• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crysis 2 being redesigned for GTX580?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
T2k said:
So you are already more of a shill then 99% of this forum including me, work-related or not...
Click to expand...

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.
 
T2k said:
Oh really? And how come?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Lonbjerg said:
The bolded part is false, a GPU is waaaaaay better for physics that even an i7 (socket 1336) by a major factor.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Qbah said:
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).
Click to expand...

Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.
 
RussianSensation said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lonbjerg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's still in yours: who are those AMD shills nobody met yet?
 
Lonbjerg said:
Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.
Click to expand...

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).
 
T2k said:
Nope, it's still in yours: who are those AMD shills nobody met yet?
Click to expand...

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:
 
Lonbjerg said:
Show me something Crysis does on the CPU that PhysX cannot do on the CPU?
Because your assumptions are...well...flawed at best.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arkadrel said:
How about... Run on AMD and Intel (upcomeing) grafics cards?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 😉
 
RussianSensation said:
Forward to 1min :19 seconds in the video...
Click to expand...

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.)
 
LessThanDan said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Just to put things into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6a6tUIA7LA
 
Lonbjerg said:
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 😉
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T2k said:
Stop with your lies, pal - AMD repeteadly asked NV and they were very clear they will never license it:
Click to expand...

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
 
Lonbjerg said:
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
Click to expand...
Where are you sources for any of that?
 
Qbah said:
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).
Click to expand...

I guess your "assumptions" worked out fine after all, eh Qbah? I love when people on this forum refuse to respond to obvious proof.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Interview with Richard Huddy,...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

No, he did not.

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

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
Click to expand...

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. ^_^
 
T2k said:
it's non-tessellation vs tessellation on the same shader pool... ergo latter becomes slower when first one goes up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top