[AngelfireUk83]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...-crysis-phwoar

It seems Crytek's latest masterpeice will be 1 of the first lot of game to use Quad Core CPU's technology. One of the head guys from the company has said that a Quad Core CPU will provide smoother framerates and overall system performance.

And the game will even be supported on VISTA 64bit so slam ya 4GB memory in and ya should have no problems.

[xilix]

Nice. I remember reading about how the Crytek engine was gonna utilize 4 cores. Looks like I'm using my quad for a little more than video editing sooner than I thought.

[Oc1Kenube]

Great a new gfx card new mobo aswell as a quad core, think i'll pass

[Maverick0984]

Well, it uses 4 cores, but 2 of them don't get used that much. I'm seeing 2 cores @ ~50-60% and the other 2 @ ~10-15%.

[fabulouscoops]

Yeah, looks like a quad will not be needed for this game. In fact it seems not to be very CPU dependent at all.

[stereo555]

On my C2D/E6420 the sp demo uses about 65-75% (max) of both cores . A quad core would just make things abit nicer , but not a must have .

Nice to know a quad is actually being implemented in the game though .

[Goateh]

Not that i have a quad (would be nice though), I agree with stereo555 that its cool to see that devs are actually implementing the use of them

[FastRedPonyCar]

Just about all of the crysis development team's "suggested hardware" claims such as needing 4 gigs of ram for optimal performance and quad core for better performance have been proved totally false.

In fact, as fabulousscoops said, the game really doesn't utilize the cpu much at all. Read more about this here.

http://www.techspot.com/article/73-c...nce/page7.html

Another column from legion hardware

There are a few things we would like to clarify based on what we have found with this single-player demo. Over the past few months there have been countless interviews with the people from Crytek about Crysis and 'Cervat Yerli' has made a few claims that we wanted to look into. First of all he claimed that upgrading to a quad-core processor would be essential and this had quite a few gamers madly chasing after Q6600 processors. From what we have seen based purely on this single-player game, is that quad-core processors will make little to no difference at all.

Cervat Yerli also claimed that Crysis is a very CPU bound game rather than GPU bound. This is interesting since we found the complete opposite, Crysis is very much GPU bound and any Core 2 Duo processor and probably even any Athlon64 X2 processor for that matter will handle Crysis very well. So at this stage we do not believe quad-core processors are a necessity and we also do not believe you will need to upgrade to the latest and greatest Core 2 processor.

Finally in the interview that we read, Cervat Yerli goes on to say that the game will run and load much better with 4GB or preferably more memory. Well we tried the single-player demo out with 4GB of memory and the load times appeared to be much the same, while the actual in game performance went unchanged. At this stage the only real requirement we have for playing the game is a high-end graphics card, preferably the expensive GeForce 8800 GTX.

So while the good news is gamers can get away with 2GB of memory and a reasonably well clocked Core 2 Duo or Athlon64 X2 processor, they will need a serious graphics card if they plan to really enjoy this game. At this stage running the game in DirectX 10 mode has few benefits and to be honest I could not really spot any differences between the high quality DX9 and DX10 mode. The very high DX10 quality mode was impressive, though we found that using these settings rendered even the GeForce 8800 GTX useless.

It is interesting to note that Cervat Yerli claims that DX10 in single player will only see a small improvement in visual quality, while he claims that multiplayer will see the more advanced graphics and will allow for a truly next-generation gaming experience that actually affects how you play. Being the single-player demo, we obviously were unable to test multiplayer to determine the accuracy of these claims.

While Crysis is a highly demanding first-person shooter, it has good reason to be. Never have we seen a game with such an amazing level of detail, the outdoor environments are stunning. Also keep in mind that Crysis is being released a year after the GeForce 8800 GTX was introduced to the market. Furthermore it is being released just ahead of the next generation of Radeon and GeForce graphics cards. So when we say this game is designed for the next generation graphics cards, it's hardly a bad thing given they are right around the corner. In my opinion the worst scenario is when the hardware has to wait for titles and not the other way around.

HAHA I feel sorry for the guys who specifically dropped $600+ on these new quad core CPU's thinking they'd get super duper performance boosts from it.

