Crysis Warhead dropping exclusively on PC this Fall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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).

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.

---

ok, lets try an example, you have a dual core, you load a game, you start playing it, one core has 100% load, the other has 0% load, tis will result in a 50% cpu usage, so with your explaination, this game is multithreade?

dont think so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

ok, lets try an example, you have a dual core, you load a game, you start playing it, one core has 100% load, the other has 0% load, tis will result in a 50% cpu usage, so with your explaination, this game is multithreade?

dont think so

---

40% is more than 25%.. common logics tells us a QUAD core has 4 cores, therefore a core thats maxed at 100% only leads to 25% total CPU utilization.. So obviously 40% means more than 1 core is used.
my guess would be 3 tbh, but thats another topic


and wtf is that game that puts 100% on any single core jeeezuz...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

ok, lets try an example, you have a dual core, you load a game, you start playing it, one core has 100% load, the other has 0% load, tis will result in a 50% cpu usage, so with your explaination, this game is multithreade?

dont think so

---

That game is not multithreaded. But if you don't touch anything in CPU affinity etc. Windows will automatically balance the load, resulting in one core 80% and the other 20%, or whatever combination Windows wants to give you a final global utilization of 50%.

So what's your point? Any game that utilizes more than 25% in a quad is multithreaded. If you don't believe it, go grab some old game which is 100% CPU limited, or any other non multithreaded application like x264 encoder (old versions). You'll see constant 25% utilization, but not 100%-0%-0%-0%. 50%-50%-0%-0% or 25%-25%-25%-25% are two examples, but usually you'll see asimetric loading. But that doesn't change the fact that the application/game is single-threaded.

Have you ever done some serious SuperPi benching? Windows load balancing between cores is one your worst enemies ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

That game is not multithreaded. But if you don't touch anything in CPU affinity etc. Windows will automatically balance the load, resulting in one core 30% and the other 20%, or whatever combination Windows wants to give you a final global utilization of 50%.

So what's your point? Any game that utilizes more than 25% in a quad is multithreaded. If you don't believe it, go grab some old game which is 100% CPU limited, or any other non multithreaded application like x264 encoder (old versions). You'll see constant 25% utilization, but not 100%-0%-0%-0%. 50%-50%-0%-0% or 25%-25%-25%-25% are two examples, but usually you'll see asimetric loading. But that doesn't change the fact that the application/game is single-threaded.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

That game is not multithreaded. But if you don't touch anything in CPU affinity etc. Windows will automatically balance the load, resulting in one core 80% and the other 20%, or whatever combination Windows wants to give you a final global utilization of 50%.

So what's your point? Any game that utilizes more than 25% in a quad is multithreaded. If you don't believe it, go grab some old game which is 100% CPU limited, or any other non multithreaded application like x264 encoder (old versions). You'll see constant 25% utilization, but not 100%-0%-0%-0%. 50%-50%-0%-0% or 25%-25%-25%-25% are two examples, but usually you'll see asimetric loading. But that doesn't change the fact that the application/game is single-threaded.

Have you ever done some serious SuperPi benching? Windows load balancing between cores is one your worst enemies ;)

---

so when a games uses for example 80% on one core and 30% on another it called a multithread game? i would call it more lika game with multithreaded features, like crysis....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

so when a games uses for example 80% on one core and 30% on another it called a multithread game? i would call it more lika game with multithreaded features, like crysis....

---

Yes, it is multithreaded (or maybe not, keep reading). But don't be fooled by Windows task manager, because of the load of crap running in the background. In one of my previous examples (x264 encoding with old versions) in real life you'd see around 55-60% usage, that 5-10% caused by background processes. That example of yours (80-30% in a dual core) may be a single threaded game with crap in the background. In the Crysis situation you'll see higher %, way higher than any normal background program can use, so it's obvious that the game is using more than 1 thread. Maybe it uses only 2 or 3 threads, and maybe the game only needs 1% of threads 2&3 (so you can't "measure" them), but it IS multithreaded.

Crysis is not multithreaded?How come since it uses close to 90% my CPU's each core?And here is the utilization on a Quad Core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS2K

Crysis is not multithreaded?How come since it uses close to 90% my CPU's each core?And here is the utilization on a Quad Core.

