Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 26, 2007 4:29:15 PM

Hi,

Just to confirm what many already knew, InCrysis held a Q&A session with Intel and Crytek on Crysis performance which I've copied below.

Outcome of this was confirmation that Crysis runs best on a Quad Cored CPU and 64 Bit OS so if you're planning a machine this is the optimum combination.

However, don't fear it will scale and run on lesser machines including single core but it won't run as well as on the Quad / 64 combination as it seems the game is specifically written to take advantage of the extra cores / 64 bit instructions.

Full Interview:

Quote:
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’t 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’t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it’s 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…



Full Qudos to Mathew and Incrysis (www.incrysis.com) for an excellent interview.
July 26, 2007 11:17:56 PM

pff i can't wait for this game!!

hopefully they release the beta soon =D
July 29, 2007 10:31:35 PM

4 x 1 GB sticks or 2 x 2 GB sticks, I have yet to see a 4GB stick. And as far as the DDR3, it's been out for a while and I don't see why that has to do with anything.
Related resources
July 30, 2007 12:34:56 PM

Alsone said:
Outcome of this was confirmation that Crysis runs best on a Quad Cored CPU and 64 Bit OS so if you're planning a machine this is the optimum combination.

However, don't fear it will scale and run on lesser machines including single core but it won't run as well as on the Quad / 64 combination as it seems the game is specifically written to take advantage of the extra cores / 64 bit instructions.


What next, will we get told that cleaning with soap makes you more clean than cleaning with just water alone?
July 30, 2007 4:46:12 PM

Apparently it will be released on DVD in a plastic case! *GASP*
July 31, 2007 10:04:03 AM

WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDED SPECS???

I googled until I could google no more...
July 31, 2007 6:43:55 PM

Pentium Quadraplegic @ 30.0 Ghz
Octa-LI of Nvidia 45 Double D's
14 Tb of DDDR10 (Doubly Double Data Rate Ten)
$900 Supreme Audacious Audigy 10,000 Premium Sound Card
DFI's Gold Digger 100% Gold Motherboard

You will most likely have to overclock it and cool it with the mighty lungs of god himself. So some Catholosism wouldn't hurt.

August 1, 2007 7:32:16 PM

You forgot the 50 TB Raid 666 drives
August 1, 2007 9:50:02 PM

does the q6600 support 64 bit?? my friends tell me that only amd can support it.
August 1, 2007 10:40:10 PM

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.
August 1, 2007 11:50:44 PM

O ya my q6600 will have something to do now!!!!
August 8, 2007 8:19:27 PM

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/article.html?art=MTMwNiwx... ==
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.
August 8, 2007 9:22:42 PM

sooo..... what did that q&a tell us? that quad core is better than single?
August 9, 2007 5:35:08 PM

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.
August 10, 2007 9:26:28 PM

prawcess said:
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.

I believe your cpu is fully utilized. Even when most apps only use one core, you can run 2 apps much more smoothly. Even if you think your app only uses one core: Windows, the devices, the all background events, the virus checker, etc all requires some cpu power. So I am sure you Opteron is running great, even if you don't notice it. What you can do is open Task Manager and see what each core is really doing. I think you will be happy to see each core is doing something.
PhotoShop, 3D Studio, SQL Server, etc can use 2 cores. So, with 4 cores, you can run 2 cores on 1 application and have 2 cores left over on background apps. (like burning a DVD while playing crysis and downloading another game demo.) Yes, the future is multi-core.
August 10, 2007 9:43:17 PM

prawcess said:

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.
August 10, 2007 11:49:36 PM

lazy software developers is what it boils down to (or is that rude? :p )
August 11, 2007 6:18:21 AM

spuddyt said:
lazy software developers is what it boils down to (or is that rude? :p )

It's not about lazy software developers.
It's about no one wants to give good developers enough resources to make a good product.
August 11, 2007 8:36:38 PM

ok ok, so its bastards in one form or another who don't want the world to advance its computer graphics capabilities unless it makes them money
August 12, 2007 9:52:33 PM

Q:
spuddyt said:
sooo..... what did that q&a tell us? that quad core is better than single?


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

Alsone 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.

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.



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

Alsone said:


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.



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.

trinitron64 said:
Pentium Quadraplegic @ 30.0 Ghz
Octa-LI of Nvidia 45 Double D's
14 Tb of DDDR10 (Doubly Double Data Rate Ten)
$900 Supreme Audacious Audigy 10,000 Premium Sound Card
DFI's Gold Digger 100% Gold Motherboard

You will most likely have to overclock it and cool it with the mighty lungs of god himself. So some Catholosism wouldn't hurt.


bfellow said:
You forgot the 50 TB Raid 666 drives


These just had me ROFLMAO!! But I think that Raid array would have been 666 666TB drives in a 666 Raid setup! :pt1cable: 

Sorry for the long post. Looked shorter when I was editing. :/ 
August 13, 2007 7:28:15 AM

jonj said:
does the q6600 support 64 bit?? my friends tell me that only amd can support it.