It would explain easily why my brother's old 939 athlon system with 1.5 gigs of ddr400 and a 640mb 8800GTS is getting 30 fps on all high detail (I basically took the default medium graphics settings and tweaked certain values to bring up the visuals to a custom high level) @ 1280X1024. Heck, it even does the choppy waves, high shaders, sun shafts and parallax mapping. It's the vegetation draw distance that ultimately hurts his FPs. Just the water details, sun shafts and shaders alone make an ENORMOUS difference in graphics quality and there's hardly any change in frame rate.

[Mustanley]

I see between 20%-30% overall processor (Q6600@3.6) usage in the demo and a max memory usage (in Vista 64) of 1.35gb. But this game gets my 8800 hotter than anything else I've tried.

[FastRedPonyCar]

+1 on the GPU temp. Not even bioshock, oblivion or jericho can get my GPU into the 70*C+ load temps. Crysis put it into constant 76*C.

Seems like a great stress test to test.

[Maverick0984]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

Just about all of the crysis development team's "suggested hardware" claims such as needing 4 gigs of ram for optimal performance and quad core for better performance have been proved totally false.

In fact, as fabulousscoops said, the game really doesn't utilize the cpu much at all. Read more about this here.

http://www.techspot.com/article/73-c...nce/page7.html

Another column from legion hardware




HAHA I feel sorry for the guys who specifically dropped $600+ on these new quad core CPU's thinking they'd get super duper performance boosts from it.

It would explain easily why my brother's old 939 athlon system with 1.5 gigs of ddr400 and a 640mb 8800GTS is getting 30 fps on all high detail (I basically took the default medium graphics settings and tweaked certain values to bring up the visuals to a custom high level) @ 1280X1024. Heck, it even does the choppy waves, high shaders, sun shafts and parallax mapping. It's the vegetation draw distance that ultimately hurts his FPs. Just the water details, sun shafts and shaders alone make an ENORMOUS difference in graphics quality and there's hardly any change in frame rate.

um, I don't know of many people who paid $600 for their quad besides the Extreme versions for the enthusiasts, and they have the money to spend so don't care. The x32x0 and q6600 can be had at about $270. Not an ounce of me regrets the buy, and I'm sure everyone else whom bought one would agree. Sounds to me like you are justifying not being able to get one yourself .

[SteveLord]

That column probably right, but it still based off the demo.

[CJ145]

I heard that the demo was still just a beta build. If anyone has played the mp beta you would see that it's only single threadded. I think that the final game will be better @ threaddng.

[TTP]

Originally Posted by Oc1Kenube

Great a new gfx card new mobo aswell as a quad core, think i'll pass

Why a new gfx card? With the mb in your sig, you can simply drop in a Q6600 or X3220.

[FastRedPonyCar]

Originally Posted by Maverick0984

um, I don't know of many people who paid $600 for their quad besides the Extreme versions for the enthusiasts

Which is who I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Maverick0984

Sounds to me like you are justifying not being able to get one yourself .

I benchmark over 30 fps on very high settings. I could care less what CPU I've got. An E6600 @ over 3 ghz is plenty for me until I start doing work outside of gaming that actually utilizes all 4 cores because as far as other cpu benchmarks go, I see no compelling reasons for me to spend more money on 2 extra cores that aren't going to be used.

[Alien1099]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

+1 on the GPU temp. Not even bioshock, oblivion or jericho can get my GPU into the 70*C+ load temps. Crysis put it into constant 76*C.

Seems like a great stress test to test.

I can't believe that any of those games have any greater effect on how hot your GPU gets.

[Maverick0984]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

Which is who I was referring to.



I benchmark over 30 fps on very high settings. I could care less what CPU I've got. An E6600 @ over 3 ghz is plenty for me until I start doing work outside of gaming that actually utilizes all 4 cores because as far as other cpu benchmarks go, I see no compelling reasons for me to spend more money on 2 extra cores that aren't going to be used.

My point was that you shouldn't be referring to those people. They bought those for an entirely different reason than "playing crysis"...heaven forbid someone uses their PC more than you do and needs that kind of power. You are comparing apples to oranges.

My point was this, if you buy a E6850 it is the exact same price as a Q6600. Your justification based on price is an ill informed one. You are paying not a single penny more for 2 extra cores. What you get is *maybe* a bit more heat, which depends on luck of the draw. The E6850 in theory, might OC about 200mhz higher, but that is really pushing it to it's limit and real world results haven't exactly shown this in all cases.

It comes down to, do I pay ~$275 for 2 cores, or $275 for 4 cores.....hmm.

