Crysis 2 being re-designed for GTX580

Quote:

---

Having the world’s fastest car is no fun unless you have the right racetrack. If that track does not exist, then you will need to build it. For cars, that means splashing out on a Nürburgring or something similar. With graphic cards, it means having a triple A title that pushes everything you do well, to the absolute limit. Enter EA.

With the GTX480, nVidia had a massive lead in graphics processing techniques like tessellation. Unfortunately, there were almost no games in the market that utilised that additional processing power. Aliens Vs Predator included tessellation – but just enough to allow AMD and nVidia to compete on a similar playing field. Great for gamers, not so good for nVidia. Millions have been paid to create a Fermi processor with butt-mastering tessellation capability, which isn’t being utilised by game developers. What a quandary. How to fix it?

Enter Crysis 2 and a $2m spend from nVidia’s marketing team.

KitGuru says: There are lots of reasons why a company would spend $2m sponsoring a game so close to launch. Whatever the reason, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that it is being re-styled for the GTX580 and GTX590 cards with an absolute ton of additional tessellation IQ. For those that can afford a GTX580 going into Xmas, we believe that your Crysis 2 experience when it launches (several months after March) will be as good as it gets.

---

http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...expect-delays/

wow this is turning just as bad as physx

KitGuru... :down:
GTX590, yeah, right... more bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:...
Redesigning for GTX580 when its arch is not really different from GTX480... Come on... :shakes:
Oh, and their article is one huge bloody advertisement and PR compilation.

lol if this works its an easy formula. amd aught to start dumping a few mils here and there to get developers to co-ck block the competition's hardware as well.

is it dirty marketing? YES. is this really needed? NO. am I mad about this? ABSOLUTELY NOT. ya it's dirty and I can see this thread going on for a few pages with all the ATI fanboys complaining about nvidia sabotaging and whatnot but think of it this way. I just might MAYBE finally have a game that makes use of my $500 graphics card to the max, showing what a PC can really do. they don't say anything about making it run WORSE on ATI cards but just that Nvidia has payed them to add in more DX11 features, which just happen to run better on Nvidia cards. i think it's better this way then having a crap console port, that looks the same on all three platforms.

im tired of games looking the same as they did when consoles first came out... if they properly use the power of say a 480/580 the graphics quality of this game will be off the charts...

edit: however it's kitguru so this is most likely all BS

ok whatever, the card that doesn't exist and hasn't even been paper launched will do awesome in a heavily optimized game (that might end up sucking, btw) sometime in 8 months. Where do I pre-order? No seriously, we should keep those threads consolidated instead of having 1 rumor thread a day for the next month :-/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

is it dirty marketing? YES. is this really needed? NO. am I mad about this? ABSOLUTELY NOT. ya it's dirty and I can see this thread going on for a few pages with all the ATI fanboys complaining about nvidia sabotaging and whatnot but think of it this way. I just might MAYBE finally have a game that makes use of my $500 graphics card to the max, showing what a PC can really do. they don't say anything about making it run WORSE on ATI cards but just that Nvidia has payed them to add in more DX11 features, which just happen to run better on Nvidia cards. i think it's better this way then having a crap console port, that looks the same on all three platforms.

im tired of games looking the same as they did when consoles first came out... if they properly use the power of say a 480/580 the graphics quality of this game will be off the charts...

edit: however it's kitguru so this is most likely all BS

---

Even if its optimised... Crytek is not going to rework their engine during the last stages of development, they've been working on cryengine 3 for well over a year, I do not they'd go "oh look, Nvidia is gonna throw us some petty cash, lets change over a year's worth of work away"

rumor tag needed

heck a xtreme rumor page is needed

ill laugh when the antilles wipes the floor with it

edit: what it gonna get like 200fps because its a console port

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuroikenshi

Even if its optimised... Crytek is not going to rework their engine during the last stages of development, they've been working on cryengine 3 for well over a year, I do not they'd go "oh look, Nvidia is gonna throw us some petty cash, lets change over a year's worth of work away"

---

you forget its EA. they dont have a reputation for putting depth and gaming experience at the top of their priorities.

I'm not really woried about this. It's nvidia's same old B.S. tactics; if you can't win out right, throw more money at it.

I'm slightly disappointed to hear about this, but this just makes me want to hug my 5870 knowing that it has been a massive thorn in Nvidia's side for a year now. Funny enough, I bought an 8800 GTX when the "Radeon 2800" was rumored to be 30-50% faster, and we all know how that one turned out. :D

I'm starting to sound like an AMD/ATI fanboy, I know. I just wish Nvidia would get their act together so I'd have a reason to buy them again besides their driver support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

rumor tag needed

heck a xtreme rumor page is needed

ill laugh when the antilles wipes the floor with it

edit: what it gonna get like 200fps because its a console port

---

that'd be such an Nvidia fail, if pc consumers do not like the gaming experience on pc and decide not to buy.... :clap::clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

I'm not really woried about this. It's nvidia's same old B.S. tactics; if you can't win out right, throw more money at it.

