Crysis, what is limiting the framerate?

[Tom|Nbk]

@Clinkz you didn't need to highlight everything in bold I can read.

Crysis is GPU limited this is stone cold fact, we're all stuck on 2006 hardware as we're being drip fed it by NVIDIA. Crysis gives an amazing step forward in gaming technology how you can simply say it doesn't is beyond me. Unfortunately todays hardware does not do it enough justice.

It attempts too much and achieves too little.

A bit like your post no?

The simply fact is the technologies displayed in games like crysis dictate not what is playable today, but what should be playable in the (near) future. These sorts of games are nothing more than poorly devised and commercialized industry concept pieces.

Last time I checked Crysis was playable with decent hardware, simple fact is we need the better hardware to get the frame rates up. Old dated 2006 technology which keeps getting rechurned in the form of new card will simply not do it enough justice. I'm surprised the G80's ran it as well as they do, the game is unbelievably pretty. Nothing else compares.

Consumers such as yourself should be more interested in the technology that is available and playable today, not what may be playable years down the line.

I'm an enthusiast I'm always looking for the next available hardware.

Case in point CoD4, which looks and plays absolutely bloody fantastic even on 1 or 2 year old hardware like im running now.

It looks OK nothing 'fantastic' you simply cannot compare Crysis and COD4 to do such is moronic.

I have not played crysis

Says it all, take a walk

 

[james.miller]

it can NOT be a simple case of not enough gpu power if 3 8800's arent making a damn difference to framerates. come on tom, use that brain of yours. 3x8800's = 3 times the grunt. if it isnt 50-100% faster then something is most definitely wrong for a game that was written, supposedly, from the ground up with sli in mind.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

It has extensive shader and polygonal rendering involved, which even the most powerful hardware struggles to run consistently well. That's really all there is to it. The AI and physics and scripting and all that jazz are still your typical braindead FPS fare.

Exactly it involves such extensive shader and polygon rendering to the point where no matter how many cards you stack together you will still struggle.

The architecture of the G80 etc is not sufficient for such advanced rendering, can you blame it?, the technology is almost prehistoric now

We simply need new cards with more advanced updated rendering capabilities to take full advantage of what Crysis has to offer, this was the case with Far Cry and is now the case with Crysis, people need to wake up to the fact.

The game is far from badly coded. The problem is a slow moving GPU market. Crysis at least helped push it somewhat

 

[Tom|Nbk]

it can NOT be a simple case of not enough gpu power if 3 8800's arent making a damn difference to framerates. come on tom, use that brain of yours. 3x8800's = 3 times the grunt. if it isnt 50-100% faster then something is most definitely wrong for a game that was written, supposedly, from the ground up with sli in mind.

Something must be wrong with that review, check the DX9 list in Graphics Section, I have seen SLI G80 scoring 65FPS AVG @ 1280x1024 which is about a 30% increase over a single which is all I would ask of of todays hardware.

 

[james.miller]

Something must be wrong with that review, check the DX9 list in Graphics Section, I have seen SLI G80 scoring 65FPS AVG @ 1280x1024 which is about a 30% increase over a single which is all I would ask of of todays hardware.

im talking about the kind of resolutions that you'd actually play at with two or three 8800's - 1920x1200, not 1280x1024. its ironic that your complaining about 'almost prehistoric' gpu's when your gaming at a resolution that, its fair to say, most people with a top end gpu would laugh at. a resolution i havent personally used for over a year now.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

im talking about the kind of resolutions that you'd actually play at with two or three 8800's - 1920x1200, not 1280x1024. its ironic that your complaining about 'almost prehistoric' gpu's when your gaming at a resolution that, its fair to say, most people with a top end gpu would laugh at. a resolution i havent personally used for over a year now.

I don't 'game' at that resolution I bench at it as per the benchmark thread in the GPU section, you would have gauged this had you read my post properly .

I stand by the fact that Crysis is GPU limited.

 

[james.miller]

I don't 'game' at that resolution I bench at it as per the benchmark thread in the GPU section, you would have gauged this had you read my post properly .

I stand by the fact that Crysis is GPU limited.

dont be pedantic, you know exactly what i was saying from that post.

but hey, lets benchmark at 1280x1024 when we dont play at that res. lets also compare performance at that resolution, even though it bears no resemblance to what we are seeing at 1680x1050 and above. i mean, it makes perfect sense doesnt it?

 

[Tom|Nbk]

but hey, lets benchmark at 1280x1024 when we dont play at that res.

Yes because you can't guarantee that everyone plays at a higher resolution and it's safe to say that at leaast everyone is on 1280x1024 by now so this guarantees the most participation.

As you go up resolution the GPU becomes the limiting factor, the G80's are not cut out for Crysis rendering at a high resolution, at least not well. They simply do not have the horse power no matter how many you strap together something is missing, what don't you get?

Oh and I'm still waiting for the miracle drivers from NVIDIA or ATi to prove me otherwise.