---

90% i may be in a need for new glasses, but your core 0 shows a peak at 55% with an average of 40%, core1 average of 55%,core2 average of 30% and core3 average of 30%

looks like a poor implemented multithreading to me

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
Dualcore faster then a quadcore at 1024 with medium settings

here you have it

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/...ull/page2.html

Quote:

---

Quad-Core Utilization and Overclocking the Video

Since I was working with a quad-core machine I wanted to make sure that the game was utilizing all four cores. I did some performance monitor captures while running the CPU benchmark to see if each core was getting some action.

EDIT: When I originally published this article and looked at the graph of the processor performance capture my first impression was that Crysis was utilizing all four cores - which is true. Crysis is passing instructions to all four cores but not maximizing their ability to handle instructions concurrently. All four cores look busy in the graph but the reality of it is that they are basically operating as a single-core and taking turns. In it's current state Crysis does not take full advantage of multi-core processing.

---

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2209093,00.asp
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=193291,00.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

Crysis patch 1.2 uses command "sys_physics_cpu [0,1,2,3]" 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 :D

---

Physics calculation generally are at use of core 1 (assuming core 0,1 or 0,1,2,3).

if you use the command "sys_physics_cpu 3", physics calculations will be executed in the 4th core of a quad-core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

looks like a poor implemented multithreading to me

---

So now it's multithreaded for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

that just proves it you dumbass

if it would be multithreaded you would see a higher % :rolleyes:

---

:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kryptobs2000

I don't know why people keep saying COD4 runs better. I have an A64 3000+ 1 gig of ram and an 8800GT and COD4 is so processor limited that it is unplayable for me even on low settings. Crysis I can play at 12x10 on Medium/High and I get 20-40fps avg (depending on the area and settings). I could even play it with the same system except with an x800xt and it ran fine on low. Only problem Crysis has for me is with alot of physics going on, eg blowing up a building. That's not even to mention how much more is going on on the screen in Crysis than COD4.

Also, I remember reading something from Crytek awhile back saying how they have optimized the engine for Multiple cores and I think 64-bit (not sure on that one). Along with some other improvements I was impressed by. Hopefully they'll be using that version of the engine for this next game. I for one am looking forward to this.

---

Probably your ram more than the CPU, but why the heck do you have an 8800GT paired with a single core 3000+? :wth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

So now it's multithreaded for you?
:clap:

---

it has some multithread features, but isnt multithreaded, like i said some posts above you

if it looks like a apple , smells like and apple, tastes like an apple........

its better than nothing tbh... framerate stability i think they said it was useful for..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

it has some multithread features, but isnt multithreaded, like i said some posts above you

---

OK, so all the talk and evidences and and and... were useless. Well honestly I spected that from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

OK, so all the talk and evidences and and and... were useless. Well honestly I spected that from you.

---

no, all the evidence proved my point.... it doesnt scale on a quadcore, dualcore or quadcore doesnt matter, so how can it be multithreaded, it doesnt even scale with more cores :rofl:

you on the other hand proved nothing and tried to sell baked air

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS2K

Crysis is not multithreaded?How come since it uses close to 90% my CPU's each core?And here is the utilization on a Quad Core.

---

huh? 90% not even close

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

nehalem = super multithreded
crysis = heavily single threaded

yup, you will prolly need a nehalem to play....

---

Crysis only uses about 35% of each core on my rig, and thats a PD820. Lame.

Loved the crysis storyline, but yes... the potentially awesome multiplayer sucked huge monkeyballs. :down:

I rather like Power Struggle, especially on Mesa, but i dont get why people dont like it?

I hope they optimize this game to allow AA usage.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

no, all the evidence proved my point.... it doesnt scale on a quadcore, dualcore or quadcore doesnt matter, so how can it be multithreaded, it doesnt even scale with more cores :rofl:

you on the other hand proved nothing and tried to sell baked air

---

Are you that stupid or pretending? Crysis is multithreaded. Now stop this BS:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

it has some multithread features, but isnt multithreaded, like i said some posts above you

---

theres no such thing as a "multithread feature" :o?? Whats a "multithread feature" supposed to be? A piece of software is either multi-threaded, or single-threaded...