I'm slightly disappointed to hear about this, but this just makes me want to hug my 5870 knowing that it has been a massive thorn in Nvidia's side for a year now.

I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, I know. I just wish Nvidia would get their act together so I'd have a reason to buy them besides than their driver support.

---

I can completely understand why nvidia does these sort of things they have been doing it since forever - doom3 anyone?
what i dont understand is why amd / ati refuses to do the same. its almost naieve to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

kitguru... :down:

---

+1

Look here

Kitguru says Dual GF106 coming

:down: :down:

news kitguru = fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

you forget its EA. they dont have a reputation for putting depth and gaming experience at the top of their priorities.

---

crysis 1 and crysis warhead delivered some truly amazing experience plus gameplay (if you had massive gpu setups) I know this is not the rule for all of EA's sub partners, but crytek did create one awesome GFX engine (very hungry but awesome)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuroikenshi

crysis 1 and crysis warhead delivered some truly amazing experience plus gameplay (if you had massive gpu setups) I know this is not the rule for all of EA's sub partners, but crytek did create one awesome GFX engine (very hungry but awesome)

---

awesome engine
awesome graphics

no depth
much better gaming experience obtained from e.g. half life 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

awesome engine
awesome graphics

no depth
much better gaming experience obtained from e.g. half life 2

---

I totally agree there, I am just a big sucker for the old nanosuit :D:D:D

*edit* (Maximum e-penis)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuroikenshi

I totally agree there, I am just a big sucker for the old nanosuit :D:D:D

---

Ye I did rather like being a power ranger for a big part of the game

On and on ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

On and on ...

---

This displays either one of the following two occurrences:
a) Kit guru is one heck of reporting website, getting inside information like no other
b) Nvidia is paying for their x-mas holidays to post an almost "marketing written spill"

Strange how soon you guys forgot about Crysis. Take a look at this slide from back in the day. So it's really no surprise.

oh well, if cayman chews on this game then I will have something funny to laugh at... Nvidia that is
lol

Bad source.

Re-Designed for a GTX 580 is kind of a stretch considering the similarities...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

awesome engine
awesome graphics

no depth
much better gaming experience obtained from e.g. half life 2

---

to be honest i had a great time playing through crysis and warhead, the shooting mechanic was fantastic and the game as a shooter felt extremely good. the game was just to short and the story was only ok. but from a "gameplay" perceptive it was fantastic. if they can keep that the same, make it look and run better as well as have a half decent story then Crysis 2 could be a great game. but then again it's EA so.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cold2010

+1

Look here

Kitguru says Dual GF106 coming

:down: :down:

news kitguru = fail

---

My favourite :D

I stopped reading here

Quote:

---

KitGuru says

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I stopped reading here

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Strange how soon you guys forgot about Crysis. Take a look at this slide from back in the day. So it's really no surprise.

---

Funny how Crysis runs so well on AMD's current offerings and seems to be a thorn in Nvidia's side. The 5870 and GTX 480 seems to be neck and neck in Crysis performance, which is almost laughable 4 years later.

Well, the author's nickname is faith. The irony...

Pushing the VGA card to the limit yet using tesselation factor beyond reasonable level that doesn't give additional IQ & immersion to gamers, does this really benefit us as consumers ?? I guess the answer is quite clear, but i won't prohibit anybody using their green colored rose glasses. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olivon

my favourite :d

---

:d
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

to be honest i had a great time playing through crysis and warhead, the shooting mechanic was fantastic and the game as a shooter felt extremely good. the game was just to short and the story was only ok. but from a "gameplay" perceptive it was fantastic. if they can keep that the same, make it look and run better as well as have a half decent story then Crysis 2 could be a great game. but then again it's EA so.....

---

I must admit I never bothered playing warhead version. I'll take ur word for it though.

I did go back to Max Payne the other day though.. damn that was an awesome game.

back on topic, I think if cayman has indeed 3x more tesselating power they will be fine at keeping up with crysis 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

My favourite :D

---

End of the road for GTX470 :shocked: :shocked:

Enjoy with kitguru :D

I find it ironic back when ATI launched the 5xxx series there were allot of vocal members preaching the greatness of dx11 and its bringing of tessellation when it was perceived that ATI would be better at tessellation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

I find it ironic back when ATI launched the 5xxx series there were allot of vocal members preaching the greatness of dx11 and its bringing of tessellation when it was perceived that ATI would be better at tessellation.

