🤣 Nice

Here's my main machine.

i7-4930K @ 4.5GHz
32GB DDR3-2133, 9-11-11-1T
GeForce GTX 970, driver 353.30
Asus Rampage IV Gene - Intel X79 chipset
Win7 x64 SP1

DX10, Very High:

It seems that a very fast processor is required at this stage 😀

100 fps seems so close, yet so far...

I'm surprised anyone is getting less than smooth results running Crysis on modern hardware.

d1stortion wrote:

Scali wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

PS: Under XP it seems you can only select High, not Very high. I will add a note to the first post.

Yes, that's because XP runs the DX9 version of the engine, which has less levels of detail (you can also run that on Vista and higher, with a commandline switch, I believe -DX9).
Mind you, the detail levels are not the same between DX9 and DX10. So if you run DX9 and DX10 both on High, they still look different. The DX10 version makes the most of DX10, using specially tuned algorithms based on the new texture formats and such, which you especially notice on the shadows, and also on the HDR colour grading.

Being able to select Very High only on DX10 was mostly a much needed publicity stunt for Microsoft and their Vista marketing. As explained by this article, it's easily possible to force Very High settings under DX9/XP, and the results are nearly identical with playing the game in DX10 Very High settings.

Well of course they would disable Very High in DX9. If they left it in then XP gamers wouldn't see much reason to upgrade to Vista. There were a lot of early DX10 games that still had a DX9 render mode where the DX9 mode was still perfectly adequate and gave higher framerates than you got playing in DX10. The bells and whistles of DX10 can be nice to look at when all is working as it should but when your framerates dip to unacceptable levels then what is the point?

It's not the first time Microsoft used a wildly popular game to force people to upgrade to their latest OS, either. I remember in 2001 when Everquest upgraded their engine timed with the Shadows of Luclin release that the spec was originally going to be vanilla DX8 but just a few weeks before it went live they suddenly changed it to DX8.1, which shut out anyone still using Windows 95. A lot of players strongly suspected that Microsoft had a hand in that forced upgrade, too.

philscomputerlab wrote:

It seems that a very fast processor is required at this stage 😀

100 fps seems so close, yet so far...

Crysis uses only up to 2 cores, so I'm guessing someone with a well OC'd G3258 could pull it off.

sliderider wrote:

There were a lot of early DX10 games that still had a DX9 render mode where the DX9 mode was still perfectly adequate and gave higher framerates than you got playing in DX10. The bells and whistles of DX10 can be nice to look at when all is working as it should but when your framerates dip to unacceptable levels then what is the point?

DX10 actually made some stuff faster than DX9, and/or better quality at the same speed.

The benchmark crashes at the end. Can't get full results.

Here's a Socket 939 Opteron machine.

Opteron 185 @ 3GHz
4GB PC3200 CL2
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe - nForce4 SLI x16 chipset
SB X-Fi Titanium Fatality
Win7 x64 SP1

Single GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
DX9 - Low - 800x600
84.69 fps

Single GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
DX9 - Very High - 1280x1024
36.405 fps

Single GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
DX10 - Very High - 1920x1080
12.265 fps

SLI GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
DX10 - Very High - 1920x1080
22.34 fps - the SLI scaling is just great here!

Single GeForce 8800GTS 640MB
DX9 - Very High - 1280x1024
36.405 fps

That old dog is faster than I would expect of it.

going to be vanilla DX8 but just a few weeks before it went live they suddenly changed it to DX8.1, which shut out anyone still using Windows 95. A lot of players strongly suspected that Microsoft had a hand in that forced upgrade, too.

This crap still goes on. It's happening with DX12.

smeezekitty wrote:

This crap still goes on. It's happening with DX12.

Yea, but isn't it strange that people are bothered by this? I mean, it sounds like they don't WANT to upgrade.
Especially these days, when you get the Windows 10 upgrade for free.
I personally love to get my hands on a new version of DX, and the latest GPU and just have some fun with it. Which is why I was one of the 3 people who bought Vista back in the day.

