Crysis - Confirmed Runs Best on Quad Core and 64 Bit OS

Alsone

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2006
219
0
18,680
0
Hi,

Just to confirm what many already knew, InCrysis held a Q&A session with Intel and Crytek on Crysis performance which I've copied below.

Outcome of this was confirmation that Crysis runs best on a Quad Cored CPU and 64 Bit OS so if you're planning a machine this is the optimum combination.

However, don't fear it will scale and run on lesser machines including single core but it won't run as well as on the Quad / 64 combination as it seems the game is specifically written to take advantage of the extra cores / 64 bit instructions.

Full Interview:

What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?

You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.

What technologies, effects, enhancements etc. will we see in Crysis with the use of the multiple core processors?

The most significant enhancement is the increased frame rate but it doesn’t stop there. Multi-core systems benefit from being able to generate much more complex visual particle effects using the additional cores to offload the work from the main game code.

Will Crysis be more dependent on the GPU or the CPU?

That will depend on the settings you are running the game at. Crysis is designed to make the most of both the CPU and GPU but with enough scalability to ensure a good game play experience on older hardware as well.

Will Crysis support some kind of thread branching so it can theoretically support an unlimited amount of cores?

The engine doesn’t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it’s proved more suitable to use a parallelization technique where individual tasks, such as physics, sound, particle calculations etc. are performed in parallel.

How is gaming processing distributed among the cores? ex: AI, sound, effects, physics

This varies based on the type of hardware you are running on. In theory the physics, sound, many of the particle systems and the game logic can all run on separate cores. In additional much of the time spent in the graphics driver can be offloaded to another core as Crysis has a very highly optimised Direct3D graphics engine.

Will the x64 version have a significant performance improvement over the x86 one?

With all others things being equal regarding hardware and driver performance then the 64bit version of Crysis will be the best performing version. The Sandbox level editor processes a large amount of data and is best run on a 64bit system.

Do you have any recommendations on other complimentary hardware to ensure maximum performance and avoid potential bottlenecks?

N/A

What is being done to accommodate those on older slow processors?

While Crysis has been optimised to allow for best possible gaming experience on high end multi core systems the game still offers an excellent experience on older hardware. Several features can be scaled back to ensure Crysis can be run well on older systems without affecting the game play experience.

How early into the games development have you been working with Crytek?

We have been working with Crytek for over 2 years to keep them updated with the latest progress in hardware development.

What benefits will gamers see as a result of your direct involvement with Crytek?

See above: frame rate stability, effects etc…
Full Qudos to Mathew and Incrysis (www.incrysis.com) for an excellent interview.
 

emp

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2004
2,593
0
20,780
0
4 x 1 GB sticks or 2 x 2 GB sticks, I have yet to see a 4GB stick. And as far as the DDR3, it's been out for a while and I don't see why that has to do with anything.
 

cafuddled

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
905
0
18,980
0


What next, will we get told that cleaning with soap makes you more clean than cleaning with just water alone?
 

trinitron64

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2006
302
0
18,780
0
Pentium Quadraplegic @ 30.0 Ghz
Octa-LI of Nvidia 45 Double D's
14 Tb of DDDR10 (Doubly Double Data Rate Ten)
$900 Supreme Audacious Audigy 10,000 Premium Sound Card
DFI's Gold Digger 100% Gold Motherboard

You will most likely have to overclock it and cool it with the mighty lungs of god himself. So some Catholosism wouldn't hurt.

 

techguy911

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2007
1,075
0
19,460
58
Yes the q6600 supports 64bit there is nothing amd has on this planet that can even touch the performance of this chip, i have one myself for 300 bucks if you think about it that 75 bucks per core.

If you do heavy video/sound conversions it really speeds things up,also ,makes vista run MUCH smoother.
 