---

AVP DX11 fever ... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

wow this is turning just as bad as physx

---

Except that AMD could put a more powerful tessellator in their future cards and surpass Nvidia in these games, if they decided to. So in that sense it's not like physx at all.

humm... I think I have made up my mind, if Crysis 2 comes out optimised for GTX5xx, and then Cayman beats them at their game, I will see myself forced to write a letter to Nvidia with the following content

ROFL @ PR MARKETING CAMPAIGN!! :D

Assuming that this is true, then it may just mean that Crysis improves across the board for the PC version. Whether or not it runs better on a particular card, I bet it will be more enjoyable to play whatever card you have.

You guys are blowing Nvidia optimization out of proportion, crysis was a TWIMTBP title and it works better on AMD hardware right now. I think they might make the games optimised for a brand of card at the beginning, but this can soon be conquered with better drivers.

Crysis: Pointlessly super high tesselation edition.

Now with free nvidia stickers and complimentary nvidia penis tatoo!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Crysis: Pointlessly super high tesselation edition.

Now with free nvidia stickers and complimentary nvidia penis tatoo!!

---

hahaha, that made me laugh so much (I want my free e-penis tattoo!!!)

I can live with the fact that Fermi mArch is plenty superior in raw tesselation & geometry performance compared to what AMD can offer at the moment, but even if the game is "polished" in TWIMTBP's way to shine that advantage, at least give the user option with slide regarding tesselation factor in the game options, so we won't be forced into maximizing stuff that we might not prefer on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

I can completely understand why nvidia does these sort of things they have been doing it since forever - doom3 anyone?
what i dont understand is why amd / ati refuses to do the same. its almost naieve to me.

---

maybe because of budget constraints?
last quarter their graphics division just earned $1M..
obviously not enough to pay Crytek which cost nV $2M :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursindonesia

I can live with the fact that Fermi mArch is plenty superior in raw tesselation & geometry performance compared to what AMD can offer at the moment, but even if the game is "polished" in TWIMTBP's way to shine that advantage, at least give the user option with slide regarding tesselation factor in the game options, so we won't be forced into maximizing stuff that we might not prefer on.

---

If you consider "at the moment" to include the 6970 launch this month, you'll see the 580 and xt have very similar capability.

Cuda performance is cut down in the 580, it's the price of reducing the die size and still keeping 512. Otherwise, there would be more power consumption than the 480.


I think ATI could have had much better tesselating ability if they chose to but figured it was not worth the tradeoff of production cost and efficiency scaling.

The 480 is and was some kind of overpowered monster in that area, ATI guessed what level of tesselation would be used and planned for that real world scenario.

This is game is coming out on the consoles, which let's face it are getting old now hardware wise, so I very much doubt this is going to be cutting edge graphics wise

Has kitguru been right about ANYTHING?

At least Charlie and sometimes Fudo hits something right. I don't think Kitguru even counts as a broken clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

lol if this works its an easy formula. amd aught to start dumping a few mils here and there to get developers to co-ck block the competition's hardware as well.

---

2 wrongs don't make a right.

The PC platform is not meant to be a split one.

I came... I read... I laugh...

When reading these comments all I can say is: SHAME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

I find it ironic back when ATI launched the 5xxx series there were allot of vocal members preaching the greatness of dx11 and its bringing of tessellation when it was perceived that ATI would be better at tessellation.

---

Well i didn't think anything of which would be better at anything.
All i thought was tessellation would be a nice feature period & i don't remember getting a feeling that people thought that ATI would be better at it & more the fact at the time that NV had no DX11 cards at all.

I lol'd when I saw the 'source'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

Funny how Crysis runs so well on AMD's current offerings and seems to be a thorn in Nvidia's side. The 5870 and GTX 480 seems to be neck and neck in Crysis performance, which is almost laughable 4 years later.

---

LOL you must be smoking some powerful :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: my friend :yepp:

The GTX 480 and the 5870 are definitely not neck and neck in Crysis..

Look at the minimum framerate, the GTX 480 slaughters the 5870. The difference is even more pronounced in multi GPU mode.

Point is, you get a much better gaming experience in Crysis on Fermi class GPUs. The game will be significantly smoother due to the steadier framerate.

this thread makes me lol so much

another kit guru fail thread

Who cares about any Crysis games? They are boring 'tech demoes'.
Nvidia is really scared it seems like, and they should be...
AMD just released cheap medium spec cards, and got more faster ones comming soon. All nvidia has to show for is a boosted old design, since I bet 580 is just cherry picked 480s...

JH_man

Yes, Crysis was developed on 8800GTX's. What were the other options again? That's right, crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Strange how soon you guys forgot about Crysis. Take a look at this slide from back in the day. So it's really no surprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amorphous

Yes, Crysis was developed on 8800GTX's. What were the other options again? That's right, crap.

