Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis Demo cleverly rigged?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2007 1:59:13 PM

I see a lot of people saying that the crysis demo hasn’t used 4 cores and only uses 2. But crytek said that was optimized for multiple cores. Many people argue that it is a demo and that it will in the final release, while others disagree.

Sometimes I have to think that if the game would eat up those other cores then it would run that much better. Does anyone think that crytek purposely rigged the demo versions to only use 2 cores so that a mad frenzy of people will start buying new hardware to play the game at the desired settings? Then the final release uses all cores effectively and the games run wonderfully and everyone is happy.

This is probably total bull, but I’m just trying to make sense of how Cytek boasted their advanced game engine and how it will be optimized for multiples cores and then a demo barely even uses 2... Anyone else confused?
November 12, 2007 2:05:35 PM

I do not know if Crytek rigged the demo to use less than four cores, but I do know that it did not support SLI. It only gave me an option to use 16X AA vs the 32X that most SLI supporting games let me use. My point is that it may have been important to get the demo done faster and leave out certain things like multicore support and SLI support. I also know that Intel gave them a free Penryn processor, so getting people to go out and spend a lot of money wouldn't be a bad way to pay back the favor.
November 12, 2007 2:06:57 PM

Lol I am going to try run the final release on a single core AMD. :-) If it sucks I will upgrade to a C2D or Quad.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2007 2:37:31 PM

wirelessfender said:
Does anyone think that crytek purposely rigged the demo versions to only use 2 cores so that a mad frenzy of people will start buying new hardware to play the game at the desired settings? Then the final release uses all cores effectively and the games run wonderfully and everyone is happy.


That's a good conspiracy theory and I like a good conspiracy theory. I don't think Crytek rigged anything, I think that Crysis has been so overhyped that folks are/were expecting some massive resource hog that absolutley required that latest and greatest in hardware to run at playable frames. Fact is, if Crytek wants the game to sell, they'll make the game run on the least of machines or whatever Joe Average can buy from Dell or BestBuy nowadays.

However, a conspiracy theory I do support is that M$ purposely released Vista knowing that it was all crap and eye candy because the bean counters crunched the numbers and they realized the diminshing returns by maintaining XP support as well as in an effort to push DX10 on the industry.

November 12, 2007 2:41:09 PM

Now that's cleverly rigged by Microsoft chunkymonster :-)
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2007 2:59:14 PM

Having had some background in Software marketing/sales: Demos are most certainly *not* created with full functionality. **KNOW** that Multi-threaded applications are hard to program, and God Forbid something didn't work because it'd be all over the Inter-Webz about what a crap blah blah blah blah...... But demos are very much necessary from a Marketing perspective to keep people interested and to back up the Hype machine.

So what do you???? You disable functionality that hasn't completed testing (multithreading, X-fire/SLI, etc), and put out a demo that WORKS. Even if it isn't optimized. Spend a lot of time hyping how "Cutting Edge" the thing is to get around the poor-er performance and the lack of full functionality. Talk about yoru plans to have the thing be challenging from a HW perspective for the coming generation, etc etc etc... Then when it hits the streets and performs better than the Beta you hype the "improvements" you've made out of all of the "Valuable Feedback The Gaming Community Provided" during the Beta.

Now: UNDERSTAND that this *is* a cutting edge game that very well does put a thorough beating on a machine. So don't take the above comments as some kind of Scheme. They're just trying to get something that works on the streets as soon as they can, but *really* don't want something that would be corrected through routine QA testing to blow the whole deal up in their faces. So you create a 'safe' demo with the less-well-tested stuff disabled so people can at least play with it.
November 12, 2007 3:09:39 PM

chunkymonster said:
That's a good conspiracy theory and I like a good conspiracy theory. I don't think Crytek rigged anything, I think that Crysis has been so overhyped that folks are/were expecting some massive resource hog that absolutley required that latest and greatest in hardware to run at playable frames. Fact is, if Crytek wants the game to sell, they'll make the game run on the least of machines or whatever Joe Average can buy from Dell or BestBuy nowadays.

