Crysis 2 DX11/HighResTextures and 3-way CFX problem

Hi. I just patched my Crysis 2 to v1.9 and got obtained DX11 / Ultra spec and High resolution textures. I tested newly-added options and compare them with late-highest setting, Extreme option. Here's the result.

My system is as follow:

CPU: Phenom II X6 @ 4.2GHz / NB 2.8GHz
Mainboard: MSI 890FXA-GD70
Memory: Samsung PC3-10600 4GB x 2 @ 1600MHz / CL7
VGA: Radeon HD 6970 2GB x 3 CFX
Storage: Intel SSD 510 Series 120GB
Power: CORSAIR AX1200 GOLD


First, I tested each graphic option under 3-way CFX configuration.

http://image.playwares.com/xe/files/...5213ec6b36.png

As you see, without any API or textures resolution change, changing spec from Extreme to Ultra brings about 14% performance loss.
Changing API from DX9 to DX11 cuts average framerate massively about -56%. DX11 in Crysis 2 seems that it's really hardware demanding.
Contrary to previous two tests and popular expectation, applying high resolution textures merely affects to performance - see and compare 'Ultra' and 'Ultra + HighRes', 'Ultra + DX11' and 'Ultra + DX11 + HighRes'.


Second is to test under various VGA configuration - single, 2-way and 3-way CFX.

http://image.playwares.com/xe/files/...8d00cbb581.png

There's something we missed at the first test: That is, CFX scale may decrease (or increase) by presence of newly-added options since there can be no suitable profiles for them in up-to current version of Catalyst.
It seems okay when we use single 6970 and even add another 6970. CFX scale for 2-way configuration is nearly 200% under both Extreme (DX9) and Ultra (DX11 + HighRes) settings. But adding a third 6970 is, though it shows nice 3-way CFX scale under late DX9 setting, almost meaningless for brand-new DX11 setting.
So, '-56% loss' at the first test is not made only by Extreme -> Ultra, DX9 -> DX11 change but also 'nullified' third VGA. We may expect that this massive DX11 performance loss under 3-way CFX can be moderated by future version of Catalyst or CAP (Catalyst 11.7 or 11.6 CAP2 perhaps).


So far, my points can be summarized as follows:

1. Changing from Extreme -> Ultra consumes framerate by around 14%
2. Under DX11 settings, as of today, third Radeon VGA worth nothing. (wait for coming Catalyst)


Thanks for reading :)

Interesting...

Strange... even on DX11 that game has ver small texture packages, i dont understand why it would suddenly run so slow. Seems like the dx11 implementation is very badly optimized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgqWaGZvuo
if u check this out, you will see some things are very nicely changed, but others remain the same :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cats_paw

Strange... even on DX11 that game has ver small texture packages, i dont understand why it would suddenly run so slow. Seems like the dx11 implementation is very badly optimized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgqWaGZvuo
if u check this out, you will see some things are very nicely changed, but others remain the same :D.

---

textures have never made games run slow unless you've run out of VRAM.
A lot of random other processing from the DX11 implementation. No idea about how "optimised" it is but it's not like anything looks better and runs at higher FPS right now.

It's just that Crytek sold their souls to Nvidia. The game is horribly optimised for ATI (or maybe even intentionally 'decelerated'). That's it...

nVidia stumped up 2 million quid. They PAID to ensure C2 runs as good as it can on their hardware. AFAIK, ATI didn't pay a single penny so ATI users only have ATI to blame for crappy performance.

I can´t believe Crytek doing this they just upgraded the pics and nothing more where's tessellation i navigated all walls and there textures just like CRYSIS 1 with all mods

here i posted some comparisons and real DX11
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....346585&page=23

cheers all
Sergio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ket

nVidia stumped up 2 million quid. They PAID to ensure C2 runs as good as it can on their hardware. AFAIK, ATI didn't pay a single penny so ATI users only have ATI to blame for crappy performance.

---

:shakes:

any solution to unlock the fps cap @100 after the mega patch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ket

nVidia stumped up 2 million quid. They PAID to ensure C2 runs as good as it can on their hardware. AFAIK, ATI didn't pay a single penny so ATI users only have ATI to blame for crappy performance.

---

Dude, I'm sure this was a mistake of some sort. How can you blame ATI for not paying a company to make their game run normal? If we follow your train of thought we can say goodbye to the principle of compatibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ket

nVidia stumped up 2 million quid. They PAID to ensure C2 runs as good as it can on their hardware. AFAIK, ATI didn't pay a single penny so ATI users only have ATI to blame for crappy performance.

---

wow - I've never read such drivel in my life

Hmmmm, seems that it's just another reason NOT to by the game......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown

wow - I've never read such drivel in my life

---

So do you think the DX11 + texture pack would have ever been developed if nVidia hadn't given 2 million to Crytek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

So do you think the DX11 + texture pack would have ever been developed if nVidia hadn't given 2 million to Crytek?

---

what I'm saying is that blaming ATI for nvidia paying another company money is a load of bollox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown

what I'm saying is that blaming ATI for nvidia paying another company money is a load of bollox.

---

And I would have to agree with you.