---

LOL this is so funny yet so true, what a milestone of a card was the 8800GTX:):)

The whole tessellation nonsense is ridiculous. They brag so much about it, but when i've run AvP with DX11 features enabled, i couldn't see any useful tessellation. Weapons were still having square edges, railings outside were still horrifically low poly etc etc. One would expect that tessellation would improve all this when looking at them up close, yet it doesn't. So what's the point of it? Churning polygons on stuff where polybump mapping does an equally good job and 90% of ppl can't tell the difference while everything is in motion? Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

The whole tessellation nonsense is ridiculous. They brag so much about it, but when i've run AvP with DX11 features enabled, i couldn't see any useful tessellation. Weapons were still having square edges, railings outside were still horrifically low poly etc etc. One would expect that tessellation would improve all this when looking at them up close, yet it doesn't. So what's the point of it? Churning polygons on stuff where polybump mapping does an equally good job and 90% of ppl can't tell the difference while everything is in motion? Lol.

---

You're not going to see the ground up implementations for a year or two. It requires fundamental art pipeline changes to make the meshes at low poly counts and let the hardware tessellate it into the proper form. All current implementations are the icing on the cake style of tessellation. The reason is that all current games already had their artists set up to make high poly count meshes in maya and max and they just use the model directly. Why would they go backwards and reduce the initial poly count to show better benefit from tessellation? The bottom line is the more ground-up the implementation is.. the more integrated into the artist pipeline and engine it is from the start, the more it will show benefits.

You will ideally see the number of polys be scaled from one low poly source mesh upwards, (based on geometry horsepower of the GPU), instead of shipping multiple LOD versions of each mesh.

Then they are missing the whole point of tessellation all together. Tesselation is just an advanced form of mesh LOD. Applied to everything. The point of doing it is have incredible detail up close and still have high performance, high framerate in game scenery. So in my case, i'd get proper round railings, super detailed facial expressions, detailed weapons and still have high framerate when all these things are out of detail view, meaning that i can't really tell the difference between 500 poly and 5000 poly because of the distance i'm viewing those objects from. Mesh LOD did exactly the same thing with only difference that it was usually in 3 steps. Low poly mesh, normal mesh and high poly mesh. And they simply switched based on view distance. Most of the time you were able to see the shift, something where tessealtion has an edge with progressive change so you can't see that either.

What they are doing now is having a base high detail model and churning even more polygons on top of that. Result? Even slower perfoemance with no visual improvement because we can't tell apaprt the high poly models anyway. But they still aren't high poly enough (railings in my case) or tessellation isn't even applied to that...

is there any contest about how many thread with "GTX580" in its title you can open in the "news" section ?

can i open one guessing how much plastic there is in the GTX580 cooler compared to 6870 or GTX480 ?

Can't we please can KitGuru as a source? :rolleyes:

The thing I came away from reading this was. "when it launches (several months after March)"

lol May, June 2011?

I want the 5 mins it took me to read this thread back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Then they are missing the whole point of tessellation all together. Tesselation is just an advanced form of mesh LOD. Applied to everything. The point of doing it is have incredible detail up close and still have high performance, high framerate in game scenery. So in my case, i'd get proper round railings, super detailed facial expressions, detailed weapons and still have high framerate when all these things are out of detail view, meaning that i can't really tell the difference between 500 poly and 5000 poly because of the distance i'm viewing those objects from. Mesh LOD did exactly the same thing with only difference that it was usually in 3 steps. Low poly mesh, normal mesh and high poly mesh. And they simply switched based on view distance. Most of the time you were able to see the shift, something where tessealtion has an edge with progressive change so you can't see that either.

What they are doing now is having a base high detail model and churning even more polygons on top of that. Result? Even slower perfoemance with no visual improvement because we can't tell apaprt the high poly models anyway. But they still aren't high poly enough (railings in my case) or tessellation isn't even applied to that...

---

Eh no. Tessellation from a lower poly base model lets you have your cake and eat it too, because you get scalable LOD *and* way less cpu overhead of feeding each individual triangle to the hardware. Now you feed a fraction of them and let the dedicated hardware fill in the gaps. The point is you're offloading a task from a generalized cpu to a specialized processor with fixed function hardware which can do the work more efficiently. In the end without tessellation it doesn't make sense to have the higher levels of geometry because its too taxing on the cpu.

Don't forget also real geometric detail means real lighting and shadow detail with respect to the geometry... something hack methods like bumpmapping (simulating geometry) can't offer.

580gtx and crysis 2 will rock.
AMD is a low budget manufucturer with horrible marketing.
of course Nvidia will own them big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

AMD is a low budget manufucturer with horrible marketing.
of course Nvidia will own them big time.

---

Fanboy much? Funny how 5xxx cards of 'low budget manufucturer' owned Nvidia's offers for 6 months, huh? The irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Fanboy much? Funny how 5xxx cards of 'low budget manufucturer' owned Nvidia's offers for 6 months, huh? The irony.

---

He was aiming for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Fanboy much? Funny how 5xxx cards of 'low budget manufucturer' owned Nvidia's offers for 6 months, huh? The irony.

