Crysis Wants Four (4) Cores....

[moshpit]

Those quads are getting more and more attention, and according to the devs of Crysis, your going to want one for this game. Seeing as the demo is out, people should start sounding off pretty quickly how well their quads are helping or not.

Cervat Yerli, who seems to spend more time talking to the press than actually working on finishing the game, revealed that on most systems, Crysis is likely to be CPU bound. "If [your system is] balanced, we are more CPU bound then GPU, " he told Shacknews.

" Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates... We recommend quad core over higher clock."

Source: TheInq

[moshpit]

Hehehe, there ya go Android, I think I got the linking thing down now

[nomore]

Crysis wants 4 cores...

and Crysis2 will want 8 cores.

jeez, I just got 2 cores few months ago.
stop multiplying the cores.

[Uber_Tiny]

and Crysis2 will want 8 cores.

jeez, I just got 2 cores few months ago.
stop multiplying the cores.

are you nuts?

keep um coming, more CPU powaz

[Hapatingjaky]

There's a difference between wanting and actually using as the Crysis demo barely uses a dual core...

[nomore]

There's a difference between wanting and actually using as the Crysis demo barely uses a dual core...

so you mean Cevat Yerli believes Crysis wants 4 cores??

[chew]

More quads doesn't make a meh game better.

I don't see any performance increases for me, even though I'm playing on medium.

[SirBaron]

Meh game, this is one of the best FPS games released in a long time.

[Zeatrix]

I have a Quad but how could I possibly know if it helps

All I know is, going from Medium to High on Shaders is the biggest FPS hit for me and my Radeon HD 2900 Pro.

[Hapatingjaky]

so you mean Cevat Yerli believes Crysis wants 4 cores??

If Yerli believes it then I believe it, even though he has never played Crysis and I have.

[Android1]

Hehehe, there ya go Android, I think I got the linking thing down now

Perfect. Nice going!

[Dragex]

What a liar... the main bottleneck is GPU, at least on the latest demo. Also I can't believe he calls an SLI 8800Ultra setup balanced... .

[moshpit]

What a liar... the main bottleneck is GPU, at least on the latest demo. Also I can't believe he calls an SLI 8800Ultra setup balanced... .

The Demo loses performance using SLI according to everything I've read so far. SLI isn't a factor for Crysis until retail launch and patch comes out.

[Dragex]

The Demo loses performance using SLI according to everything I've read so far. SLI isn't a factor for Crysis until retail launch and patch comes out.

Even worse .

[moshpit]

Even worse .

Yeah, unless there's a sudden DRASTIC change in performance on retail launch, I'm not getting Crysis until a whole new gen of GPUs come out, not even worth playing if I have to play on medium quality and low res.

[Dragex]

Yeah, unless there's a sudden DRASTIC change in performance on retail launch, I'm not getting Crysis until a whole new gen of GPUs come out, not even worth playing if I have to play on medium quality and low res.

I agree 100%. I went through the demo, it was really fun, however I won't play the game with such low fps.

[SH64]

Not likely :

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html

[Dragex]

Not likely :



http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html

We need average fps though.

[RavenX]

The only reason why they made Crysis is to boost expensive hardware sales. Game is clearly unoptimized and overloaded with pointless special effects. Game doesn't look better than Bioshock, STALKER or Oblivion. If you remove graphics you get only stupid Far Cry gameplay. On top of that I had numerous crashes like crysis.exe caused an error in Msvrc80.dll and refused to load saved games.

Frame rate can't be measured with FRAPS or ATI Tray Tools. This is similar to C&C 3 where FPS is the same regardless of your hardware. I get all the time 15 FPS average regardless of graphics settings within the game. I played entire demo on high and had better performance than playing STALKER. BTW, I have 1950PRO and single core CPU. Since very high can be played under DX10 only I don't need any more cores but then I'm not interested in playing Crysis at all. Bought Far Cry for $10 this year, downloaded 1GB of 64-bit patches, graphics sucked big time, game crashed after 5 minutes of playing constantly, dumped the game.

Note: According to Crytek North Korea is tropical island country located south of Singapore where people fluently speak English.

[SH64]

The only reason why they made Crysis is to boost expensive hardware sales. Game is clearly unoptimized and overloaded with pointless special effects. Game doesn't look better than Bioshock, STALKER or Oblivion. If you remove graphics you get only stupid Far Cry gameplay. On top of that I had numerous crashes like crysis.exe caused an error in Msvrc80.dll and refused to load saved games.

Frame rate can't be measured with FRAPS or ATI Tray Tools. This is similar to C&C 3 where FPS is the same regardless of your hardware. I get all the time 15 FPS average regardless of graphics settings within the game. I played entire demo on high and had better performance than playing STALKER. BTW, I have 1950PRO and single core CPU. Since very high can be played under DX10 only I don't need any more cores but then I'm not interested in playing Crysis at all. Bought Far Cry for $10 this year, downloaded 1GB of 64-bit patches, graphics sucked big time, game crashed after 5 minutes of playing constantly, dumped the game.

Note: According to Crytek North Korea is tropical island country located south of Singapore where people fluently speak English.

WOW seems you're pretty pissed off at Crytek games ... & not lucky with them alltogether.

[nomore]

If Yerli believes it then I believe it, even though he has never played Crysis and I have.

LOOOOOOOL

[Android1]

No Quad Core Scaling in Crysis?

ExtremeTech has posted their own benchmarks HERE.

Last week, Electronic Arts released a single player demo for Crytek's long-awaited first person shooter, Crysis. Crysis pushes the edge of the envelope in terms of graphics features, including insane levels of detail and DirectX 10 support.

However, we were curious about CPU performance. Granted, this is a pre-release demo, and it's very possible that the final version will contain further optimizations. Still, we wanted to check out how well the CPU performed. Crysis installs two batch files in its bin32 folder, one of which is a CPU benchmark. In this test, your character runs around a village and blows lots of stuff up—it's essentially a glorified physics test. Lots of debris and particles fly through the air. The batch file runs this demo four times. The typical scenario is that the first result is low, while the last three are roughly the same.

We ran the Crysis CPU test on five different Intel CPUs, all of which run with a 1333MHz front-side-bus: the E6550, E6750, E6850, QX6850, and the brand spanking new Core 2 Extreme QX9650. We ran the tests on our ASUS P5E3 system with DDR3-1333 memory. The OS used was Windows Vista Home Premium.

Two different resolutions and detail levels were run: 800 x 600, with graphics features all turned to "low" and the default, which is 1024x768, but with graphics detail turned to high. The graphics cards was the same PNY 320MB 8800 GTS we used in the Yorkfield review. Here's what we found out.


The most interesting result is the comparison between the Core 2 E6850 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850. Both CPUs run at 3.0GHz, but the E6850 is dual core while the QX6850 is quad core. As you can see, the results for both high detail and low detail are essentially identical. The low detail result is particularly illuminating because it suggests that Crysis won't benefit from quad core CPUs.

Note that once you crank up the detail level even moderately, the game becomes graphics bound at 1024x768; the performance only drops slightly when you use an E6750, and you don't see a noticeable drop when running high detail until you drop down to the E6550.