We've already seen the graphics for Crysis 3 and they don't appear to be mediocre at best...
Nvidia BigK GK110 Kepler Speculation Thread
- Thread starter A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
We've already seen the graphics for Crysis 3 and they don't appear to be mediocre at best...
DavidGraham
Veteran
From what I've seen it is not that much different from it's contemporaries , like Frostbite 2 games or even it's predecessor Crysis 2.
One thing that could justify this behavior is the massive use of Geometry (high poly count and Tessellation) , If that what the game is doing , then I guess it becoming a CPU hog is necessary , If not .. well that would be sad indeed.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Damn , just saw the GPU benchmark ! the game is running @40 FPS for the top cards (GTX 680/7970GHZ)... it's a GPU hog too !
Yeah, Piledriver beating Ivy Bridge in a game is… unexpected. Expect to see this benchmark in every AMD presentation this year.
My poor little C2D E8400 doesn't look very good, however.
I think we're on different pages. You are looking at the octo-cores and above and assuming that everything below is being unfairly treated, but why can't it be that the more powerful CPU's are being rewarded instead?
The original Crysis was stuck on 30fps with a bunch of CPU's - dual or quad core, so really the quads were going unused.
DavidGraham
Veteran
same here ..My poor little C2D E8400 doesn't look very good, however.
Yeah , patches remedied the issue a little , still the game had wonderful graphics (to this day) and vast draw distances..while requiring a modest CPU.
Crysis 2 was heavily multi-threaded , but it ran ok with a fast dual core CPU, however what Crysis 3 is doing is down right ridiculous , the CPUs are being decimated !
Tesselation doesn't really need cpu resources at all. Now high poly count could probably have some cpu impact but if that's just static vertex buffers reuse then not really neither.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Then what could justify this behavior ?draw distance ? the game is both a CPU and a GPU hog!
Draw distance and shadows have always been the killer for cpu's. I'm unsure what AMD has done to make the FX perform so well but tbh...I wouldn't be surprised if there were some shenanigans involved I don't really get how the 6 and 4 core FX's are performing so well otherwise.
I don't really get how the 6 and 4 core FX's are performing so well otherwise.DavidGraham
Veteran
I guess you're right , I was hoping to play the game before I had to upgrade sometime later this year .
The thing is, now I have to be even more careful when selecting a CPU, and with next-gen consoles around the corner , the situation will be even worse.
"Future proofing" with more cores has always been a mainstay of AMD's argument.
I must admit I am feeling quite dubious about these results and it's a possibility that AMD is up to something, however their entire strategy revolves around multiple cores and this is simply going to strengthen as they have a total grip on the console market now.
For them to have won the rights to Crysis 3 means they spent a lot of money on it - the kind of money that Nvidia wasn't willing to pay. With gaming evolved guys in every software house they are undoubtedly pushing hard for more cpu cores to be utilised, and with the consoles sporting 8 each...it makes perfect sense to do it on PC as well. All AMD has to do is convince the software houses that 8 cores is the way the gaming industry is going and they've gained a massive advantage for doing nothing they haven't already done.
What improvement does Crysis 3 bring that justifies such a massive increase in cpu usage over Crysis 2? It's the same engine after all.
I don't know, hence why I'm treating the results with suspicion. I can't really think of any reason why the FX parts would be beating their Deneb counterparts either.
The game seems to like clock speed AND # of cores while being light on cache requirement (this is quite similar to the original Dirt 3 benchmarks that AMD used to launch Bulldozer btw). The Q9550's performance is abysmal.
Probably physics - more movable objects, debris, etc.
That's what I'm running currently
Carsten, what did the cpu usage look like during those tests?
DavidGraham
Veteran
I just watched the KillZone gameplay demo on the PS4 , it is refreshing to see console gaming with high textures, soft shadows, solid lighting ,and the clarity that comes with high resolution .. a powerful CPU is needed for sure.
Looks like you will have to upgrade too !That's what I'm running currently
Ok,seriously, consoles have 8 cores running @1.6GHz , can 4 cores running @3.2 GHz match them in performance?
I used to think they can , but after seeing Crysis 3 I don't anymore!
I'm not sure how to read these graphs but the Intel CPU usage looks wacky.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/gamegpu-crysis-3-final-gpu-cpu-scaling
http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/gamegpu-crysis-3-final-gpu-cpu-scaling
Yes, easily. The Jaguar cores in the upcoming consoles are far, far weaker than desktop CPU cores.
Similar threads