However, a conspiracy theory I do support is that M$ purposely released Vista knowing that it was all crap and eye candy because the bean counters crunched the numbers and they realized the diminshing returns by maintaining XP support as well as in an effort to push DX10 on the industry.


I agree that crysis has been overhyped. First, anything using more than one core is multicored...even dual core :sarcastic: . Second, people have been saying the demo is derated, but have no clue or evidence beyond opinions based on benchmarks, which them selves where designed to test CPUs, not the demo. Third, people still clearly dont understand the different types of multi threading....depending on what type of mutlithreading crysis uses, it might not even be possible to limit the cores the demo accesses. Since no one has presented any info demonstrating which type of MT crysis uses, they are all talking out of their arses. Finally, to "de-tune" a demo would require extra work. Crysis is already months behind its original release date. I doubt crytek wanted to invest programmers time creating a "special" demo, which underperforms relative to the actual products maximum potential.

IRT MS--I disagree its a conspiracy that "M$ purposely released Vista knowing that it was all crap and eye candy because the bean counters crunched the numbers and they realized the diminshing returns by maintaining XP support as well as in an effort to push DX10 on the industry"

I call that MS SOP--Standard Operating Procedure
November 12, 2007 3:45:46 PM

I think Crysis has been overhyped and nothing more.
November 12, 2007 3:53:01 PM

turpit said:
I call that MS SOP--Standard Operating Procedure
Yup.
November 12, 2007 4:17:45 PM

Listen people, we don’t care how over hyped you think crysis is, so dont even go through the time and effort to communicate that to us. Other than that lets keep the posts on topic. I admit I am ignorant when it comes to all things PC but I’m just trying to figure things out so let’s keep the good speculation coming!

From my standpoint some things just don’t make sense to me, but I have to say Scotteq's thought did make sense to me. To disable certain things like that to make a demo that’s less buggy and more playable for the time being seems reasonable?? Anyone?


November 12, 2007 4:29:33 PM

I dont know what yall are talking about the demo ran perfect for me with all high settings and 1920x1200 res @ 60 fps all the time...wait, wait a minute...oops I said that backwards, I meant 06 fps! My bad guys! lol

Best,

3Ball
November 12, 2007 4:53:50 PM

LOL 3Ball. I don't even want to image what it will look like on my single core AMD then. Probably the same as the CPU tests in 3D Mark 06!
November 12, 2007 5:30:30 PM

NAW! Crysis is not overhyped even the demo runs as anticipated so the real thing will be killer. Yea I have a wicked machine and have no problem pushing 1920x1080 all high without a glitch. Thats what the game was meant for though. And yes it supports multiple cores, and YES it is SLI capable. How do I know this? Look at this screen shot I made just for you guys. I had to run the game in window mode at a smaller res so you guys could see, that it is in fact using all cores. It doesn't max them all out but it works them all from the usage graphs and the temperature rise I get from all cores. The CPU cores average 40c to 45c when idle. When running Crysis they all jump from 50c to 57c. Two cores work harder than the other but the remaining also show clear indication of work. Also notice that my two 8800's go from an idle temp of 55C to an even 70C, both of them with the SLI indicator clearly showing the SLI load balance between the two.

Honestly, I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about.. :sarcastic: 

November 12, 2007 6:16:03 PM

Many people are reporting that the demo does not use multicore but the full version will be somehow better.

Not sure what to think at this point. I am not buying any new hardware until the full game is out and benched on tons of settings and hardware pieces. Hopefully toms gets a crysis review and benches out ASAP, using single cores, duals, quads, penryn, windows Xp, Vista 32bit, 64bit, SLI, 8800 vs 3800HD, 2gigs ram vs 4, hard drives maybe even ect ect.

Lots of benchmarks need to be done on this game when it comes out! BUt if it really does make poor use of quads and SLI, that will be terrible news for us long time Crysis fanatics =,(
November 12, 2007 7:16:33 PM

I agree with warezme. It is a little mind boggling, really, that people are whining and crying (in oblivious ignorance) that "THEIR 4 CORES ARENT BEING UTILIZED!".!!!! Do you REALLY WANT all 4 cores at 100% usage, have you really been expecting that!!!?? If the game maxed out all 4 cores, it would be a pretty sh**y laggy game!

