Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

For those wondering about quad core games

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 31, 2007 11:47:06 PM

Link to the Intel discussion on Crysis and that quad core should provide the best experience on Crysis. ONLY the beginning of the next gen games. Get that Q6600 over the 6850 while you still can.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta... d=411&Itemid=2

Intel Crysis Q&A - Responses Print E-mail
Image

A couple of weeks back, inCrysis fielded your questions about Intel's technology and how this will shape the game play experience in Crysis. Intel has kindly answered many of the questions and are published below. Stay tuned for more Q&A's from Crysis's other technology partners!



What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?

You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.
August 7, 2007 1:06:59 AM

Intel Crysis Q&A - Responses Print E-mail
Image

A couple of weeks back, inCrysis fielded your questions about Intel's technology and how this will shape the game play experience in Crysis. Intel has kindly answered many of the questions and are published below. Stay tuned for more Q&A's from Crysis's other technology partners!

What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?

You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.
What technologies, effects, enhancements etc. will we see in Crysis with the use of the multiple core processors?

The most significant enhancement is the increased frame rate but it doesn%u2019t stop there. Multi-core systems benefit from being able to generate much more complex visual particle effects using the additional cores to offload the work from the main game code.

Will Crysis be more dependent on the GPU or the CPU?

That will depend on the settings you are running the game at. Crysis is designed to make the most of both the CPU and GPU but with enough scalability to ensure a good game play experience on older hardware as well.

Will Crysis support some kind of thread branching so it can theoretically support an unlimited amount of cores?

The engine doesn%u2019t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it%u2019s proved more suitable to use a parallelization technique where individual tasks, such as physics, sound, particle calculations etc. are performed in parallel.

How is gaming processing distributed among the cores? ex: AI, sound, effects, physics

This varies based on the type of hardware you are running on. In theory the physics, sound, many of the particle systems and the game logic can all run on separate cores. In additional much of the time spent in the graphics driver can be offloaded to another core as Crysis has a very highly optimised Direct3D graphics engine.

Will the x64 version have a significant performance improvement over the x86 one?

With all others things being equal regarding hardware and driver performance then the 64bit version of Crysis will be the best performing version. The Sandbox level editor processes a large amount of data and is best run on a 64bit system.

Do you have any recommendations on other complimentary hardware to ensure maximum performance and avoid potential bottlenecks?

N/A

What is being done to accommodate those on older slow processors?

While Crysis has been optimised to allow for best possible gaming experience on high end multi core systems the game still offers an excellent experience on older hardware. Several features can be scaled back to ensure Crysis can be run well on older systems without affecting the game play experience.

How early into the games development have you been working with Crytek?

We have been working with Crytek for over 2 years to keep them updated with the latest progress in hardware development.

What benefits will gamers see as a result of your direct involvement with Crytek?

See above: frame rate stability, effects etc%u2026
August 7, 2007 2:10:35 AM

Good posts, nice find and thanks for sharing.
Related resources
August 7, 2007 2:10:59 AM

And when the hell if ever is this game going to come out? I will like to see the actual benchmarks and see what they mean by "best gaming on multi core" means. So I guess if you want to play any new games you have to get a quad core........give me a break. And then next year it will be a octo cores for the best exp............they keep us spending our money........and the wheels on the bus go round and round.............
August 7, 2007 2:37:19 AM

Official release date is mid november....just in time for black friday.....suprise, suprise.
August 7, 2007 3:57:42 AM

turpit you see a trend here? Now the dual core is going out as quickly as it came in. Now everyone is saying quad core.........I can see where this is heading................how about some dual and quad gpu's ;-)
August 7, 2007 4:04:42 AM

Hell, at this point, I can liev without anymore wunder CPUs or GPUs, I just want faster HDDs. Im wondering how the Samsung production delays are going to impact the SSD price drops/capacity increases. That situation looks glum....guess no SSDs for me this year.
August 7, 2007 5:47:51 AM

Dual and Quad GPU's ain't gonna happen unless you have an infinite supply of liquid N2.
August 7, 2007 12:56:40 PM

You might as well just buy the Triforce of 2900 Crossfire.
August 7, 2007 1:03:43 PM

Dual and Quad GPU's ARE going to happen, in fact they already are.

Its the obvious way to go towards the future.. and they wont take too much power or make too much heat thanks to new manufactoring process'.

I cant see why people just dont see that using 2 or more could have the same effcrt as using 2 or more cores on a CPU, its so obvious.
August 7, 2007 1:19:05 PM

I wonder what kind of GPU is going to be 'recommended' highest performance. Do you guys think a GeForce 8800/ATI 2900 will be able to push this game (say in DX10) past 30 fps? I remember an IGN preview a while back that said they were playing a demo (maybe at E3?) and that they noticed there was noticeable stuttering in the frame rate...

