Crysis - Confirmed Runs Best on Quad Core and 64 Bit OS

pff i can't wait for this game!!

hopefully they release the beta soon =D

What next, will we get told that cleaning with soap makes you more clean than cleaning with just water alone?

WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDED SPECS???

I googled until I could google no more...

You forgot the 50 TB Raid 666 drives

Yes the q6600 supports 64bit there is nothing amd has on this planet that can even touch the performance of this chip, i have one myself for 300 bucks if you think about it that 75 bucks per core.

If you do heavy video/sound conversions it really speeds things up,also ,makes vista run MUCH smoother.

One interesting observation--'Supreme Cpmmander' is programmed to take advantage of four processor cores, and yet the E6850 outperforms the Q6600 by a whisker in benchmarks for this game, as seen on the CPU comparison charts for 2007 on this site. This would seem to suggest that the faster speed and FSB of the e6850 seem to play a bigger role--Supreme Commander is also apparently a very CPU dependent game:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/arti [...] aHVzaWFzdA ==
On the basis of this and some other cosiderations (e6850 will run current games better, overclocks better, and runs cooler) I recently purchased a 6850 for a new build, and I am definitely looking forward to CRYSIS. Anyways, it is certainly not a straightforward choice one way or the other--both processors are no doubt very capable. I will probably upgrade to Quad some time after the so called 'Penryn" processors come out--hopefully they will be affordable. Also wondering if they will be compatible with my MOBO--EVGA n680i sli 775--EVGA tech said they would release a BIOS update for this when the time comes.

Thats basically what I would like a simple answer to. I very excitedly installed my Opteron 165 about 8 months ago. Its default clock is 1.8ghz, however I had heard that since Opterons are supposed to be a server chip the silicon was better etc.. and it overclocked nice. I was not disappointed in that regard, I got it at 2.4ghz with stock cooling and it stays around 44celsius.

The problem is that hardly anything seems to really take advantage of two cores.. whats the point of having 2 more?

Maybe with the next release of the quad they will implement it better?
I dunno that much about the technicalities, I just dont want something that wont be fully utilized.

It's not a hardware issue, it is a software issue. Software (games, apps) don't utilize the cores effecvtively. They will in the future. Even Supreme Commander was released when Quad cores were still in their infancy.

It's not about lazy software developers.
It's about no one wants to give good developers enough resources to make a good product.

Q:

A: This is what I think the q&a told us...

Looks to me like the sweetspot for Crysis will be 4 cores on a 64 bit operating system.

I remember back when BF2 came out, most of the complaints from the gamers was the fact that they all had to build or buy new systems to handle the game's system requirements. It's pretty much the same thing here. But the major difference being that the developers actually thought of the gamer with the less powerful system. I'm in the crowd that can't afford at the moment to build a whole new system, but then, I don't even know if I'll get the game or not yet.

These just had me ROFLMAO!! But I think that Raid array would have been 666 666TB drives in a 666 Raid setup!

Sorry for the long post. Looked shorter when I was editing.

hang on... *goes into trance*.... I suspect a flame war is imminent
and intel does wipe the floor in the high end performance section yes but they aren't so dominant elsewhere so saying "any" intel, is a little inaccurate

for most people, even gamers, they will not notice the difference between your $300 chip, and an overclocked $69 amd chip! And in 6 months, they can take that $230 that they saved (plus another $30 they will save on the motherboard) and buy a phenom.

Kinda

It's hard enough to get people to write decent code that works on a single thread (e.g. client/server apps). Multi threaded is hard. You have to manage all the threads and keep them in sync etc...

The other thing to remember is that to really get any benefit from multi threading, you need to have a task suited to async processing - i.e. fire something off and let it run and then do something else. A lot of things on the desktop can't be easily broken down like that as they only have a single user driving the program (unlike a server which is being connected to by multiple users). Hence you either need to do the same process multiple times to different input (e.g. folding at home), have multiple tasks that have to complete before the program can progress (e.g. AI and physics etc... for current frame in game etc...) or at the very least, a task that would take a long time to complete and would therefore lock up the UI for an unacceptable amount of time. And this last example would not always benefit from an extra core as often the reason something runs slow (and locks up the UI) is because the processing is waiting for input from another computer (e.g. a result set to return from a database).