I've always wanted to bring this up, so thanks warezme for doing so. And just because the game is multithreaded don't expect all 4 cores to be running the same usage either!!! Some tasks require more processing than others, but you DO SEE increased use on all 4 cores when running Crysis.
November 12, 2007 7:40:26 PM

General_Disturbance said:
I agree with warezme. It is a little mind boggling, really, that people are whining and crying (in oblivious ignorance) that "THEIR 4 CORES ARENT BEING UTILIZED!".!!!! Do you REALLY WANT all 4 cores at 100% usage, have you really been expecting that!!!?? If the game maxed out all 4 cores, it would be a pretty sh**y laggy game!

I've always wanted to bring this up, so thanks warezme for doing so. And just because the game is multithreaded don't expect all 4 cores to be running the same usage either!!! Some tasks require more processing than others, but you DO SEE increased use on all 4 cores when running Crysis.


yea man, some folks would rather delve into MS and Crysis conspiracy theories than look at a clear example of what to expect with their own two eyes.... unbelievable. I'm not a crysis fanatic, personally I don't care who buys it or doesn't, I know I wont, ;)  , but thats besides the point. I think crysis will run real well on just about any machine because its made to scale easily.
November 12, 2007 8:00:01 PM

Sorry Warezme but I'm even less convinced seeing you're post that it is utilizing 4 cores. I'd want to see quad cpu usage at more than 55% not 21% before I'd believe it is using more than two cores. Increase in temps or not .21 x 4 is still less than one.

My experience on a dual core with the "stock" demo that it seldom uses more than one core. Vehicles may change that, I did see higher CPU usage with the hacked map for the demo that introduces all the vehicles. My cpu usage goes into the 70-80% range when flying the chopper.

From what the developers were saying early on I would have expected to see more CPU usage when introducing AI and physics. My own tests don't show this happening with the demo. For example blow up a building truck etc. ie. physics, there is no real spike on the second core. Fire off a a shot a shot alerting the AI to me at a busy are and again no spike on the second core, (credit the Logitech G15 keyboard for making it easy to monitor this stuff).

Still I think people should reserve judgment at least till the final game is released.
November 12, 2007 9:24:18 PM

The demo has no big explosions. like the one that levels the whole bloody island, so until you get on of those i dont think it is safe to talk.
November 12, 2007 10:25:10 PM

i ran this demo on 3 raptor system with 3.6ghz quad - q6600 and oc 8800gtx


it ran an amazing 10fps with 13k 3dmark06 system - of coarse that was very high and 4x aa

with aa off it ran 20fps

standing at rock with nothing moving it ran 35fps - i say the demo is rigged

NOW FOR THE INTERESTING PART

I RAN THE DEMO WITH asus probe, nvidia monitor and quad core monitor up. The game rotates cores, is skips from 4 to 2 to 3 to 4

i think the game will run all 4 and the skip is the suprise in wait when game ships next week.


whats really weird is the game is not laggy at 10fps its just slow like running in sticky jello smoothly - i guess they will smooth out the lag for the newbie systems.
November 12, 2007 10:28:20 PM

i wish i took a screen shot with the demo up

fps meter running

imagine a small game box 2/3 size of the screen




systems shipped so the screen shots are on the comp



i have never seen any app rotate cores like that - i am sure that the multi core will be enabled and the rotation is the by product of the severed mutli core support severed/

i must say running through bushes shooting leaves and branches is interesting
November 12, 2007 10:43:24 PM

I don't think Crysis is overhyped. I think whenever anything gets extremely popular or something, there's always that crowd that says it's overhyped. I mean it's overhyped for a reason right? :sarcastic: 

I haven't tried the actual demo yet, but I know one thing about it: It's a demo. It's to give you a little taste of what the game can look or feel like. Maybe if they made it quad-core optimized or SLI/Cross-fire optimized, the file size would probably increase. Besides, demos are free, why put so much effort in them?