LOL!!!!!!!!! funny... any intel wipes the floor with amd processors
August 15, 2007 1:02:02 AM

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
August 15, 2007 3:36:18 PM

DiGiTaLdAzE said:
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


One thing is that in demos, some of things that are going to go to CPU are not pushing the CPU. When all things that are in final game are utilisied, maybe then 4 cores do better than 2. Maybe there is not fysicks in demo, or something else is missing, that could use the extra core. If there is nothing to do for extra cores, then there is no gain...
August 15, 2007 7:06:15 PM

techguy911 said:
Yes the q6600 supports 64bit there is nothing amd has on this planet that can even touch the performance of this chip


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.
August 15, 2007 7:17:24 PM

trinitron64 said:
Pentium Quadraplegic @ 30.0 Ghz
Octa-LI of Nvidia 45 Double D's


ROFL!!
:na: 
August 17, 2007 1:00:31 PM

spuddyt said:
lazy software developers is what it boils down to (or is that rude? :p )


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
August 17, 2007 5:36:27 PM

shadowmaster625 said:
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.

While I believe this, I don't think a overclocked $69 CPU will last long.
Within a year, games will start to require better CPUs. By then you will need a C2D or a Phenom (just make sure your motherboard can handle this)
August 29, 2007 1:14:08 AM

DiGiTaLdAzE said:
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/article.html?art=MTMwNiwx... ==
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.


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%




August 29, 2007 5:19:20 PM

crysis runs the best on the most expensive cpu? How shocking!
August 29, 2007 9:10:53 PM

I know its amazing
September 12, 2007 6:08:18 PM

are they making a specific 64 bit version??? I just got another 2gb of ram now that four is the min for 64bit
:( )
September 13, 2007 8:25:57 AM

ryanthesav said:
are they making a specific 64 bit version??? I just got another 2gb of ram now that four is the min for 64bit
:( )


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
September 13, 2007 11:23:17 AM

Quite. The cost of producing a second DVD is negligible compared to cost of producing and distributing two different products. Presumably you'll only get one key though! :) 
September 13, 2007 4:17:50 PM


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.
September 13, 2007 8:39:51 PM

he could be an honest Intel employee!....., no, wait I couldn't retain the optimism for long enough to post this
November 6, 2007 12:44:16 AM

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
November 6, 2007 8:05:23 AM

Can you please re-type that in a readable format please, I don’t read lazy txt messaging format in forums.
November 6, 2007 8:35:15 AM

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.
November 6, 2007 8:36:20 PM

Where can I change my resolution from 1650-1050 to 1400x900? Can someone tell me which config file to play with?
November 7, 2007 1:45:30 AM

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 :D 
November 7, 2007 7:31:20 AM

That’s much better, forgive me for being such a penis earlier :) 

What you are asking about is the difference between 32Bit (x86) processing and the new 64Bit (x64) processing. 32Bit processing has been around for about 15 years now while 64Bit computing really has only became popular in the last year with the release of the first native 64Bit operating system, Windows Vista. In layman's terms 64Bit can theoretically process twice as much as a 32Bit processor per one clock cycle, effectively doubling the throughput if used properly.

Problem we have today is that almost all programs written for 64Bit instances are not very efficient. In fact most of them are almost identical in performance to 32Bit programs, with a lot relying on 32Bit emulators. Hopefully with the release of this new game Crysis we will start to see 64Bit processes being used more effectively. Increasing the speed at which the game runs at substantially over its 32Bit counterpart.
November 7, 2007 10:22:51 AM

One day gamers will be forced onto 64Bit because of increasing Ram requirements, but presently 32Bit is the better choice.
November 7, 2007 11:05:13 AM

speedbird said:
One day gamers will be forced onto 64Bit because of increasing Ram requirements, but presently 32Bit is the better choice.
So your saying that the better choice is no improvements over some, with a lot more coming in the future? You have to remember that 32Bit Vista is just as much of a systems hog as 64Bit is. There is no argument for getting 32Bit Vista if you have a 64Bit CPU, anyone that does is just being silly.
November 7, 2007 11:18:51 AM

im gonna need some efficient 64bit games before I go 64bit.
November 7, 2007 11:49:33 AM

Your speaking a bit too soon arnt you? Crysis has not even been released with non beta drivers and updates...
November 7, 2007 11:59:58 AM

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?
November 7, 2007 12:23:21 PM

What’s the point in benchmarking a 32Bit game on a 64Bit operating system? The game can only run in 32Bit mode giving you identical or lower results than on a 32Bit native operating system. I would wait till about 2 months after Crysis has been released then check on the state of native 64Bit games verses 32Bit versions then make a decision on if it’s worth it or not.

I do not however think it is necessary to upgrade from WindowsXP to Windows Vista 64Bit as there is not really many programs that would fully use that operating system to it’s full use. But there will be in the future with one of the first 64Bit native games coming out in 2 weeks time. However upgrading to 32Bit Vista is completely pointless unless your hardware does not conform to the 64Bit spec.

As of writing I have been testing out 64Bit Vista Ultimate for 4 months now and it has became the sole operating system on my PC. There is no longer to my knowledge and experience any reason to avoid 64Bit Vista if you are going to upgrade from XP.
November 7, 2007 3:19:29 PM

cafuddled said:
There is no argument for getting 32Bit Vista if you have a 64Bit CPU, anyone that does is just being silly.


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.
November 7, 2007 3:30:38 PM

I got Vista Ultimate 64Bit off the shelf… Saying that I did buy an OEM version. But who in their right mind would actually buy a retail version of Vista, I bet almost 90% of sales are of the OEM version.
November 7, 2007 5:51:32 PM

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.
!