Not even counting that you could go the way of an x3210 and get a quad core for another $40 cheaper. Price is no longer a valid argument against buying a quad, unless shopping for budget CPUs. This should be common knowledge for everyone now.

[FastRedPonyCar]

No I've read on numerous other forums of guys who have specifically been saving up to buy the most powerful quad cores, ddr3 ram, you name it, ONLY for crysis. There may not be many here but there sure are guys on other forums.

If they're upgrading becuase what they have before doesn't cut it, that's one thing but the way I see it, dropping that much $$ on hardware thinking that it will be the best you can do based on developer heresay, is foolhardy.

I've always waited for benchmark tests in both real world app tests and game tests to make purchasing decisions when it comes to expensive hardware.

I admit that I too fell into the "more expensive = better" trap with my ram because when I upgraded my core system, the tests weren't out showing that DDR2 1066 had no significant benefits over DDR2 800 so I figured, "Well my cpu will have a 1066 fsb so I'll get 1066 ram to make life easier when overclocking" only to not get the anticipated 1066 fsb bios update that all the MSI guys assumed was in the works. Oh well, live and learn.

That was an inexpensive mistake, but I read two guy's posts in particular saying that each of them had gone out and upgraded from E6700/6800's to QX6700's and 4 gigs of ram specifically because yerli said it would give them a better gaming experience. Not because they needed the extra CPU power for graphics rendering or video encoding, etc. No... specifically for Crysis, only to now be proven wrong.

It's the same reason there was this firestorm last year of guys all gobbling up the 8800GTX's. They were all preparing themselves for these new awesome DX10 games that we're now seeing over a full year later.

[rainless]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

That was an inexpensive mistake, but I read two guy's posts in particular saying that each of them had gone out and upgraded from E6700/6800's to QX6700's and 4 gigs of ram specifically because yerli said it would give them a better gaming experience.

But who cares about those people? I mean your ram mistake was kind of funny... You can chalk that up to inexperience. It's inexperience mixed with having rich parents/not knowing what to do with your money, AND not doing your research that ould make someone run out and buy the most expensive hardware in the universe without so much as reading one hardware review.

But who cares?

If they can afford to buy all that in the first place they can probably afford to buy themselves out of their mistake a month later. It's not like they're going to show up here and start asking for benchmarking results.

I knew a guy that leased a new mustang every single year they came out. He just really liked mustangs. (Notice I said I *knew* this guy... not that we were "friends" or anything.)

Why bother with what someone else is going to do? (Except of course when election time rolls around... )

[Maverick0984]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

No I've read on numerous other forums of guys who have specifically been saving up to buy the most powerful quad cores, ddr3 ram, you name it, ONLY for crysis. There may not be many here but there sure are guys on other forums.

If they're upgrading becuase what they have before doesn't cut it, that's one thing but the way I see it, dropping that much $$ on hardware thinking that it will be the best you can do based on developer heresay, is foolhardy.

I've always waited for benchmark tests in both real world app tests and game tests to make purchasing decisions when it comes to expensive hardware.

I admit that I too fell into the "more expensive = better" trap with my ram because when I upgraded my core system, the tests weren't out showing that DDR2 1066 had no significant benefits over DDR2 800 so I figured, "Well my cpu will have a 1066 fsb so I'll get 1066 ram to make life easier when overclocking" only to not get the anticipated 1066 fsb bios update that all the MSI guys assumed was in the works. Oh well, live and learn.

That was an inexpensive mistake, but I read two guy's posts in particular saying that each of them had gone out and upgraded from E6700/6800's to QX6700's and 4 gigs of ram specifically because yerli said it would give them a better gaming experience. Not because they needed the extra CPU power for graphics rendering or video encoding, etc. No... specifically for Crysis, only to now be proven wrong.

It's the same reason there was this firestorm last year of guys all gobbling up the 8800GTX's. They were all preparing themselves for these new awesome DX10 games that we're now seeing over a full year later.

Well if people bought a QX6700 simply for the Crysis boost, then yes, I'd have to agree that was foolish. On these forums people don't do that . I guess we're more intelligent .

Generally the people that purchase the processors are avid enthusiasts and it is their hobby, and/or benchmarkers, and/or encoding/video processing galore users. All of those I don't count as being foolish, only those that buy them thinking they'll be necessary to play a game better.

I really don't think there is an abundance of these people though .