Drivers needs to be optimized too, as Nvidia and ATI are both furiously working on. I fully expect a 8800GTX running mostly on high with decent frame rates on the real deal when everything settles down.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2007 11:28:07 PM

I don't know about multi-core support, but for those who say it doesn't use more than one core, try playing it on a single core next time :sarcastic: 
November 12, 2007 11:46:46 PM

Here is a link to a site that has other links that show you how to unlock some of the advanced full game features on the Crysis demo. I have not tried any of the unlocks.....I did play the demo for a while....cool graphics...but.....same old fps...........I thought they said it supported dual core.....which would mean multi-core......but who knows what the final release will be like.

http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/253
November 13, 2007 12:12:00 AM

Cores only show work being done, if there's not that much work then the readings will reflect that. They won't do something that doesn't need to be done.

If you are driving a car down the road at 60mph you aren't running at full throttle because you don't need to to maintain the speed. This concept is similiar in respect to the work the cores are doing.

November 13, 2007 12:24:23 AM

I hate to tell you guys I ran the demo on an AMD 4000+ skt939 and a 7900gt and even though I can see the need for an upgrade it was still playable and looked pretty good on medium settings.I think an opteron 180 and an 8800gt would get much better results in my case.
November 13, 2007 12:41:14 AM

randomizer said:
I don't know about multi-core support, but for those who say it doesn't use more than one core, try playing it on a single core next time :sarcastic: 
You'll get similar results on just about any system. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2007 2:14:02 AM

What, unplayable at 1024x768 all on low? :lol: 
a c 111 à CPUs
November 13, 2007 2:34:16 AM

I posed this earlier but hey.....

CPU


Quad CPU
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 42.06s, Average FPS: 35.66
Min FPS: 24.53 at frame 1092, Max FPS: 50.35 at frame 93
Average Tri/Sec: 36368896, Tri/Frame: 1019768
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.71
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 39.22s, Average FPS: 38.24
Min FPS: 24.53 at frame 1092, Max FPS: 50.35 at frame 93
Average Tri/Sec: 39062180, Tri/Frame: 1021463
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.70
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 39.13s, Average FPS: 38.33
Min FPS: 24.53 at frame 1092, Max FPS: 50.35 at frame 93
Average Tri/Sec: 39234652, Tri/Frame: 1023582
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.70
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 39.15s, Average FPS: 38.31
Min FPS: 24.53 at frame 1092, Max FPS: 50.35 at frame 93
Average Tri/Sec: 39292484, Tri/Frame: 1025515
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.70
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
One CPU
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 54.22s, Average FPS: 27.66
Min FPS: 17.26 at frame 1086, Max FPS: 49.78 at frame 376
Average Tri/Sec: 28234432, Tri/Frame: 1020614
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.70
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 45.88s, Average FPS: 32.69
Min FPS: 15.53 at frame 1090, Max FPS: 50.84 at frame 361
Average Tri/Sec: 33417088, Tri/Frame: 1022131
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.70
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 46.20s, Average FPS: 32.47
Min FPS: 15.53 at frame 1090, Max FPS: 50.84 at frame 361
Average Tri/Sec: 33119822, Tri/Frame: 1020000
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.71
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 46.48s, Average FPS: 32.27
Min FPS: 15.53 at frame 1090, Max FPS: 50.84 at frame 361
Average Tri/Sec: 32904672, Tri/Frame: 1019680
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.71
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================