---

I would rather guess he's being sarcastic. Flopper is quite pro-AMD, at least he has been in the past. Also, he's running a Eyefinity-setup. Also, if GTX580 is Ferim@512 CC + increased clocks, I don't see how it will stomp Cayman which should be more powerful than Cypress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

I would rather guess he's being sarcastic. Flopper is quite pro-AMD, at least he has been in the past. Also, he's running a Eyefinity-setup. Also, if GTX580 is Ferim@512 CC + increased clocks, I don't see how it will stomp Cayman which should be more powerful than Cypress...

---

I can't tell. :p:
In any case, I think Cayman will be slightly better, at least price/perf wise.

Flopper is harping his anti jinx instrument, no worry, or perhaps taken hostage by a green bat thug somewhere, forced to write those kinda unflattering comments toward AMD. Or perhaps he tried to incite the emotion of AMD card tester so there would be more leaks coming our way. :D

KitGuru is really not reliable, that's for sure...

But it's not really like it's the first time we see this ... look LP2, HawX2, and im sure there's again some more games developped for Nvidia who will come soon...

Anyway if Crysis2 was initially developped for run a bit better with this version of the CryEngine ... i think we are back to a 25fps game with the GTX580 or 6970 lol ...

Original CryENGINE was just a tech demo made by Crytek for Nvidia. It turned to FarCry later on. Same asslicking continued with Crysis. So expect to have not-so-great code running on your GPU. :)

Both Nvidia and Crytek fail big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

The GTX 480 and the 5870 are definitely not neck and neck in Crysis..

---

http://www.news4it.it/images/stories...580A_copia.jpg :ROTF:

Can I play it on the 460 SE(Super Elite)/455 FTW/460 Green edition or whatever it is?
Comon give ket a break, when he smokes his breakfast and looks int his crystal ball and shares his dreams with us, he is almost as accurate as the psychic hotline.

Why a game developer would do this, i have no idea. Will this cause them to lose 2 mill in revenue? I dont know, but i know that i will not be paying for this game as i got ATI. Perhaps alot of other ATI people will also not pay for this, making the revenue for the game less. Would be fun to have a parallel universe where the developer didnt take the 2 mil, and compare the 2 end results hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

LOL you must be smoking some powerful :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: my friend :yepp:

The GTX 480 and the 5870 are definitely not neck and neck in Crysis..

Look at the minimum framerate, the GTX 480 slaughters the 5870. The difference is even more pronounced in multi GPU mode.

Point is, you get a much better gaming experience in Crysis on Fermi class GPUs. The game will be significantly smoother due to the steadier framerate.

---

:rofl: Somehow with Fermi failing in every other department, minimums are now all the rage with certain users. That's a single data point, you need graphs like HardOCP to check how badly each card is fluctuating. If the 5870 had very low minimums time and again that would drag the average down. Graphs will show the minimum as well as the overall trend in fps which is a lot more useful than a single data point. It also really depends on which review you sight, here the 5870 is ahead. :up:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N..._Fermi/10.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rai

That's a single data point

---

one data point for one game from one review, thats the best way to decide to:
spend over 1000$,
on just a pair of video cards,
to keep for less than a year....

right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

one data point for one game from one review, thats the best way to decide to:
spend over 1000$,
on just a pair of video cards,
to keep for less than a year....

right?

---

Absolutely it is! Let's hope that Anand's rig didn't have a lil hd access or something that may have caused a blip on the radar. :ROTF:

Sporting team gives $2m to ball manufacturer to produce a ball that is optimised for use on that teams own playing surface and optimised for maximum performance when used with that teams own footwear/bats/sticks/clubs.

How long would the above scenario last before some kind of litigation was initiated?

TWIMTBP stinks always has always will. It doesn't matter if it is Nvidia, AMD, The New York Mets or Manchester United who are doing the bribing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rava6e

Why a game developer would do this, i have no idea. Will this cause them to lose 2 mill in revenue? I dont know, but i know that i will not be paying for this game as i got ATI. Perhaps alot of other ATI people will also not pay for this, making the revenue for the game less. Would be fun to have a parallel universe where the developer didnt take the 2 mil, and compare the 2 end results hehe.

---

When I bought my 3870 and played crysis everytime i saw that TWIMTBP logo is just gave a slight lol and carried on playing the game exactly as its meant to be played without any problems.

Not sure if someone has mentioned it yet, but this close to launch there's no way they'll rework ANYTHING. The money is for bundling the game with their new cards etc, guaranteed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantsu

http://www.news4it.it/images/stories...580A_copia.jpg :ROTF:

---

:rofl: Even on Nvidia's own PR slide, the 5870 is faster than the 480 in crysis. :clap: Get tired of seeing carfax defend a 480's performance in every thread

YAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!

Let's go back to 10 FPS gaming, and this with the NEW GTX580 LOL...

