Crytek demo DXR on Vega 56

bru · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:03

Demo isn't on the marketplace yet, well I couldn't find it. Anyway looking forward to giving it a go, if it runs at all with a lowly 970.

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:11

bru said:
Demo isn't on the marketplace yet, well I couldn't find it. Anyway looking forward to giving it a go, if it runs at all with a lowly 970.

Later today, apparently, it will probably show up in here, i'll post it as soon as i see it, unless someone beats me to it.

stooeh · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:21

https://www.cryengine.com/marketplace/product/neon-noir ?

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:22

stooeh said:
https://www.cryengine.com/marketplace/product/neon-noir ?

That could be it, or it could be the SDK. let me install it....

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:25

I think that's it... its not an SDK.

stooeh · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:27

a score of 5601 @ 1440p = pretty punishing

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 14:50

stooeh said:
a score of 5601 @ 1440p = pretty punishing

1909 at 1440P.

However, i've had a problem with Cryengine since 5.6, the CPU is hitching like crazy causing low performance, i'm having the same issue in this benchmark...
Crytek did look into my problem for me but said they cannot replicate the problem, i'm thinking its something with Ryzen on my BIOS (1003 ABB)

Perhaps a good time to confirm that, anyone with a Ryzen system getting a lot of stutter and GPU depressed performance in this?

My post on the Crytek forum with error tracking results.

5.5 Woodland Time Demo:
Average FPS: 82.74
Max FPS: 187.62
Min FPS: 24.06
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started ,Level=woodland (Total Frames: 14903, Recorded Time: 252.97s)
Run Finished.
Play Time: 180.11s, Average FPS: 82.74
Min FPS: 24.06 at frame 4138, Max FPS: 187.62 at frame 1
Average Tri/Sec: -9899000, Tri/Frame: -119634
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.11
Memory Usage: WorkingSet=1306Mb, PageFile=3307Mb, PageFaults=906102
AutoTest Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

5.6 Woodland Time Demo:

This one looks different. i'll put it in a .zip because its huge... it has a lot of this

-Peak at Frame 1, 154.30ms : Wait - Physics Update (count: 1)
-Peak at Frame 1, 143.00ms : CSystem:oFrame (count: 1)
-Peak at Frame 31, 332.77ms : Wait - StreamIO New Request (count: 1)
-Peak at Frame 50, 131.61ms : Wait - Network Wakeup (count: 1)

in it, one for each frame, 14900 of them.

Average FPS: 10.03
Max FPS: 16.77
Min FPS: 5.21

Edit: 154ms and 143ms is a long wait for whatever its waiting for, no wonder the FPS are so low, 150ms is equal to about 7 FPS. might that explain what's wrong here?

Crytek:

We would like to investigate this issue to see what the cause is exactly.
Thank you for providing the CVar dumps.

I would ask that everyone with performance disparities please provide us with a DXDiag log and Editor.log.

Unfortunately we cannot reproduce this issue consistently enough for verification.
Please make sure to provide exact Hardware, Driver versions for hardware and Windows build/updates. (A DXDiag will suffice).
If you have already done so, it is not necessary to provide again.

We will continue to monitor and investigate this issue.

https://forum.cryengine.com/viewtopic.php?p=25837#p25837

bru · 13 Nov 2019 at 15:11

Does the benchmark DL 4.4GB include the 2.8GB cryengine 5.6.4 or do I need to DL that as well?

Poneros · 13 Nov 2019 at 15:47

RT V High @1800p w/ a V64 and it stays mostly above 30 fps, with a lot of the time ~40+ and only dropping below 30 fps when zooming in on the bullets. That's not bad at all! :cool:

stooeh · 13 Nov 2019 at 16:11

bru said:
Does the benchmark DL 4.4GB include the 2.8GB cryengine 5.6.4 or do I need to DL that as well?

It didn't need it btw

bru · 13 Nov 2019 at 16:17

stooeh said:
It didn't need it btw

Cheers

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 16:18

bru said:
Does the benchmark DL 4.4GB include the 2.8GB cryengine 5.6.4 or do I need to DL that as well?

No, its complied.

You will find it in.

DRIVE:\CRYENGINE Launcher\Crytek\Neon_Noir_Ray_Tracing_Benchmark_2527\bin\win_x64_release 'GameLauncher.exe'

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 16:45

humbug said:
1909 at 1440P.

However, i've had a problem with Cryengine since 5.6, the CPU is hitching like crazy causing low performance, i'm having the same issue in this benchmark...
Crytek did look into my problem for me but said they cannot replicate the problem, i'm thinking its something with Ryzen on my BIOS (1003 ABB)

Perhaps a good time to confirm that, anyone with a Ryzen system getting a lot of stutter and GPU depressed performance in this?

My post on the Crytek forum with error tracking results.

Crytek:

https://forum.cryengine.com/viewtopic.php?p=25837#p25837

This is what i'm getting....

Grim5 · 13 Nov 2019 at 17:24

Poneros said:
https://wccftech.com/neon-noir-crye...le-now/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

just like the world of tanks benchmark we once again see that even without its RT cores Turing is a ray tracing beast

Rroff · 13 Nov 2019 at 17:27

willhub said:
Will RTX be more efficient or I wonder if the tensor cores in the RTX cards will be able to be utilised for other ray tracing? Seems a bit of a flop if going forward RTX is dead and the tensor cores are just destined to be left unsued.

RTX hardware can be utilised with anything that uses DXR. Ultimately while it looks nice this Crytek approach is a hybrid approach that is ultimately a dead end - it has some application as a stop gap solution but would have been more useful 5 years ago than now (if GPUs then had been upto it) - theoretically the hardware in RTX could also be used to accelerate the Voxel approach used here though the setup on the Turing cards is more crafted to specifically accelerate ray tracing using the approach like DXR.

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 17:35

Rroff said:
RTX hardware can be utilised with anything that uses DXR. Ultimately while it looks nice this Crytek approach is a hybrid approach that is ultimately a dead end - it has some application as a stop gap solution but would have been more useful 5 years ago than now - theoretically the hardware in RTX could also be used to accelerate the Voxel approach used here though the setup on the Turing cards is more crafted to specifically accelerate ray tracing using the approach like DXR.

Why is it a dead end? its hardware agnostic and far more efficient. i would argue this is the future...

pete910 · 13 Nov 2019 at 17:35

Grim5 said:
just like the world of tanks benchmark we once again see that even without its RT cores Turing is a ray tracing beast

They was using a Radeon RX 5700XT or are you referring to another vid ?

humbug · 13 Nov 2019 at 17:52

This distinction is important, because what he is explaining here in the difference of what Crytek do. its Ray Tracing properly optimised, not what you see in RTX branded games where there is huge waistage, a bit like using 64X tessellation and a billion triangles in a concrete block "just because" and makes 0 visual difference but requires a lot of hardware to run.

https://youtu.be/CvMIY43e-GE?t=215

arc@css · 13 Nov 2019 at 18:07

@humbug Thanks for posting the Star Citizen video. I watched the whole of it. It was lovely to recline in my comfy chair and become immersed in the game world, which at times, did seem like a modern sci-fi movie. :cool:

I had a genuine wow moment when the first transporter/shuttle turned up, maybe because I wasn't expecting it/haven't seen much in the way of footage before, but a great scene nonetheless.

I'll try the Crytek demo later but I don't expect much with my aging video card.

Grim5 · 13 Nov 2019 at 18:08

pete910 said:
They was using a Radeon RX 5700XT or are you referring to another vid ?

Check the link