GPU


4 CPU
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 51.64s, Average FPS: 38.73
Min FPS: 17.77 at frame 143, Max FPS: 46.49 at frame 1019
Average Tri/Sec: 39182320, Tri/Frame: 1011700
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.91
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.09s, Average FPS: 41.59
Min FPS: 17.77 at frame 143, Max FPS: 48.96 at frame 989
Average Tri/Sec: 42503492, Tri/Frame: 1021972
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.09s, Average FPS: 41.59
Min FPS: 17.77 at frame 143, Max FPS: 49.98 at frame 1007
Average Tri/Sec: 42525532, Tri/Frame: 1022467
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 48.07s, Average FPS: 41.60
Min FPS: 17.77 at frame 143, Max FPS: 49.98 at frame 1007
Average Tri/Sec: 42539860, Tri/Frame: 1022519
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
1 CPU
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 53.42s, Average FPS: 37.44
Min FPS: 18.89 at frame 140, Max FPS: 48.76 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: 37884944, Tri/Frame: 1011984
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.91
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.20s, Average FPS: 41.49
Min FPS: 18.89 at frame 140, Max FPS: 50.01 at frame 1004
Average Tri/Sec: 42382312, Tri/Frame: 1021388
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.21s, Average FPS: 41.48
Min FPS: 18.89 at frame 140, Max FPS: 50.01 at frame 1004
Average Tri/Sec: 42405028, Tri/Frame: 1022228
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 48.11s, Average FPS: 41.57
Min FPS: 18.89 at frame 140, Max FPS: 50.01 at frame 1004
Average Tri/Sec: 42476232, Tri/Frame: 1021864
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================


So there is a slight improvement on 1 -4 cpus but i doubt its and better then 2.


The settings where in games max(so high not very high) @ 1280 x 1024


Case: Antec 900
PSU: OCZ 700watt
Board: P35 DS3R
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.00
CPU cooling : Zalman 9500 @ 500-2200 rpms(PWM)
Memory: 2x 1024MB ,2X 512MB @ 4,4,4,10
Video: 8800GTX 600(core) 1400(shader) 900 x2(memory) [Factory OC]
Storage:
2x WDC 250gig (Raid0)
2x Seagate 320gig(Storage)
2x Seagate 500gig(Storage)
1x 500gig Seagate (Backup-external)
Optical drive: Samsung SH-W162
TV card: PVR 250
Sound: Creative SB Audigy 2zs
Screen: Samsung 950b (LCD)
Speakers: Altec Lansing Select 641


Will do some OC / tweaks when i get a chance...
November 13, 2007 2:40:23 AM

i play crysis at 1200x1000 with 4aa and all high settings in the demo - it was smooth and slow. remove the 4aa the 20+ fps was not too bad but slow.

the core rotate and i and this is very important in that it is full quad support in the works - i have never seen this.

i.e. you get full load on core 4, small load on all others then it goes to 3 then 2 - i am sure this is full quad core support in its incomplete but soon to be functional state

no app does this
November 13, 2007 3:00:28 AM

Quote:
What, unplayable at 1024x768 all on low?

Yikes - that's harsh eh?
Yes I think the full game will run better. The demo is kinda low-tech and stable (as has been mentioned).
The full game will be fully polished. Then, within a month, highly optimized vidcard drivers will be available.
So this should run better on your rig, randomizer :) 
Old Ogs gets ~high 30's FPS @ 1024x768 and medium, looks nice too.
Regards
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2007 5:05:25 AM

Well that rig died (mobo I think). I'm running a t-bird system at the moment :lol: 

Gonna get some money and upgrade to a Penryn/Phenom system in Q4 07 or Q1 08. Not sure if I'll get a quad or dual yet.
November 13, 2007 5:45:51 AM

General_Disturbance said:
I agree with warezme. It is a little mind boggling, really, that people are whining and crying (in oblivious ignorance) that "THEIR 4 CORES ARENT BEING UTILIZED!".!!!! Do you REALLY WANT all 4 cores at 100% usage, have you really been expecting that!!!?? If the game maxed out all 4 cores, it would be a pretty sh**y laggy game!

I've always wanted to bring this up, so thanks warezme for doing so. And just because the game is multithreaded don't expect all 4 cores to be running the same usage either!!! Some tasks require more processing than others, but you DO SEE increased use on all 4 cores when running Crysis.