Hell, even 4 years after the release of Crysis, you can't run the game on a GTX480 with everything on max quality @ 2560 with aceptable frame rate....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amorphous

Yes, Crysis was developed on 8800GTX's. What were the other options again? That's right, crap.

---

I loled so hard from that, so true. I will have to say though it's pretty obvious who in this thread owns both a 5870 and a GTX 480 and has used them both when playing crysis. those who own both know that the difference between the 5870 performance and the GTX 480 performance is much much bigger then people think or than the graphs say. I was straight up disappointed with my 5870 in Crysis, my GTX 480 on the other hand is totally amazing and runs like a dream.

Cayman will need to be almost twice as fast as the 5870 in Crysis to keep up with the GTX 580 if the rumored numbers are true. needless to say it will be interesting to see what happens. What I am really interested to see is when games with the using the Uniengine come out because it fly's on nvidia compared to ATI (maybe cayman will change that)

I also never noticed that graph's Crysis warhead performance for the GTX 480, graph must be a fake considering I have tested it myself and thats not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

Get tired of seeing carfax defend a 480's performance in every thread

---

As long as he isn't spamming AMD threads with rhetoric, nothing to worry about. :)

They are just adding more tessellation for users with a GTX580. Im sure users with lesser hardware will be able to turn it off. I dont think this is an unfair play by Nvidia as it doesnt affect ATI's cards. If ATI wants to play in this ball field, they'll just have to increase their tessellation prowess.

For those that equate this to PhyX, you are so off. This isnt limited to Nvidia cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amorphous

Yes, Crysis was developed on 8800GTX's. What were the other options again? That's right, crap.

---

I don't think the answer is so simple. As to regard of performance I recall the 8800GTX taking a nice hit if MSAA was used. However, performance is not really relevant here. The issue is whether or not it's true that they are going specifically code Crysis 2 for 580 or not. Well, my posts shows that if we look at history Crysis was for the 8800 GTX. I still think we need confirmation from the developers to see if this is true or not. However, if it is true it wouldn't surprise me :up:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rai

:rofl: Somehow with Fermi failing in every other department, minimums are now all the rage with certain users. That's a single data point, you need graphs like HardOCP to check how badly each card is fluctuating. If the 5870 had very low minimums time and again that would drag the average down. Graphs will show the minimum as well as the overall trend in fps which is a lot more useful than a single data point. It also really depends on which review you sight, here the 5870 is ahead. :up:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N..._Fermi/10.html

---

I posted a HardOCP link, and this is what the reviewer said:

Quote:

---

You can see that we were really pushing these video cards very hard in this game with these framerates, but I have to say that GTX 480 SLI was the most playable, you could really feel the difference. In fact, I would say that 2X AA at 2560x1600 with all Enthusiast settings is playable on GTX 480 SLI here, but not on the Radeon HD 5870 CrossFireX.

---

Looking at the graph, the 5870 Crossfire set up plunges below the 30 FPS mark an inordinate amount of times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

:rofl: Even on Nvidia's own PR slide, the 5870 is faster than the 480 in crysis. :clap: Get tired of seeing carfax defend a 480's performance in every thread

---

Correcting a false assumption and defending the 480s performance aren't the same thing..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

I loled so hard from that, so true. I will have to say though it's pretty obvious who in this thread owns both a 5870 and a GTX 480 and has used them both when playing crysis. those who own both know that the difference between the 5870 performance and the GTX 480 performance is much much bigger then people think or than the graphs say. I was straight up disappointed with my 5870 in Crysis, my GTX 480 on the other hand is totally amazing and runs like a dream.

---

Exactly! Gameplay experience with the 480 in Crysis is just much better than the 5870 no doubt about it.

Quote:

---

I also never noticed that graph's Crysis warhead performance for the GTX 480, graph must be a fake considering I have tested it myself and thats not the case.

---

HardOCP typically gives the most accurate results when it comes to benchmarks, as you can see the entire range of results over a specific period of time rather than just a mere snapshot.

I wish more reviewers used their method.

AMD and nVidia need to rethink their market strategies and stop making vga for consoles. Who cares it's gonna be the same road for Crysis 2 as for Crysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I posted a HardOCP link, and this is what the reviewer said:



Looking at the graph, the 5870 Crossfire set up plunges below the 30 FPS mark an inordinate amount of times.



Correcting a false assumption and defending the 480s performance aren't the same thing..



Exactly! Gameplay experience with the 480 in Crysis is just much better than the 5870 no doubt about it.



HardOCP typically gives the most accurate results when it comes to benchmarks, as you can see the entire range of results over a specific period of time rather than just a mere snapshot.

I wish more reviewers used their method.

---

I don't care for multi gpu setups, so your link to HardOCP regarding GTX 480 SLI is a non-factor to me. Unfortunately they didn't bench Crysis in single gpu mode in their GTX 480 review, so I'll stick to techpowerup.

