Crysis uses a stupidly low amount of cpu power , what we need is faster graphic cards.
Actually what we need is for Crysis to be coded properly, it needs a stupid amount of graphics power for what is (IMO) a quite small graphical quality gain.
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Crysis uses a stupidly low amount of cpu power , what we need is faster graphic cards.
Clearly you are suggesting here that there is a way to make the nuke blow up everything, and increase the radius, presumably some sort of ini setting.If you make it blow up everything or increase the radius the CPU struggles and FPS drop down to a slide show.
Have the devs turned round and said 'don't worry, it's fixed in the full version'?
No
Your on a roll manSo you're basically going by the old idiotic approach that badly coded software just needs more hardware thrown at it?
So you're basically going by the old idiotic approach that badly coded software just needs more hardware thrown at it?
“idiotic approach that badly coded software just needs more hardware thrown at it?“
No I am going by every single example of software does the same thing. Proving CPU’s are too weak for physics. People are going on how PPU’s are not needed because of game xxx and every time game XXX comes out everyone goes well its just badly coded software its not the CPU’s fault.
How do you know its badly coded software? Have you looked at CPU usage while the nuke effect goes off? Have you seen the source code?
Your on a roll manmore insults...Nice
Edit: ok ill give you a break..you made at least to comments with out an insult that i have come across today.
No one should take it personally, we're all discussing stuff here that's perfectly obejctive, hence why i take offense to useless fanboyism and conclusions based on no concrete evidence.
“idiotic approach that badly coded software just needs more hardware thrown at it?“
No I am going by every single example of software does the same thing. Proving CPU’s are too weak for physics. People are going on how PPU’s are not needed because of game xxx and every time game XXX comes out everyone goes well its just badly coded software its not the CPU’s fault.
How do you know its badly coded software? Have you looked at CPU usage while the nuke effect goes off? Have you seen the source code?
I apologise if it wasn't meant that way. I've seen a lot of negativity get thrown at Pottsey from a few people at the same time before and even though I'm not really bothered about a PPU I still think the way he handles situations is superb. On that regard, that's why I posted.
maybe physics processors are the way forward, but the effects ive seen in games like ut3, with the 'destroyable buildings', just goes to show that they cant get a grasp on REALISM.
im sure if the game utilized 100% quad core, plus if you add a healthy overclock to it, the drop in fps would be minimal, if not negligable.
“With dual and quad core CPU's the whole idea of physics cards surely becomes obsolete anyway.”
Hasn’t Crysis just proved otherwise? Quad cores are way too weak. Unless there is a major bug thats yet to be fixed then going by the results even 8 to 12core wouldn’t be enough.