Its only been a fairly recent development where the hardware platforms have made it worth the developers time to make their code multi-threaded.

Or to put it simply - it is a bit harsh to say that software developers are lazy for not writing multi-threaded code when:
1) Most developers do not know how to do it well
2) A lot of situations don't easily lend themselves to it

I think that you need to re-look at that benchmarks on that site again...
Apples to Apples shows a significant difference.

At 1600x1200 in XP
Quad = 15 Min / 84 Max / 34 Avg
Dual = 10 Min / 67 Max / 22 Avg
Percentage wise
Min = +50% / Max = +26% / +51%

At 1600x1200 in Vista
Quad = 5 Min / 71 Max / 27 Avg
Dual = 3 Min / 55 Max / 15 Avg
Percentage wise
Min = +67% / Max = +29% / +80%

I know its amazing

I would guess that the two versions will be in the same box - either on different media, or on the same media and the install process will work out what to install after checking what OS is running.
I doubt that they would have two different box versions - most user's wouldn't know the difference and wouldn't check for it in the requirements.

My 2c

Bare in mind that this is an interview with an Intel employee, he's hardly going to say "nah, there's no difference between running this game on our top of the range CPU as there is on a $60 part from our competitor".

I'm still waiting on benchmarks before making any purchasing decisions on what to run this game on.

hi guys, i dont wanna sound like a n00b r nething but iv been hearing about 64-bit and x86 processors for quite some time now but oun rly kno wut they are. whats the difference and benefits, and just what the heck are they?

thx
again, im not a n00b
KittenKiller

Ok.

The Crysis SP Demo has been confirmed that it only runs a max of 2 cores. Which means Quad Cores aren't running at maximum capacity. The Demo is also DX10 and 64Bit compatible. The Demo does not support SLi, so stop trying. Also to clear this up the Crysis SP Demo is the same code as the Multiplayer Beta. Just without the multiplayer code, so you'll have better FPS and graphics settings. And finally Crysis runs most off the CPU. How many graphics cards or how powerful your graphics card is does not really makea difference up in the high end performance cards such as the 8800 series.

I play the Crysis SP Demo at an FPS of 60 - 80 on 1440x900 no AA on Very High settings in DX10 on 64Bit. If you haven't seen my specs they are..
Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz. XFX XXX Edition 8800GTS. 2Gb DDR2 Memory. Windows Vista 64Bit Home Edition.

Sorry about the bad typing, i'm not just used to a forum with such a neat writing style.

The question i asked before, restated, is:

"Hi guys, I don't want to sound like a newbie or anything, but i have been hearing about 64-bit and x86 processors for quite some time now, but I don't really know they are. I had looked them up before but their inconspicuous definitions overwhelmed me. What's the difference, benefits, and just what are they, precisely?

I used two big words i hadn't used in 3 years and i even indented

One day gamers will be forced onto 64Bit because of increasing Ram requirements, but presently 32Bit is the better choice.

im gonna need some efficient 64bit games before I go 64bit.

I wasn't referring to crysis. I've only seen few 32bit vs 64bit benchmarks and it wasn't so great. As I do not have a 64bit OS, I can't verify first hand. Do you know any sites that compare 32bit gaming to 64bit?

Yes Vista 64Bit can usually run 32bit applications but.....

Off the shelf retail editions of Vista are 32Bit, but Microsoft demands an additional charge for the 64Bit edition.

Certain hardware devices have no 64Bit drivers avaliable and even some software will not run.

Vista 64 tends to like more Ram than the 32Bit edition

I'm using the 32Bit edition of Vista HP at present because it's all I need, but only when I actually need to will I pay the additional charge for the 64Bit edition of Vista. I don't think it's 'silly' to use the 32Bit editions of Vista.

I don't care if the PMs at Crytek are getting orally serviced by frozen clones of Andy Grove.

I actually would not say that it's confirmed to run best on quad core and 64 bit, untill I see it in front of me.

If you guys want to see a 32 vs 64 bit shootout, at high noon on Crysis, you should speak up.