Crysis 2 being redesigned for GTX580?

[Lonbjerg]

So you are already more of a shill then 99% of this forum including me, work-related or not...

You find a post regarding their products or even the area there are in I might give you that.
BTW they pay me nothing, I don't have to endorse anything...but working for an ISP that uses their hardware gives me a lot of....how to translate this...discount on seminars that improve my knowlegede in my field of work.

Ball in your court.

 

[RussianSensation]

Oh really? And how come?

The opposite is true. The higher the workload on shaders/tessellation, the faster GF100/110 becomes vs. RV870. Any types of GPU cloth or particle effects, which are dictated by vertex shaders, are much faster on GF100/110. The reason RV870 performs well in 2560x1600 is its massive texture fill-rate advantage (2560x1600 is 2x the texture resolution over 1920x1080). This is especially obvious once you consider that HD5850 often beats the GTX470 at higher resolutions, but is slower at lower resolutions. Also, HD58xx/68xx have more efficient 8AA performance.

 

[Qbah]

The bolded part is false, a GPU is waaaaaay better for physics that even an i7 (socket 1336) by a major factor.

Ohh I know GPU physics is a lot more capable. I didn't say it isn't. I said the physics engine in Crysis is amazing. I have linked to a video displaying what it can do in another thread. GPU physics can do that and more, but nVidia's PhysX is only adding fluff in the stuff we see today. There's nothing that PhysX showed in games that the Crysis engine wouldn't do. And it runs on everything. All I'm saying is implementing what's available in the in-house engine using PhysX is taking steps back (as this would be available only to people running high-end nVidia cards, likely a stand-alone nVidia card preferred).

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ohh I know GPU physics is a lot more capable. I didn't say it isn't. I said the physics engine in Crysis is amazing. I have linked to a video displaying what it can do in another thread. GPU physics can do that and more, but nVidia's PhysX is only adding fluff in the stuff we see today. There's nothing that PhysX showed in games that the Crysis engine wouldn't do. And it runs on everything. All I'm saying is implementing what's available in the in-house engine using PhysX is taking steps back (as this would be available only to people running high-end nVidia cards, likely a stand-alone nVidia card preferred).

Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.

 

[T2k]

The opposite is true. The higher the workload on shaders/tessellation, the faster GF100/110 becomes vs. RV870. Any types of GPU cloth or particle effects, which are dictated by vertex shaders, are much faster on GF100/110. The reason RV870 performs well in 2560x1600 is its massive texture fill-rate advantage (2560x1600 is 2x the texture resolution over 1920x1080). This is especially obvious once you consider that HD5850 often beats the GTX470 at higher resolutions, but is slower at lower resolutions. Also, HD58xx/68xx have more efficient 8AA performance.

You didn't understand anything from my point: it's non-tessellation vs tessellation on the same shader pool... ergo latter becomes slower when first one goes up.

 

[T2k]

You find a post regarding their products or even the area there are in I might give you that.
BTW they pay me nothing, I don't have to endorse anything...but working for an ISP that uses their hardware gives me a lot of....how to translate this...discount on seminars that improve my knowlegede in my field of work.

Ball in your court.

Nope, it's still in yours: who are those AMD shills nobody met yet?

 

[Qbah]

Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLb2Ijio0cE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqpR_7re2N8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFQp625FqI&feature=player_embedded#!

The modder keeps optimizing it more and more with every version. And remember this is taking it to the extreme (hence the mod name). Xtreme FX is the playable version (Xtreme Particles is for showing off).

 

[Lonbjerg]

Nope, it's still in yours: who are those AMD shills nobody met yet?

That's it the beauty of it...by nature the live in hiding.
I won't blame you though.
It's way to personal for you...now show me on the doll where the nasty NVIDIA GPU touched you? :hmm:

 

[Arkadrel]

Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.

How about... Run on AMD and Intel (upcomeing) grafics cards?

Even if you ran PhysX on the CPU, nvidia doesnt allow it to run on others hardware dispite there being no reason it cant.

 

[Lonbjerg]

How about... Run on AMD and Intel (upcomeing) grafics cards?

So Crysis physics engine now run on the GPU
Sometimes your lack of knowlegde about topics your participate in are a real drag, you know?

Even if you ran PhysX on the CPU, nvidia doesnt allow it to run on others hardware dispite there being no reason it cant.

Lie.
It runs on both AMD and Intel CPU's.

And try asking AMD if they would like to lisence CUDA.
Char-lie would get a stroke and Fuddy would get his foot stuck in his mouth.

Nice fallacies though

 

[Dankk]

Forward to 1min :19 seconds in the video...

Just thought I'd drop in so I could comment on that video.

Wow. Those are probably the most impressive Xbox360/PS3 outdoor nature environments I've ever seen. Granted, I never was interested in Crysis, and I'm not a console gamer either, but last time I checked I've never seen a console game that looked so good. If Crytek can do this with consoles, then imagine what they could do with the PC. (I HOPE they go far out with the PC.)

 

[Lonbjerg]

Just thought I'd drop in so I could comment on that video.