Also noticed the default Nvidia driver settings make Crysis look like junk on my 8800 GT compared to my 1900 xtx, very blurry and drab, I'm not sure if things have improved or not.

I love how some Nvidia users state it's unfair to compare the GTX 480 to the 5970 b/c they are at different price points. Yet, it's okay to compare GTX 480 SLI to 5870 CFX or a 5970 even though they are in completely different price segments, especially when you factor in likely psu/case upgrades needed for the 480 SLI setup. :ROTF:

My last few cards have been 5870, GTX 470, GTX 460. I'm hoping the 6900 series delivers, as the 580 just seems what the 480 was supposed to be a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MythSquare

AMD and nVidia need to rethink their market strategies and stop making vga for consoles. Who cares it's gonna be the same road for Crysis 2 as for Crysis.

---

sad thing is they make crazy amounts of money off of consoles. look how many consoles are sold compared to high end PC graphics cards... granted if they stopped sale would increase but not enough to make up for the loss. If only, then PC gaming would be a great place full of great games but instead we get......ports:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

sad thing is they make crazy amounts of money off of consoles. look how many consoles are sold compared to high end PC graphics cards... granted if they stopped sale would increase but not enough to make up for the loss. If only, then PC gaming would be a great place full of great games but instead we get......ports:(

---

I don't think they make all that much money, I think they just sell the design off :(

I'm sure it's important, but I think Nvidia was charging MS for each chip in the xbox 1, and it cost MS a lot more going that way so they switched to ATI for the 360. I'm not 100% sure though.

Oh they do make money....Nvidia made enough money off its console chips to make enemies of Microsoft and Sony. You do have to admire nvidia for admitting the PS3 RSX was outdated crap on launch thanks to the G80.

This is great news if true. I am eagerly anticipating Crysis 2. This should really be in the "duh" category. Nvidia and ATI should have been working closely with developers to encourage them to make the graphics as advanced as they are willing to. At least enough to make life difficult for their fastest cards. Crysis 1 was probably my favorite FPS ever. And it was at least partly the immersive graphics that made it so. That in combination with being heavily story-based with a pretty decent story. Crysis 2 even has a genuine novelist doing the writing. So I don't exactly expect it to suck. I have been concerned with the level of graphics however. From what I have seen so far the graphics don't seem much better than in Crysis at high settings. And they could even end up being worse like Crysis: Warhead was. Cel-shaded shyte for the toddlers.

I would like to think that this pre-Christmas gift from our good friends at Nvidia (it is quite obvious that this thread is utterly dominated by Nvidia fanboys) might encourage Crytek to put a bit more effort into some kind of uber-realistic mode that will make Crysis 1 look like Doom. Now it's time for AMD to step up to the plate and donate to Crytek as well. Game graphics have been stalled since Crysis. The truth is that AMD and Nvidia should *both* be ponying up to encourage more advanced game graphics. As of now I have no reason to upgrade from my GTX280. AMD, please help give me a reason. Go ahead and double that measly Nvidia donation.

It really was that simple for the original Crysis. There wasn't an even remotely competitive GPU for the 8800GTX from AMD until after the 9800GTX was also launched.

If by, "specifically code Crysis 2 for 580" you mean, "enable extreme levels of tessellation," I certainly hope so. Crytek isn't going to rip apart their engine and make it only work on NVIDIA. $2M, if that's really how much NVIDIA gave them, isn't worth it.

The big focus of TWIMTBP improvements are adding features like PhysX, good SLI scaling (2-way to 4-way) and 3D Vision/3D Vision Surround support. Better access to the game means NVIDIA can have a stronger driver when the game launches. That's most likely NVIDIA's big focus here; if Crysis 2 becomes the benchmarking standard like its predecessor was, then they're going to want to make sure they can be extremely competitive.

All this article does is pave the way for fanboys to cry foul if NVIDIA comes out on top in Crysis 2. Even if the reason that NVIDIA is on top is because of NVIDIA's tessellation engine.

I'm really tired of crappy console ports. If it takes NVIDIA pumping money into a company to make that happen, I'm not going to demonize NVIDIA. They're trying to increase demand for their GPUs. I doubt AMD would do the same, even if they could afford it. That's not their corporate culture.


Amorphous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

I don't think the answer is so simple. As to regard of performance I recall the 8800GTX taking a nice hit if MSAA was used. However, performance is not really relevant here. The issue is whether or not it's true that they are going specifically code Crysis 2 for 580 or not. Well, my posts shows that if we look at history Crysis was for the 8800 GTX. I still think we need confirmation from the developers to see if this is true or not. However, if it is true it wouldn't surprise me :up:.

---

great just what we needed, now crysis 2 will be just as terrable as the original was for using hardware if its based on the imaginary specs of what a card should be able to do. i just hope that since it was almost done for the pc a while ago that it wont be to badly ruined.

@Amorphous, TWIMTBP is not to get features in games its to make it them not on other things, what games can u mention that have TWIMTBP that run at more than playable on NV and work properly on ati, i betting that u will look at what came out and then u will see that the last major titles were batmanAA that had pshyX items added to make it not playable and having no global MSAA implementation, or darkest of days that works for no1, AOC that ran like crap on everything, borderlands that has ati optimization disabled and NV optimization forced in a config file that the adv user could not find, metro 2033 that has dummy cashe to need more than 1GB of vram and it uses static textures over random geometry to play to the fermis lack of rops. do u really want that crap thats optimized what 1 card should be able to do or to play to its strengths so the next time a new card is out u dont get more frames u just get the same crap, just the original. the only TWIMTBP that worked was BC2 since it was sponsored by amd, NV and intel so no1 got anything in but logos.

now if they add some effects that is one thing but this makes it sound like they are ripping the game apart or setting the configs to be broken. and most games sell about 750k units that are in the mid range of PC sales (retail and online) so 2mil and the guarantied orders for promos to give with cards is alot of money for little extra work.

The 480 is almost 2x the price of a 5870 but where is the almost 2x performance or am I missing something:shrug: duno if I want to spend that much to play Crysis, as for the 580 they can keep the game and add a yearly rebate for the light bill and then I might consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rai

:rofl: Somehow with Fermi failing in every other department, minimums are now all the rage with certain users. That's a single data point, you need graphs like HardOCP to check how badly each card is fluctuating. If the 5870 had very low minimums time and again that would drag the average down. Graphs will show the minimum as well as the overall trend in fps which is a lot more useful than a single data point. It also really depends on which review you sight, here the 5870 is ahead. :up:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N..._Fermi/10.html

---

Yeah, those are very old Nvidia drivers in that review, not the 260's that are the post 400 series release drivers that show the real performance.

test setup page from your link :

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...0_Fermi/5.html

NVIDIA: 195.62
ATI: Catalyst 9.12
GTX 480: 197.17
Also added HD 5870 w/ Catalyst 10.3 WHQL

So you have cat 10.3 and an old nvidia driver that is 30% less than the current one, or far less than current 258.xx and upward.

Nice try, but no cigar. ATI loses, and loses badly, as the other poster noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rai

I love how some Nvidia users state it's unfair to compare the GTX 480 to the 5970 b/c they are at different price points. Yet, it's okay to compare GTX 480 SLI to 5870 CFX or a 5970 even though they are in completely different price segments, especially when you factor in likely psu/case upgrades needed for the 480 SLI setup. :ROTF:

---

I though you also had to warn the power company that you're gonna be running Fermi.... expect rolling blackouts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiliconDoc

Yeah, those are very old Nvidia drivers in that review, not the 260's that are the post 400 series release drivers that show the real performance.

test setup page from your link :

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...0_Fermi/5.html

NVIDIA: 195.62
ATI: Catalyst 9.12
GTX 480: 197.17
Also added HD 5870 w/ Catalyst 10.3 WHQL

So you have cat 10.3 and an old nvidia driver that is 30% less than the current one, or a few less than current 258.xx and upward.

Nice try, but no cigar. ATI loses, and loses badly, as the other poster noted.

---

That's the review of the card when it was FIRST released, what other driver were they going to use, a mythical future driver with wheels?

Yes I'm 100% sure the GTX 480 is now exactly 30% in every single game. :rolleyes:

Also you just proved my point, why are you even comparing a GTX 480 to a 5870? They're at different price points. Wow the more expensive, louder, power sucking card is faster, go figure!:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rai

That's the review of the card when it was FIRST released, what other driver were they going to use, a mythical future driver with wheels?

Yes I'm 100% sure the GTX 480 is now exactly 30% in every single game. :rolleyes:

Also you just proved my point, why are you even comparing a GTX 480 to a 5870? They're at different price points. Wow the more expensive, louder, power sucking card is faster, go figure!:clap:

---

Look, you provided the stupid link as "proof" the 5870 is faster, oblivious to the drivers used, as in "it all depends on which bench review you look at". NO, IT DOESN'T is the point.
I pointed out your huge mistake.

Next time, if you don't realize it's a "release" review with non official drivers, and that drivers have been massively improved in the new official 400 series release (256.xx or 258.xx and beyond - etc.), why don't expect anything different in reply from me, or anyone else who knows what they're doing.

Since you sent out bad information, it needed to be corrected.


Next:
"Proved your point" about why are "you" ( as in me? I just got here, and replied to you, I didn't compare the two, YOU DID, and claimed the 5870 was faster !) comparing 5870 and 480 ?

LOL - Now you know 5870 loses badly, so now it's unfair to compare them. Got it.
Just a moment before you proclaimed 5870 faster than 480.

LOL - Nice talking to you.