[Guru3d] Crysis DX11 Benchmarks (AMD vs Nvidia)

[SirPauly]

DirectX 11 features, multi-monitor, Stereo3d, improved Physics from multi-core to GPU are areas where I look for to advance gaming and their experiences.

If some are hung up on Batman AA with all the grey territory there was and try to force this as a rule for some odd reason is puzzling.

DirectX 9 -- there is not a standard with multi-sampling.

DirectX 9 -- there is no AA with the engine.

A work around from a third party was needed.

This was nVidia's work and really, how can they guarantee to the developer that their work would be fine on AMD platforms and drivers, future drivers and platforms. Does one really expect nVidia to spend resources for AMD?

Amd supports multi-sampling here:

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/games/batman--aa-goty/

 

[apoppin]

How does crap like vendor ID lock in Batman: Arkham Asylum advance PC gaming?

Nvidia worked extra with the devs to implement in-game MSAA while you had to force it in CCC; it looked slightly better but took a bigger performance hit simply on Radeons because AMD was late in helping the devs implement in-game MSAA to Batman.
-- Being late is AMD's fault; perhaps they didn't think Batman would sell well and they had pretty limited resources at the time.

However, AMD later worked with the Batman devs and the Game of the Year edition of Batman Arkham Asylum also supports in-game MSAA for Radeon owners. You just had to wait longer for it.

 

[RussianSensation]

Perhaps you should read up on tessellation?
Or link to documentation supporting that bogus claim?
Either way...sense...you make none.

They utilized Tessellation on some (not all) areas of the game that have little to no visual benefit. If you didn't read my post properly and in detail, please don't attack me personally before you have done so. Please go and read the Nvidia link I posted where they explain how Tessellation works. In the screenshots provided and other instances of this game, the implementation of Tessellation doesn't actually introduce NEW information to depict a more detailed world. Therefore, it's just been a waste of resources. Obviously in some cases (like walls), it adds a significant amount of detail in Crysis 2. That was done really well.

Here is another perfect example:

"It's not hugely surprising then that, when we looked at altering the water detail setting in v1.9 of Crysis 2, we saw the same as when we did so in Crysis v1.0 - absolutely no visible change. This is in spite of Crytek's work to offer dynamically tessellated water meshes." - BitTech.net

The improved water effects in Crysis 2 are a result of DX11 sub-surface scattering and wave crest foam approximation, all of which is done in the domain shader.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Sure I do. They utilized Tessellation on areas of the game that have 0 visual benefit. If you didn't read my post properly and in detail, please don't attack me personally before you have done so. Please go and read the Nvidia link I posted where they explain how Tessellation works. In the screenshots provided and other instances of this game, the implementation of Tessellation doesn't actually introduce NEW information to depict a more detailed world. Therefore, it's just been a waste of resources. Obviously in some cases (like walls), it adds a significant amount of detail in Crysis 2.

Here is another perfect example:

"It's not hugely surprising then that, when we looked at altering the water detail setting in v1.9 of Crysis 2, we saw the same as when we did so in Crysis v1.0 - absolutely no visible change. This is in spite of Crytek's work to offer dynamically tessellated water meshes." - BitTech.net

The improved water effects in Crysis 2 are a result of DX11 sub-surface scattering and wave crest foam approximation, all of which is done in the domain shader.

You wake me up when you have more than boring "semantics" and actually back some of your perfomance/I.Q. claims up.

Untill then, don't waste your time typing to me.

 

[Grooveriding]

You wake me up when you have more than boring "semantics" and actually back some of your perfomance/I.Q. claims up.

Untill then, don't waste your time typing to me.

Per your many other posts until this thread, you stated Crysis 2 is a 'garbage console port' So why do you care about the visuals in the game now ?

What most people should be saying after seeing these benches, is why does Crysis 2 now perform worse than Crysis 1, but only now with this patch does it approach the visual quality of Crysis 1 ?