Scali wrote:

Yea, but isn't it strange that people are bothered by this? I mean, it sounds like they don't WANT to upgrade. Especially these […]
Show full quote

smeezekitty wrote:

This crap still goes on. It's happening with DX12.

Yea, but isn't it strange that people are bothered by this? I mean, it sounds like they don't WANT to upgrade.
Especially these days, when you get the Windows 10 upgrade for free.
I personally love to get my hands on a new version of DX, and the latest GPU and just have some fun with it. Which is why I was one of the 3 people who bought Vista back in the day.

Can't really blame them. Windows 8 was a turd. Windows 10 is an improvement but it is hard to beat the simplicity of 7

smeezekitty wrote:

Can't really blame them. Windows 8 was a turd.

By what metric exactly?
I mean, if people bother to look beyond the start menu, they should see that Windows 8 is leaner and meaner than Windows 7. It boots faster, takes less memory, and performs slightly better than Windows 7 in most software.
As you could also see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8 … nce,3331-3.html
So I have to chuckle at people who proudly proclaim that they still game on Windows 7, getting suboptimal performance out of their hardware.

Windows 8 was great underneath the hood, but its UI isn't sure about what it wants to be. 8.1 is better and 10 is, finally, a good execution of 8's ideas. And this is an opinion from someone that liked (and upgraded most PCs willingly) Windows 8.

Scali wrote:

By what metric exactly? I mean, if people bother to look beyond the start menu, they should see that Windows 8 is leaner and mea […]
Show full quote

smeezekitty wrote:

Can't really blame them. Windows 8 was a turd.

By what metric exactly?
I mean, if people bother to look beyond the start menu, they should see that Windows 8 is leaner and meaner than Windows 7. It boots faster, takes less memory, and performs slightly better than Windows 7 in most software.
As you could also see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8 … nce,3331-3.html
So I have to chuckle at people who proudly proclaim that they still game on Windows 7, getting suboptimal performance out of their hardware.

I have a Windows 8.1 laptop. I still think it sucks.
I don't really care about booting faster since I normally start my machine once a day (usually hibernate)

philscomputerlab wrote:

It seems that a very fast processor is required at this stage 😀

100 fps seems so close, yet so far...

I'd say the DX10/VHQ test at 1080p is more GPU limited than anything. I was able to break the 100 fps barrier on my main rig by lowering the resolution and keeping everything else the same. It's crazy how GPU hungry such an old game still is. A 3.33GHz Core 2 Quad with a GeForce GTX 560 can't even crack 30fps!

Alienware m17x - R1, CPU C2D X9000, 2x GF 9800M GT

Full HD Very High
SLI disabled: 9.7
SLI enabled: cca 27 (no results) (1st run 25, 2nd run 27, 3rd run 30)

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Here's a Socket 939 Opteron machine. […]
Show full quote

Here's a Socket 939 Opteron machine.

Opteron 185 w@ 3GHz
4GB PC3200 CL2
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe - nForce4 SLI x16 chipset
SB X-Fi Titanium Fatality
Win7 x64 SP1

The single 8800GTS came out slightly faster than the Opteron 180 + HD 2900 XT 1GB setup I ran a few pages back.
Great PC! But can it run Crysis?

I wonder if your 3 GHz CPU did it or the GPU....

I ditched my FX-8350 system a couple of days ago for an i7 4790k build. It still has the same RAM and graphics card, an R9 280x.

For being a gpu benchmark, this is an incredible improvement in FPS. From ~50 FPS to this. It makes me wonder if the FX-8350 really is that bad or if I had something configured incorrectly...

EDIT: Whoopsies, forgot this part:

You're comparing Intel's top consumer/non-enthusiast solution (to which AMD has no Piledriver competitor) against a mid-end AMD processor. I'd say those results are pretty much normal. That i7 isn't even working at its full potential, as I have that processor and reached 90+ FPS with similar speed memory and another graphics card, so now you are not being bottlenecked by the processor anymore.