• 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 running at 2048 x 1536 @ 60fps on DirectX 10

In an earlier article, it was reported that Crysis was running at 60+ fps for most of the time at CES 2007. In this new article, Jack Mamais tells techspot that the game is running at a resolution of 2048x1536. Judging by the HUD size in the images below, this seems like it's true.Combine that information with the fact that most of the code is still unoptimized, and you can easily understand how well Crysis will run. Take note that Crysis was running in DX10 at CES 2007, so could Microsoft's claim of 6 to 8 time the performance be true? If you read some of the earlier news items or read the techspot link posted below, you'd also know that Crysis was running an unknown core 2 duo processor and a single 8800GTX.

This really is incredible news. This proves that any current DX10 rig will run Crysis perfectly smooth with all graphical settings max at a resolution of atleast 1600x1200. Like mentioned above, the size of the HUD in the images below tells us that the game was running at a fairly high resolution.

I'm predicting that a mid-range DX10 card (8600GT / X2600XT) will run Crysis in DX10 better than any current DX9 rig running Crysis in DX9.

Finally, we can all rest easy.
Click to expand...

:Q
 
Originally posted by: Wreckage
If that article is true, then DX10 does not take much of a performance hit over DX9.
Click to expand...

What do you mean hit? The point is DX10 is looking like it'll blow DX9 away!
 
Originally posted by: gorcorps
Originally posted by: Wreckage
If that article is true, then DX10 does not take much of a performance hit over DX9.
Click to expand...

What do you mean hit? The point is DX10 is looking like it'll blow DX9 away!
Click to expand...

There is a small, assumed performance hit with Vista over XP because Vista is a much heftier system. Atleast that's what earlier tests a few months ago showed (the difference ranged from a few to 10 percent).

Although, I think the difference will commensurate greatly once we test with the final system. And would conclude, like Wrekage, that the performance hit will be minimal - based on the article.

Nelsieus

 
If this holds up to be true, then it is awesome, awesome news. DX10 seems very exciting indeed!

KT
 
"If that article is true, then DX10 does not take much of a performance hit over DX9"

A major point of Direct X 10 is efficiency and increased performance by removing the accumulated overhead in the previous driver model. Even DX9 games are supposed to benefit from the new efficiency. I do not understand why people are still surprised ..barring some rudimentary vista tests with no direct x 10 to be seen.

Granted it does not exactly help when you see so many early Direct X 10 games and "patches" delayed. Still, have a lille faith 🙂
 
If this is true, I won't need much of a card to play on my monitor. Good news or basically dx9 game with a couple of bells.
 
OMG THAT MEANS MY 8800GTX WILL LAST ME 4EVER! 🙂 🙂

That news is freaking sweet though... it means that it should last me for quite a while... hopefully.

I mean it makes sense though... If DX10 is REALLY that much more efficient, and the fact that the 8800GTX is ridiculously better than even the Xenos, we should have really good frames.

I have an odd feeling ultra-high resolution monitors will come out soon enough to force us with 8800s to upgrade again.

Great news though 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Nelsieus
There is a small, assumed performance hit with Vista over XP because Vista is a much heftier system. Atleast that's what earlier tests a few months ago showed (the difference ranged from a few to 10 percent).

Although, I think the difference will commensurate greatly once we test with the final system. And would conclude, like Wrekage, that the performance hit will be minimal - based on the article.

Nelsieus
Click to expand...

I think you are refering to DX9 games, which we have seen taken a performance hit across the board because of the driver state. However, this is the first time we've seen an indication of DX10 performance. Looks good though, can't wait to see more games and benchmarks, then perhaps compare them to DX9 counterparts.
 
If high end Dx 10 cards can play the game smoothly at 2048x1536, then can high end Dx 9 cards like 1900xtx and 7900gtx play the game at 1280x1024 at near max settings in Dx 9 mode?
 
Originally posted by: akshayt
If high end Dx 10 cards can play the game smoothly at 2048x1536, then can high end Dx 9 cards like 1900xtx and 7900gtx play the game at 1280x1024 at near max settings in Dx 9 mode?
Click to expand...

not on your rig it won't be able to.
 
Originally posted by: akshayt
If high end Dx 10 cards can play the game smoothly at 2048x1536, then can high end Dx 9 cards like 1900xtx and 7900gtx play the game at 1280x1024 at near max settings in Dx 9 mode?
Click to expand...

No, unfortunately, your x1900xt doesnt support supershader 8.0 which is required to run Crysis 🙁
 
Originally posted by: RedStar
"If that article is true, then DX10 does not take much of a performance hit over DX9"

A major point of Direct X 10 is efficiency and increased performance by removing the accumulated overhead in the previous driver model. Even DX9 games are supposed to benefit from the new efficiency. I do not understand why people are still surprised ..barring some rudimentary vista tests with no direct x 10 to be seen.

Granted it does not exactly help when you see so many early Direct X 10 games and "patches" delayed. Still, have a lille faith 🙂
Click to expand...
yep.

 
I'm 😕

2048x1536 - what Dell monitor supports that?

That's a 4:3 res and not a native res of any Dell LCD I know about.

Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 so that's out

That must be a 3007 which has a native res of 2560x1600

So he's running a 4:3 resolution that's somewhat close to the vertical resolution that his LCD supports?
 
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
I'm 😕

2048x1536 - what Dell monitor supports that?

That's a 4:3 res and not a native res of any Dell LCD I know about.

Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 so that's out

That must be a 3007 which has a native res of 2560x1600

So he's running a 4:3 resolution that's somewhat close to the vertical resolution that his LCD supports?
Click to expand...

I was just about to post the same exact thing!
 
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
I'm 😕

2048x1536 - what Dell monitor supports that?

That's a 4:3 res and not a native res of any Dell LCD I know about.

Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 so that's out

That must be a 3007 which has a native res of 2560x1600

So he's running a 4:3 resolution that's somewhat close to the vertical resolution that his LCD supports?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the article means 2560x1600. based on the pictures it doesnt look like anything is stretched like a 2048x1536 resolution would be on a 16:9 display 🙂
 
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
I'm 😕

2048x1536 - what Dell monitor supports that?

That's a 4:3 res and not a native res of any Dell LCD I know about.

Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 so that's out

That must be a 3007 which has a native res of 2560x1600

So he's running a 4:3 resolution that's somewhat close to the vertical resolution that his LCD supports?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the article means 2560x1600. based on the pictures it doesnt look like anything is stretched like a 2048x1536 resolution would be on a 16:9 display 🙂
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would assume that too, which would be even better news for everyone. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top