I don't think many people are running this puppy maxed out and getting 60fps solid with this patch. I certainly don't, but Crysis 1 modded and texture enhanced is a solid 60fps for me and looks a lot better than DX11 Crysis 2.

I enjoyed Crysis 2, excellent game, and this patch definitely did make the game look better, but there is a lot of room for improvement in performance.

 

[apoppin]

What most people should be saying after seeing these benches, is why does Crysis 2 now perform worse than Crysis 1, but only now with this patch does it approach the visual quality of Crysis 1 ?

i think 2 beats Crysis hands down visually and as a total package. You need to mod the heck out of the original game to approach what Crysis 2 does visually and it is flat in comparison

The *reason* that Crysis 2 performs worse is because the patch and the drivers both need attention; the patch is brand new. Per what the CryTek dev said, it is still being worked on. And you can expect performance improvements from both AMD and Nvidia. To this day, we still see performance improvements in the original game with driver revisions.

i like it! It looks awesome in S3D and i think the overall game is as good as the original; it just didn't take the same path
.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Per your many other posts until this thread, you stated Crysis 2 is a 'garbage console port' So why do you care about the visuals in the game now ?

What most people should be saying after seeing these benches, is why does Crysis 2 now perform worse than Crysis 1, but only now with this patch does it approach the visual quality of Crysis 1 ?

I don't think many people are running this puppy maxed out and getting 60fps solid with this patch. I certainly don't, but Crysis 1 modded and texture enhanced is a solid 60fps for me and looks a lot better than DX11 Crysis 2.

I enjoyed Crysis 2, excellent game, and this patch definitely did make the game look better, but there is a lot of room for improvement in performance.

Oh I guess you think this is no problem to post?:

If you can render the same piece of rock without using Tessellation, then why would you use Tessellation, which carries a massive performance hit and yet does not have any visual benefits?

When it's has nothing to do with reality.

That you like a shooter on rails has nothing to with tessellation or this patch...or me.

 

[Grooveriding]

i think 2 beats Crysis hands down visually and as a total package. You need to mod the heck out of the original game to approach what Crysis 2 does visually and it is flat in comparison
.

I will bust out some of my modded Crysis 1 screenshots in a bit! Crysis 2 has nothing near as nice as some of the shots I have from the first one.

 

[AnandThenMan]

This was nVidia's work and really, how can they guarantee to the developer that their work would be fine on AMD platforms and drivers, future drivers and platforms. Does one really expect nVidia to spend resources for AMD?

:thumbsdown:

Please, this tired old argument has been so thoroughly thrashed and debunked it's not even funny. I'm sure you're aware of this, can't believe you or anyone would bring up this nonsense again.

BTW, there is NEVER a guarantee when it comes to software, a future Nvidia driver could break functionality.

 

[apoppin]

I will bust out some of my modded Crysis 1 screenshots in a bit! Crysis 2 has nothing near as nice as some of the shots I have from the first one.

Forget that flat terrain crap - it is SO DX10

And let's see the UNmodded ones from the original. In a month or two - or three - Crysis 2 will look much better with its own enhancements and mods.

The stock water in Crysis looks like crap compared to the water in Crysis 2; but you need to post a video to see that - still shots do it no justice .. you also can't interact with the water in a realistic manner in the original.

You are living in 2007
:\

 

[SirPauly]

:thumbsdown:

Please, this tired old argument has been so thoroughly thrashed and debunked it's not even funny. I'm sure you're aware of this, can't believe you or anyone would bring up this nonsense again.

BTW, there is NEVER a guarantee when it comes to software, a future Nvidia driver could break functionality.

It's not nonsense.

 

[SirPauly]

I don't think many people are running this puppy maxed out and getting 60fps solid with this patch. I certainly don't, but Crysis 1 modded and texture enhanced is a solid 60fps for me and looks a lot better than DX11 Crysis 2.

Talk about time-warps. What did Crysis run on hardware maxed out when released?