I couldn't agree more, your right on target. Ignorance is the key word here, "ITS A DEMO". I don't know how many times I have said it but it is a demo. Crytek came out with a demo so you could have a glimps of what Crysis has in store for us gamers and some of you guys do with the demo is cry and whin about it. :heink:  Shame on you!!
November 13, 2007 2:13:49 PM

I like Crysis for driving the industry harder (just like I appreciate Supreme Commander for doing the same). However, (and this might be me), but I'm pretty tired of the FPS genre. Not that my computer would run it anyway (as mentioned...I like that fact), but there's nothing in it that really makes me say "I HAVE TO PLAY THIS GAME!". I know I'm most likely a small minority, but that's my opinion.

But yay for the graphics stressing!
a c 448 à CPUs
November 13, 2007 2:57:32 PM

You know what? I didn't even bother with the demo. Yeah, I downloaded it, but I never had the time / bothered to install it.

I'll just wait for the retail game to come out. If my X1900XT can't handle it, then I'll wait until I buy a new GPU.
November 13, 2007 4:11:32 PM

jaguarskx said:
You know what? I didn't even bother with the demo. Yeah, I downloaded it, but I never had the time / bothered to install it.

I'll just wait for the retail game to come out. If my X1900XT can't handle it, then I'll wait until I buy a new GPU.


Your system is almost identical to mine so you should be fine. I am pretty picky about the "smoothness" of my games, and unless the game is programmed well enough to run smoothly at 30fps and the speed of the gameplay allows for it to be decent then I wont play it. Crysis just so happens to run well if you can managed atleast 30 fps even for my standards. I will be getting a new vid card soon, nothing to great...probably the HD 3870 or something, but with my system on 1440x900 res with all medium settings and no AA, I run on average around 35 fps on winXP Pro. Vista I found to be slightly more choppy even at the same frames. I hope this issue is resolved for the final release or with a patch/driver update because I primarily use vista because my XP is so screwed and I dont feel like doing a complete format of the drive right now. So if you standards are like mine, which I cant imagine them to get much higher for most games then I think you should be fine. Unless you are looking to play above 1440x900 or 1280x1024 res that is. Hope this helps!

Best,

3Ball
a c 448 à CPUs
November 13, 2007 5:59:30 PM

3Ball said:
So if you standards are like mine, which I cant imagine them to get much higher for most games then I think you should be fine. Unless you are looking to play above 1440x900 or 1280x1024 res that is. Hope this helps!



My monitor is the 26" NEC 2690WUXi with a resolution of 1920 x 1200. I know I will have to play at less than native resolution. I got other games to keep me occupied though.
November 13, 2007 7:15:24 PM

I share and opinion that was already been said here.. they are busy finishing the demo or optimizing already a new patch for it.. so why would they spend time working on a demo? remember they are already behind schedule...
November 13, 2007 7:15:39 PM

3Ball said:
Crysis just so happens to run well if you can managed atleast 30 fps even for my standards.


I notice to that Crysis at 35 fps it feels like 55 fps and at the same time its smooth, odd how people say that Crysis is not programmed well. I think some people are getting greedy about the image quality and their cranking the setting too high for the system they have, then complain about it.
November 13, 2007 7:53:44 PM

I have to agree the game is nothing special under all those visuals. The game plays like farcry and the Enemy soldier AI is just terrible. When the visuals become outdated Crysis will be in a bargain bin and forgotten about. Games like HL2 have remained classics because the game developers actually focussed on gameplay rather than a GFX benchmark.
November 13, 2007 8:00:46 PM

speedbird said:
When the visuals become outdated Crysis will be in a bargain bin and forgotten about.


That go's for every game ever released. From your post it seems that your rig can't do well in Crysis, is this so??
November 14, 2007 1:43:35 AM

Quote:
the game is nothing special under all those visuals. The game plays like farcry...

We love FarCry! Fantastic game.
But I do agree, gameplay is so much more important than mere eye-candy...
And - the game isn't even out yet :p  so, who knows if it's gonna be great or not?
L8R
November 14, 2007 3:04:51 AM

I can't wait to play this game.
November 14, 2007 3:50:46 AM

I am getting it tomorrow. :kaola: 

Well I got Crysis right in front of me. :kaola: 
November 14, 2007 4:15:21 AM

speedbird said:
I have to agree the game is nothing special under all those visuals. The game plays like farcry and the Enemy soldier AI is just terrible. When the visuals become outdated Crysis will be in a bargain bin and forgotten about. Games like HL2 have remained classics because the game developers actually focussed on gameplay rather than a GFX benchmark.


