Crysis isn't single threaded, it just doesn't need much CPU power to play extremely well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
The post should've said "you prolly need any Core 2 CPU + 2 GT200's!"
Printable View
Crysis isn't single threaded, it just doesn't need much CPU power to play extremely well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
The post should've said "you prolly need any Core 2 CPU + 2 GT200's!"
hopefully that will change in the new game.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Crysis patch 1.2 uses command "sys_physics_cpu [0,1,2,3,4]" to redirect physics calculation to the core you wish to use, I think default is 1 if you have a dual core :p:
If my e8400 @ 4500mhz don't bend with the changes, i'm ok with it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Private Pyle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swatrecon_
Its a bs reason. And it gets old because PC game makers lately have been getting lazy and rushing games out with promises of patching the problems.
Every play GoW on pc? BF2? Or Rune SP? I can go on and on with games that were or still are buggy as hell since release.
All crytek is doing is pushing another game out the door without fixing current problems hoping that it will completely overshadow the previous one. Its kinda sad, I was starting to enjoy my tech demo and now they do this :down:
how about more patch for crysis? maps etc...EA is a joke
yeah thas why i have ~ 40% cpu utilization with a quad. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
oh and i am looking foward for this game. :)
News flash! There are people who haven't played the game yet. Spoiler tags dammit...geez. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Swatrecon_
you cant expect people to put a spoiler tag for infos on a game that is older then 6 months... its old new allready. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Bloody YES.
Finally PC is fighting back :D ?
I don't care too much as that, afaik, didn't seem like much of a spoiler, but I don't expect to read that in a thread entirely unrelated to COD4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
TBH there really isn't much to spoil...
well a console could sure as hell not play it in its full glory ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by n-sanity
ps: i have to say, CoD4 was dissapointing in terms of implementation. the game ran better because of its lackluster engine. it was all a light show without any real physics.
crysis does indeed require some optimizing/bug fixing, but to call that engine garbage is.. garbage
PC GAMING WAS NEVER DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!! to come back!
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
So what ever happened with Crytek not making anymore PC exclusives? I know they can't port Crysis/Warhead to the Consoles (In their current condition anyways), so did they just change their minds or what? Any news on this I may have missed out on? Either way, I'm glad we didn't lose them. Farcry and Crysis have been my favorite games for the PC in the past years. In my opinion they surpassed (specially Farcry at the time) even valves offerings.
that just proves it you dumbassQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
if it would be multithreaded you would see a higher % :rolleyes:
no need for that language. crysis is multi-threaded..
well, crytek have already done the hard work with the graphics engine and physics engine so they don't have as much work to do when making sequelsQuote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
I believe he was being sarcastic. Ironic, if you will. Since Nehalem's main selling point is "octocore" on a single CPU but games probably won't take advantage of more than two cores for the time being, Nehalem will have to depend on its single-threaded performance to make it worth it to gamers. 4 cores + HT at a slower speed that won't be utilized, or an E8400 at an easy 3.8GHz on air? I'd be willing to bet we'll be seeing "Nehalem 2.66GHz or E8400?? HALP PL0X!!!!" threads for some time after Nehalems coming-out party.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
A few people on XS simply don't get it that insults and ad hominem never helps your argument. It actually hinders your ability to make your point clear.
Personally, I take pride in my opinions and observations and would prefer to avoid nullifying my posts with petty insults. :up:
*On topic posting ahoy!*
I personally enjoyed Crysis a good deal, even though I couldn't run it 'maxed' out. I ran it on high at 1680/1050 in DX9 and found that it looked great and ran smooth enough to not hinder gameplay.
Not the best game, certainly no Half-Life or System Shock 2. However, I did find it to be a thoroughly fun experience with lots of eye candy included.
I think a lot of the Crysis hate simply stems from the fact that a lot of hardware enthusiasts (AKA us :D) were disappointed that even with pimped out SLI rigs they couldn't 'max' it smoothly.
when people dont get the facts, or are too lazy to do research AND they start laughing at you AND you are having exams AND you have to write a paper on feature extraction methods, it becomes quite easy to insult someone, although i try not toQuote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Erm, NO. You're dead wrong. If the game is not multithreaded the maximum utilization you'll EVER see with a quad is 25% (asuming 0 background utilization).Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
The game IS multithreaded, but maybe:
1. It's a bad implementation.
2. The game doesn't need any more CPU. And at the resolutions we play here at XS the game is 100% GPU limited, so are you expecting a fully loaded quad? :rolleyes:
And watch out that language, specially if you're wrong.
I am soooo tired of people complaining about the performance of Crysis!
It is simply estonishing that so many people are too stupid to realize that there is zero reason to complain if you can't run highest settings, because playable settings still result into better graphics than literally every other game!
I'll agree with you there. I know that I've been in a bad mood on XS a few times before and perhaps "snapped" a little bit. It happens, part of being human. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k