And I wouldnt believe everything I read on tomshardware, there was a thread before on this forum, some guy made a dual vs quad cpu test on crysis, there was a 2 fps advantage for the quad if I remember right. True, its not much, but its something..
whatever tho, people believe what they choose to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

no, all the evidence proved my point.... it doesnt scale on a quadcore, dualcore or quadcore doesnt matter, so how can it be multithreaded, it doesnt even scale with more cores :rofl:

you on the other hand proved nothing and tried to sell baked air

---

If the game uses more than one core it is multi threaded. Simply because a higher clocked dual core can outperform a quad core does not mean it is not multi threaded.

IE, lets say the game has four different threads, each on one of the quad core's four cores at 2.4GHz, utilizing 35% of each core. That means each thread is being run to the fullest a 2.4GHz core can run it as it is not taking 100% of the core. Now lets say another computer has the game running on the same four threads, two on each one of a dual core's 3.2GHz cores, utilizing 70% (2x 35%) of each core. Since it is still not needing to utilize 100% of the core, each thread is being run to the fullest at 3.2GHz. Continuing this example would leave a single core needing 140% utilization. Because that is impossible then a dual core will outperform it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuuubeh

theres no such thing as a "multithread feature" :o?? Whats a "multithread feature" supposed to be? A piece of software is either multi-threaded, or single-threaded...

And I wouldnt believe everything I read on tomshardware, there was a thread before on this forum, some guy made a dual vs quad cpu test on crysis, there was a 2 fps advantage for the quad if I remember right. True, its not much, but its something..
whatever tho, people believe what they choose to

---

a multithreaded feature is like doing physics on another core, the game itself is not multithreaded, but like someone said above people are tend to believe what they think is correct
i dont ever care, i dont play crysis,crysis is just badly coded, it looks awesome and thats it, it doesnt even scale well with multiple GPU's, but again, like i care, believe what you want to believe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar

If the game uses more than one core it is multi threaded. Simply because a higher clocked dual core can outperform a quad core does not mean it is not multi threaded.

IE, lets say the game has four different threads, each on one of the quad core's four cores at 2.4GHz, utilizing 35% of each core. That means each thread is being run to the fullest a 2.4GHz core can run it as it is not taking 100% of the core. Now lets say another computer has the game running on the same four threads, two on each one of a dual core's 3.2GHz cores, utilizing 70% (2x 35%) of each core. Since it is still not needing to utilize 100% of the core, each thread is being run to the fullest at 3.2GHz. Continuing this example would leave a single core needing 140% utilization. Because that is impossible then a dual core will outperform it.

---

if you would have clicked on a link i provided you would ze a 2.66 dualcore outperforming a 2.4 quadcore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

a multithreaded feature is like doing physics on another core, the game itself is not multithreaded

---

Seems we have different definitions, I consider any part of the code of one game to be part of the game itself :). For me physics IS a part of the engine, if a part of the engine runs on another core, then its multithreaded :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

but like someone said above people are tend to believe what they think is correct

---

It was me :D ;) I still encourage it ^_^

I'm out of here :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

no, all the evidence proved my point.... it doesnt scale on a quadcore, dualcore or quadcore doesnt matter, so how can it be multithreaded, it doesnt even scale with more cores :rofl:

you on the other hand proved nothing and tried to sell baked air

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

a multithreaded feature is like doing physics on another core, the game itself is not multithreaded, but like someone said above people are tend to believe what they think is correct
i dont ever care, i dont play crysis,crysis is just badly coded, it looks awesome and thats it, it doesnt even scale well with multiple GPU's, but again, like i care, believe what you want to believe



if you would have clicked on a link i provided you would ze a 2.66 dualcore outperforming a 2.4 quadcore

---

I'm temted to sig you, but it's too large :D

Keep in your particular world with your "partially multithreaded" games/apps and your "multithreaded features".

That why I said it's useless for you. You are the type of guy that wouldn't see the real thing even if it's put right in front of your face.

Quote:

---

no, all the evidence proved my point....

---

It's the other way around mate ;)

PS: I have another good reading for you by Jack: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=295