ETA: Here's an excerpt from the IGN preview:

"What was really crazy is that the game was running in 1024x768 for our playtest so that it would run completely smoothly at this point. They apparently have a lot of optimization to do...Either way, this is not going to be a title for the weak of heart or more importantly, the weak computer."
August 7, 2007 1:47:37 PM

there's no new information there that the Intel marketting machine isn't already dishing out, I'm waiting for the games to come out and seeing how they really run on dual core vs. quad core before making a purchasing decision
August 7, 2007 4:26:21 PM

deerhunter716 said:

Will Crysis support some kind of thread branching so it can theoretically support an unlimited amount of cores?

The engine doesn%u2019t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it%u2019s proved more suitable to use a parallelization technique where individual tasks, such as physics, sound, particle calculations etc. are performed in parallel.


If Crysis is coded this way, then it can really only benefit from a quad core to the extent that 4 different tasks, i.e. physics, sound, particles, require the same amount of CPU power at any given time. Since this is not at all the case, it's difficult to conclude that the Q6600 will outperform the E6850 in Crysis. They need to be able to get at least a 1.25 scaling factor from 2X to 4X to make up for the slower clock speed, which I am skeptical that they will get.
August 7, 2007 7:07:04 PM

Intel says Crisis will runs best on a Quad....blatant advertising to try and make people believe that they need a Core2Quad to run it. If Crisis performed like crap on anything other than a Quad core the Game wouldn't sell that well.
August 8, 2007 4:19:26 AM

speedbird said:
Intel says Crisis will runs best on a Quad....blatant advertising to try and make people believe that they need a Core2Quad to run it. If Crisis performed like crap on anything other than a Quad core the Game wouldn't sell that well.



Meh, ID said Doom 3 would perform best on a videocard with 512 of onboard memory when it came out....when at the time the best you could buy was 256. In reality it worked just fine on 256 boards. Software developers are competing against everybody....other developers, hardware manufacturers, OS developers. They are now spending years per title (for the big ones) writing software while the hardware world is leaving them in the dust, and microsoft is desperately trying to shove DX10 or Net 527&1/56th up their behinds. You cant blame them for tyring to produce something that it going to have longevity and scale in performance with future hardware, hich means its not going to be its best on current hardware. Look at some of the great older titles, Doom, Descent, Leisure suit Larry (J/K) they were great games, but trying to play them now is just plain painful. This is important not because of the content, but because of the engines. Why create a new engine for one title if you can rake in that much more cash by licensing it for multiple titles. But who is going to licence it from you if its outdated WRT hardware the day you release it? What about six months down the road? If it wont scale with the new hardware, its worthless. Theres a lot more to it than thasn just gimmick advertising. Im always amazed at these guys and how they can develope something hot, when they work with so many unknowns
August 8, 2007 5:15:10 AM

Going back to Supreme Commander, does anyone have thoughts on the somewhat confirmed speculation that each computer AI gets its own thread and that its behavior optimization actually improves with the availability of additional cpu time?
August 8, 2007 5:27:30 AM

turpit: I remember that... and then, when I got my 256MB GeForce 6600 (not even a GT, just a regular 6600), finding out it ran just fine in Ultra detail... sometimes I think they say these things as a way of saying to the hardware designers "you know, we really want <feature x> in the future..."
August 8, 2007 6:02:00 PM

I don't understand the hype around Supreme commander because it's nothing that has not been done before or anything special. The whole game is very uninspiring and plays rather weak when compared to other strategy offering.
August 9, 2007 1:05:55 AM

nothing special and nothing that hasnt been done before...? did you even play the game or did you just look at the screen shots
August 9, 2007 3:12:16 AM

killer_roach said:
turpit: I remember that... and then, when I got my 256MB GeForce 6600 (not even a GT, just a regular 6600), finding out it ran just fine in Ultra detail... sometimes I think they say these things as a way of saying to the hardware designers "you know, we really want <feature x> in the future..."


You know, its funny, my ATI 9800 pro w 256 would not run it in Ultra at a playable fram rate, but when I went to the ATI 1900, it ran it in ultra no prob. Sadly, I wasnt even remotely impressed....in fact I was disapointed. The thing that is funny about it is that other than the improved frame rates, I really didnt see that much difference in terms of presentation quality.. Im not saying the quality was poor, quite the contrary, it was so good in "high" (or whatever the next step down from Ultra was) that I dont think there wasnt room for much improvement. Neverthe less, on that generation of ATI GPUs, it seems ids claims were correct and 256 didnt seem to cut it in ultra.
August 9, 2007 2:26:22 PM

maverick7 said:
nothing special and nothing that hasnt been done before...? did you even play the game or did you just look at the screen shots


I have a copy of the game and I'm not impressed. I really like strategy games, but Supreme Commander just bores me to tears. The only thing Supreme commander has going for is it has some nice visuals. AI is pathetic, Unit types are bland and the overall game play is no fun.
!