 

[james.miller]

Yes because you can't guarantee that everyone plays at a higher resolution and it's safe to say that at leaast everyone is on 1280x1024 by now so this guarantees the most participation.

how many people buy these cards and game at that resolution. you just love being difficult dont you?

My point was, Tom, why bother mention the 30% increase you get with two g80's at 1280x1024 when REALISTICALLY people with two g80's would be using that resolution at all. it is absolute nonsense. at least you arent trying to quote figures at 630x480 lol.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

I actually recall similar arguments with Far Cry, funny that

 

[Tom|Nbk]

how many people buy these cards and game at that resolution. you just love being difficult dont you?

Don't know don't have the statistics to answer that.

Why do you think 3DMark is ran at 1280x1024....

 

[james.miller]

Don't know don't have the statistics to answer that.

how convenient.

Why do you think 3DMark is ran at 1280x1024....

because its a benchmark that is supposed to be compatible with as wide-a range of hardware as possible and so 1280x1024 is a good compromise. And also because even though its quite possible to run the benchmark and 1920x1200 on a gtx, it would mean you cant gauge performance against lesser gpus especially if other people running the benchmark dont have access to higher resolutions. differing test conditions mean all results are null and void!


...didnt you expect me to know that? give me some credit, you should need to be asking questions like that.

 

[HangTime]

I find it very hard to believe the game is limited by three 8800Ultra's

Then why is 3x8800u significantly faster than 2x8800u? Surely if something else is the limiting factor then there would be negligible gain from adding a third card.

Remember that resolution isn't the only factor, especially with modern games which are much more shader heavy than the old days where fillrate was king.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

how convenient.

You asked a question which is impossible for anyone to answer without a mass census , what did you expect me to say.

because its a benchmark that is supposed to be compatible with as wide-a range of hardware as possible and so 1280x1024 is a good compromise. And also because even though its quite possible to run the benchmark and 1920x1200 on a gtx, it would mean you cant gauge performance against lesser gpus especially if other people running the benchmark dont have access to higher resolutions. differing test conditions mean all results are null and void!

Yay I think you got it, hence the reasoning behind the 1280x1024 rule in the benchmark Crysis thread

 

[james.miller]

You asked a question which is impossible for anyone to answer without a mass census , what did you expect me to say.

i expected you to use a little common sense, and seeing how you like to be such a prominent poster in the graphics forum, i expect it to be something you take notice of. you failed on both counts, obviously.

Yay I think you got it

and 3dmark has what to do with crysis? one is a benchmark for comparing different combinations of hardware in euql terms, the other is a game with a very demanding engine that isnt even worth running on low end hardware. im sorry if im not seeing the connection here?

 

[Tom|Nbk]

i expected you to use a little common sense, and seeing how you like to be such a prominent poster in the graphics forum, i expect it to be something you take notice of. you failed on both counts, obviously.



and 3dmark has what to do with crysis? one is a benchmark for comparing different combinations of hardware in euql terms, the other is a game with a very demanding engine that isnt even worth running on low end hardware. im sorry if im not seeing the connection here?

Crysis has a benchmark built in thus should be treated as one in that instance.

Oh, Let's not talk about fail with you

You loose

Oops I mean lose.

 

[james.miller]

Crysis has a benchmark built in thus should be treated as one in that instance.

so use the benchmark at the resolution you'd play the game at. not too difficult to comprehend, is it? but no, instead you'd like to quote numbers from a resolution you yourself said you dont use, because it suits your argument better.

Oh, Let's not talk about fail with you

You loose

Oops I mean lose.

your little playground flamebaits wont make your argument any more credible, either. i wouldnt bother going down that route

 

[Tom|Nbk]

so use the benchmark at the resolution you'd play the game at. not too difficult to comprehend, is it? but no, instead you'd like to quote numbers from a resolution you yourself said you dont use, because it suits your argument better.


your little playground flamebaits wont make your argument any more credible, either. i wouldnt bother going down that route

I bench at 1280x1024 this is the rules of the benchmark thread.

If I benched at my default res of 1680x1050 it would back my argument up even more as it shows that as you up the resolution the GPU limits the FPS. Simple really. I don't wish to waste more time on the matter, I have no doubts in my mind you and others are just seething as it won't run on expensive rechurned out old tech .

 

[james.miller]

I bench at 1280x1024 this is the rules of the benchmark thread.

If I benched at my default res of 1680x1050 it would back my argument up even more as it shows that as you up the resolution the GPU limits the FPS. Simple really. I don't wish to waste more time on the matter, I have no doubts in my mind you and others are just seething as it won't run on expensive rechurned out old tech .

then you'd be wrong again, because i have no interest in crysis and outside of playing it on a friends system, it has never been installed on my pc.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Ok, ill make it simple for everyone who thinks its the game.

Crysis was released in 2007, now Crytek have said its 2x years ahead, 2007+ 2 years = 2009, now what cards have you all got now, and will have right up till August (or could be beyond, as we don't know what's coming after that so can't say), thats right 2006 cards, now someone correct me if i am wrong, but isn't 2006 1 year behind when Crysis was released, i think it is, so there you have it, easy as that.

ITS THE HARDWARE