I disagree. Crysis will have something other games have attempted, but never fully suceeded at....a fully interactive environment and the highest level of responsive physics to date. IF the hype is to be believed. Enemy soldier AI algorythms can be rewritten and updated easily enough, the level of enviromentals Crysis will supposidly sport...not so much.

Additionally, even if the game tanks because of gameplay, if Crytek acheived what they set out to, the engine should provide a foundation for many potentially outstanding titles to come, again IF the hype is correct
November 14, 2007 5:10:47 AM

turpit you might actually know something - have observed the rotating cores in this demo

its very strange
November 14, 2007 6:17:44 AM

cfvh600 said:
Lol I am going to try run the final release on a single core AMD. :-) If it sucks I will upgrade to a C2D or Quad.


Why not get a Phenom quad core? They might just have the right bang for the buck this season. Since my MSI KN9 motherboard's Nvidia chipset doesn't support ATI cards, and the 8800GT is a bit pricey, I switched PC's with my son because the PC I built for him last year has an ATI motherboard.

I'll tolerate a P4 630 ATI board with PCIe x16 until I can upgrade to a hybrid Crossfire board with a 2.2 quad core Phenom, Vista 64 and 8 gigs of DDR2. So, I can get my X3870 next Monday and play in DX9 mode with XP.

I just wished I'd put an 805 Smithfield in that box instead of the lousy Prescott!

Is the 405 chipset the only Nvidia chipset that doesn't like ATI cards? It's right in the manual, it won't accept a dual boot with Windows 98 either. Nowadays, though, the only dual boot needed is Vista and XP.

As for Crysis, I'll buy it when it's budget. I did that with Farcry. What had me salivating at Target the other day was Hellgate London and The Witcher, I'm a big RPG fan. When I get my new card, I'll crank Oblivion up to max and finally buy Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. As a long time M&M fan, I didn't like that they did it as a fantasy shooter, I wanted a genuine RPG.
November 14, 2007 9:09:15 AM

Just go and download process explorer from MS technet page. With it, you can check how many threads a process is running in the properties page of that particular process. It's like a beefed up Task Manager. As looking at a picture of Task Manager is totally subjective (there're other processes that running on your cores too).

As for multithreading. A good multithreading will use all cores at about the same level and scale near linear. Pretty hard to do it for games IMO as different operations in games have different workload. You will see this kind of behavior for codec like CoreAVC or Nero HD video decoder in software mode.

I don't see why you guys calling Crysis' bad at using CPU if it can run beautiful like that and uses only a little of your current quad core CPU power. Like someone already said if it got anywhere near full load on a 4 core then the game will be choppy and just imagine what you got when using a processor that's less powerful. The things that I see as troubles here are:
* if it's really multithreaded program then its workload is a little poorly distributed on 4 cores (warezme's pic) as one core's usage is way higher than the other. Imagine if you have a slower quad core that thread will likely stalls the entire process (don't really know how Crytek synchronize those threads but it's likely to happen).

* FPS is too low with current generation card at high and higher image quality. (bad in a way and good in another).

Conclusion: If the game really use 4 threads on a quad core and have that kind of usage graph (again warezme's pic) pretty sure that it can run just as well on a high end dual core. What I'd called a conspiracy in this case is if they limit how the calculation of audio, physic, AI... on dual core and single core and only let 4 core processors have it. This kind of thing should be configurable by users. No one know for sure though, as the final game may have other things that is more CPU intensive and will likely be bottlenecked with a dual or single core CPU. Just wait for the final game or more like a few patches :D .
November 14, 2007 3:19:58 PM

why would anyone ruin a good gaming pc with an phenom core?

Hellgate london I played for 2-3 hours - i waited 3 years for the D3 its finally here! i even got a special halloween hat!
!