Wow. Those are probably the most impressive Xbox360/PS3 outdoor nature environments I've ever seen. Granted, I never was interested in Crysis, and I'm not a console gamer either, but last time I checked I've never seen a console game that looked so good. If Crytek can do this with consoles, then imagine what they could do with the PC. (I HOPE they go far out with the PC.)

Just to put things into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6a6tUIA7LA

 

[T2k]

So Crysis physics engine now run on the GPU
Sometimes your lack of knowlegde about topics your participate in are a real drag, you know?



Lie.
It runs on both AMD and Intel CPU's.

And try asking AMD if they would like to lisence CUDA.
Char-lie would get a stroke and Fuddy would get his foot stuck in his mouth.

Nice fallacies though

Stop with your lies, pal - AMD repeteadly asked NV and they were very clear they will never license it:

Even though I don't think PhysX - a proprietary standard - is the right way to go, despite Nvidia touting it as an "open standard" and how it would be "more than happy to license it to AMD", but [Nvidia] won't. It's just not true! You know the way it is, it's simply something [Nvidia] would not do and they can publically say that as often as it likes and know that it won't, because we've actually had quiet conversations with them and they've made it abundantly clear that we can go whistle.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Stop with your lies, pal - AMD repeteadly asked NV and they were very clear they will never license it:

Interview with Richard Fuddy,...

The same guy that lied about x87/performance in PhysX.
The same guy that lied about NVIDIA paying developers to implement PhysX.
The same guy with the BS about too muh tessellation...when a 5770 pulls ~100 FPS?

You want to cite him?

LOL

 

[MrK6]

Interview with Richard Fuddy,...

The same guy that lied about x87/performance in PhysX.
The same guy that lied about NVIDIA paying developers to implement PhysX.
The same guy with the BS about too muh tessellation...when a 5770 pulls ~100 FPS?

You want to cite him?

LOL

Where are you sources for any of that?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Where are you sources for any of that?

You migth find some info in these threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2113133
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2114076
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2107526
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2088022

I gather you yourself can dig up benches of HAWX2?

Because holding your hand too would really be a drag.

 

[MrK6]

You migth find some info in these threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2113133
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2114076
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2107526
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2088022

I gather you yourself can dig up benches of HAWX2?

Because holding your hand too would really be a drag.

So you don't have any sources and you're just lying, again? Cool.

 

[Aristotelian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLb2Ijio0cE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqpR_7re2N8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFQp625FqI&feature=player_embedded#!

The modder keeps optimizing it more and more with every version. And remember this is taking it to the extreme (hence the mod name). Xtreme FX is the playable version (Xtreme Particles is for showing off).

I guess your "assumptions" worked out fine after all, eh Qbah? I love when people on this forum refuse to respond to obvious proof.

 

[T2k]

Interview with Richard Huddy,...

Unless you want people to start calling you Lonejerk it's the very minimum to write someone else's name properly...

...except if you're living in one of those remote places with little culture and no decency where everybody is a jerk and keeps making fun of others' names, of course.
But you don't, do you?

The same guy that lied about x87/performance in PhysX.

No, he did not.

The same guy that lied about NVIDIA paying developers to implement PhysX.

No, he did not, it's a well-known fact: if you choose to use PhysX you get an awesome marketing and development budget from NV.
It's a fact, go and ask around or check dev interviews, they admit it without any hesitation.

The same guy with the BS about too muh tessellation...when a 5770 pulls ~100 FPS?

You want to cite him?

LOL

Jesus, you are more ignorant than I thought... :awe:
Huddy is an industry veteran, he worked on the development of Direct3D, bought by Microsoft, then worked for Nvidia for years then ended up heading ATI's development relations.
Calling Huddy a liar only shows how utterly clueless you are about the topic, ROFL. ^_^

 

[RussianSensation]

it's non-tessellation vs tessellation on the same shader pool... ergo latter becomes slower when first one goes up.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Of course with more tessellation and more complex shaders, performance will be worse on any graphics card than with no tessellation and less complex shaders. Are you trying to explain that Fermi tanks with complex shaders and extreme tessellation; and its performance falls into low 20s just like it does for HD5870? Obviously, but no one plays at 20fps. Chances are you'll either have to lower shaders or tessellation if you are already dipping into 20s. That's why there will be HD7970/8970 and GTX680/780/880 cards in the future. But this still doesn't support your argument that AMD is better at complex shaders or tessellation or when complex shaders are combined with tessellation. AMD is very competitive due to texture fill-rate advantage and 8AA efficiency. Not sure how you missed TechReport's testing with tessellation or complex shaders where NV was faster in each individually.

 

[T2k]

I give up. Some people are just simply way too challenged to get past their own fantasies.

 

[Keysplayr]

I give up. Some people are just simply way too challenged to get past their own fantasies.

Maybe you should. I mean, you're just not getting through to us slow folk.

 

[tviceman]

I give up.

Permanently?

 

[netxzero64]

Maybe you should. I mean, you're just not getting through to us slow folk.

lols... needs some time to think things through

 

[Gloomy]

I give up.

No, keep going.