Crysis 2 dx 11 patch

Subzero85 · 6 Nov 2011 at 19:40

just wondering how this game would run on an AMD phenom II X4 QUAD processor at 3.40 ghz
8 gb ddr3 ram
2 gb 6950

i hope to play at 1680 x 1050

most at high settings ?

Lovejoy! · 6 Nov 2011 at 19:42

should be fine, yeah.

Nymins · 6 Nov 2011 at 20:08

Crysis 2 runs terribly for me on my 6950 and 2500k. Think the DX11 patch really messed something up for me, even when I tone the settings down to the one below the highest (can't remember the name, Extreme I think? Ultra being the highest?).

~>Dg<~ · 6 Nov 2011 at 20:10

run fine and even do that at next res up

KNiVES · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:14

Nymins said:
Crysis 2 runs terribly for me on my 6950 and 2500k. Think the DX11 patch really messed something up for me, even when I tone the settings down to the one below the highest (can't remember the name, Extreme I think? Ultra being the highest?).

Runs incredibly poorly for me unless I disable crossfire. Maddening stuff.

Gashman · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:22

Nymins said:
Crysis 2 runs terribly for me on my 6950 and 2500k. Think the DX11 patch really messed something up for me, even when I tone the settings down to the one below the highest (can't remember the name, Extreme I think? Ultra being the highest?).

wasn't there an article a while back about needless levels of tessellation in the patch, which would favour NVIDIA architectures over AMD ones? :confused:

privateeye0 · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:24

I have exact same config except I have a Nvidia 480 GTX and EVERYHTING is maxed with no slowdown. The PROCESSOR is fine. Dunno anything about the graphics card though...

KNiVES · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:26

Gashman said:
wasn't there an article a while back about needless levels of tessellation in the patch, which would favour NVIDIA architectures over AMD ones?

Yeah, basically underneath every level is an ocean which is tesselated; it wouldn't affect Nvidia GPUs but it bogged down AMD units... it's the dirtiest trick in the book.

Gashman · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:29

reminds me of Intel and the whole 'anti-AMD' compiler tricks, apparently lots aren't so sure that is truly over yet as well, what is it with all the anti-competition crap going on, is NVIDIA really that afraid that AMD GPU are that much better than theirs? same thing with Intel, are they so afraid of competition that rather than fight it, they simply sabotage it? :confused:

KNiVES · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:30

Most big corporations are like that - just take a look at Apple who are trying to ban anything and everything Samsung does.

Gashman · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:42

its a damned shame though, makes me wonder whether we are seeing the true potential of some products, Bulldozer being one of the big examples, Phenom II was another (which did fantastic in non-Intel compiled tests where an X3 beat i5 and i7), so people say that Intel processors are faster for example but are they, genuinely or are we seeing the result of a one sided marketplace? corporate world is full of snakes, everywhere!

KNiVES · 6 Nov 2011 at 21:52

Yeah, Bulldozer is a massive disappointment

I was hoping to see the glory days of the AMD Athlon XP 3200 again.

MeMeMeMe · 7 Nov 2011 at 01:04

Gashman said:
wasn't there an article a while back about needless levels of tessellation in the patch, which would favour NVIDIA architectures over AMD ones?

You can test if this is the cause by limiting the amount of tesselation the game uses. Catalyst allows you to limit it, and with RadeonPro, you can limit it just for that game.

pingu666 · 7 Nov 2011 at 01:29

it runs okish for me
heard theres some issue with tripple buffering which can cause lower fps than it should :/