DiGiTaLdAzE

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2007
14
0
18,510
0
One interesting observation--'Supreme Cpmmander' is programmed to take advantage of four processor cores, and yet the E6850 outperforms the Q6600 by a whisker in benchmarks for this game, as seen on the CPU comparison charts for 2007 on this site. This would seem to suggest that the faster speed and FSB of the e6850 seem to play a bigger role--Supreme Commander is also apparently a very CPU dependent game:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA ==
On the basis of this and some other cosiderations (e6850 will run current games better, overclocks better, and runs cooler) I recently purchased a 6850 for a new build, and I am definitely looking forward to CRYSIS. Anyways, it is certainly not a straightforward choice one way or the other--both processors are no doubt very capable. I will probably upgrade to Quad some time after the so called 'Penryn" processors come out--hopefully they will be affordable. Also wondering if they will be compatible with my MOBO--EVGA n680i sli 775--EVGA tech said they would release a BIOS update for this when the time comes.
 

prawcess

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2007
24
0
18,510
0
Thats basically what I would like a simple answer to. I very excitedly installed my Opteron 165 about 8 months ago. Its default clock is 1.8ghz, however I had heard that since Opterons are supposed to be a server chip the silicon was better etc.. and it overclocked nice. I was not disappointed in that regard, I got it at 2.4ghz with stock cooling and it stays around 44celsius.

The problem is that hardly anything seems to really take advantage of two cores.. whats the point of having 2 more?

Maybe with the next release of the quad they will implement it better?
I dunno that much about the technicalities, I just dont want something that wont be fully utilized.
 

enewmen

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2005
2,223
0
19,810
5

I believe your cpu is fully utilized. Even when most apps only use one core, you can run 2 apps much more smoothly. Even if you think your app only uses one core: Windows, the devices, the all background events, the virus checker, etc all requires some cpu power. So I am sure you Opteron is running great, even if you don't notice it. What you can do is open Task Manager and see what each core is really doing. I think you will be happy to see each core is doing something.
PhotoShop, 3D Studio, SQL Server, etc can use 2 cores. So, with 4 cores, you can run 2 cores on 1 application and have 2 cores left over on background apps. (like burning a DVD while playing crysis and downloading another game demo.) Yes, the future is multi-core.
 

Inferno106

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2007
6
0
18,510
0


It's not a hardware issue, it is a software issue. Software (games, apps) don't utilize the cores effecvtively. They will in the future. Even Supreme Commander was released when Quad cores were still in their infancy.
 

enewmen

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2005
2,223
0
19,810
5

It's not about lazy software developers.
It's about no one wants to give good developers enough resources to make a good product.
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
ok ok, so its bastards in one form or another who don't want the world to advance its computer graphics capabilities unless it makes them money
 

ailgatrat

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
179
0
18,680
0
Q:


A: This is what I think the q&a told us...



Looks to me like the sweetspot for Crysis will be 4 cores on a 64 bit operating system.



I remember back when BF2 came out, most of the complaints from the gamers was the fact that they all had to build or buy new systems to handle the game's system requirements. It's pretty much the same thing here. But the major difference being that the developers actually thought of the gamer with the less powerful system. I'm in the crowd that can't afford at the moment to build a whole new system, but then, I don't even know if I'll get the game or not yet.





These just had me ROFLMAO!! But I think that Raid array would have been 666 666TB drives in a 666 Raid setup! :pt1cable:

Sorry for the long post. Looked shorter when I was editing. :/
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
hang on... *goes into trance*.... I suspect a flame war is imminent
and intel does wipe the floor in the high end performance section yes but they aren't so dominant elsewhere so saying "any" intel, is a little inaccurate
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,084
0
19,810
14


One thing is that in demos, some of things that are going to go to CPU are not pushing the CPU. When all things that are in final game are utilisied, maybe then 4 cores do better than 2. Maybe there is not fysicks in demo, or something else is missing, that could use the extra core. If there is nothing to do for extra cores, then there is no gain...
 

shadowmaster625

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2007
352
0
18,780
0


for most people, even gamers, they will not notice the difference between your $300 chip, and an overclocked $69 amd chip! And in 6 months, they can take that $230 that they saved (plus another $30 they will save on the motherboard) and buy a phenom.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS