Crysis 2 DX11/HighResTextures and 3-way CFX problem

[DGLee]

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.



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.



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

[disruptfam]

Interesting...

[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 .

[DeltZ]

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 .

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.

[zalbard]

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...

[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.

[andressergio]

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

[Circaflex]

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.

[Andrea deluxe]

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

[v0dka]

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.

[Origin_Unknown]

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

[screwtech02]

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

[Andrew LB]

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?

[Origin_Unknown]

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.

[Razrback16]

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.