6ghz paired with 8gb ddr2 at 1066, a reference 570 oc'd to 750 core, 2100 memory, at 1920x1080, all settings ultra, dx 11 and that oc'd 2500k performs only marginally better.. less than 5% better.

Keep all those settings and toggle off dx11 and that q6600 system will be fluid. That's been my experience with my rig as I described.

I guess that's one more reason to wait for bulldozer or ivy bridge.

I'm glad to see my q6600 is not bottle necking my expensive 570. For fluid game play with ultra, dx11, and hi-res, i just drop to 1680x1050 and its smooth as silk. all ultra and hi-res with dx9, its completely fluid at 1080p.

 

[clonazepam]

I suspect another patch and/or driver release will net even better results for all users using dx 11. I'm expecting fluid gameplay around 30fps ultra, dx11, hi-res textures at 1080p for single card setups around 570/580 type performance.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I don't know what's wrong with everyone here... I have all settings on Ultra, High-res textures on, DX11 on, 1080p and it's butter-smooth on my GTX 560 Ti. Looks much better than with the old settings (before DX11 and high-res patches), too. Maybe it has something to do with V-Sync off? =P You guys should try it =)

 

[clonazepam]

Edit: These benchmarks seem completely off to me. I just loaded up the game to verify my results. q6600 oc'd to 3.6ghz, ddr2 1066, ref 570 @ 750mhz, 2100mhz mem. I got ultra setting, 1080p, dx11, hi-res textures, motion blur on high and Im gaming fluid between 40-60fps according to msi afterburner.

Your last chart on page "DirectX 11 Ultra Benchmarks" says 1920x1800. Obvious typo but according to that chart Im besting your oc'd i5-2500k with its 570, and equaling the same results you're getting with crossfired 6970's. Something is not right on your end.

 

[apache_lives]

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

why would you be using a 32-bit os for anything in this day and age?