You're not allowing any maturity on hardware or with Crysis 2 and demanding idealism to me.

 

[Grooveriding]

Talk about time-warps. What did Crysis run on hardware maxed out when released?

You're not allowing any maturity on hardware or with Crysis 2 and demanding idealism to me.

You miss the point, which is, the original with mods looks better and runs better.

 

[SirPauly]

Allow some time and be open minded to allow the possibility for Crysis 2 to mature more -- was my point.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

You wake me up when you have more than boring "semantics" and actually back some of your perfomance/I.Q. claims up.

Untill then, don't waste your time typing to me.

You can't be serious.

 

[apoppin]

You miss the point, which is, the original with mods looks better and runs better.

You miss the point too with what you just wrote - look at what is in bold/red in your own words

Let the modders get ahold of Crysis 2. And let the devs improve on the patch and let Nvidia and AMD optimize their drivers.

You are sure damned impatient. Crysis has been out since November 2007
- Crysis 2 DX11 is brand new.
:\

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis has been out since November 2007

Thanks for reminding us how little PC graphics have improved since that time. Outside of Metro 2033, STALKER:COP, Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 (maybe Just Cause 2), not a single other game even comes close to Crysis' graphics, a game released almost 5 years ago. In 2011 Crysis 2 should look much much better than it does (and the same goes for all 2011 PC games).

 

[SirPauly]

Titles may of not changed too dramatically but tools and feature sets from IHV's have to improve immersion and the gaming experience. An end user may have tools for transparency or full scene super-sampled or multi-sampling for their library of titles including some DirectX 10 and 11 titles. Enhancements from CSAA, CFAA, MLAA and FXAA. Stereo 3d to improved multi-core Physics and some titles that offer GPU Physic content. Games that may be enjoyed at ultra high resolutions to multi-monitor resolutions. Still never satisfied, which is a good thing, for the pursuit of improving immersion.

 

[Firestorm007]

Thanks for reminding us how little PC graphics have improved since that time. Outside of Metro 2033, STALKER:COP, Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 (maybe Just Cause 2), not a single other game even comes close to Crysis' graphics, a game released almost 5 years ago. In 2011 Crysis 2 should look much much better than it does (and the same goes for all 2011 PC games).

:thumbsup: Great points! Sure, C2 looks really good; but we all know it should've looked a lot better considering how much time has gone by. But, we know why it doesn't. Still, I agree with Groove on this one. Crysis 1, even vanilla; and this is my personal opinion, still looks better to me. C2, no matter how hard I try to ignore it, has console written all over it. When I fire up C1 or even Warhead, i'm still impressed. I can't say the same for C2.

 

[SirPauly]

Multi-Platform is simply a reality to gaming to me. The key isn't how Crysis 2 looks compared to Crysis but how Crysis 2 PC looks compared to the console version of Crysis 2.

As long as developers make great games I don't care if their PC exclusive or multi-platform but do have a desire for developers to try to take advantage of some PC strengths and abilities to differentiate -- this is why I desire strong developer relations and a pro-active AMD and nVidia.

 

[apoppin]

Thanks for reminding us how little PC graphics have improved since that time. Outside of Metro 2033, STALKER:COP, Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 (maybe Just Cause 2), not a single other game even comes close to Crysis' graphics, a game released almost 5 years ago. In 2011 Crysis 2 should look much much better than it does (and the same goes for all 2011 PC games).

i think Crysis 2 looks a lot better than the original FLAT-looking, FAKE water Crysis. Even motion blur does not look so fake in the sequel as it did in the original.

You can also fire up Crysis 2 in S3D and it is absolutely gorgeous compared to the original; it enhances the game. i see real progress with S3D, graphics and with physics

Perhaps you are looking too superficially. And if you are speaking *generally*, you can blame the consoles for holding back PC development.

You have also got to realize that if games looked a LOT better, we would not have the hardware to run them now.
- hardware HAS been making progress over the past 5 years and still it has trouble playing the most demanding games at max details and at high resolution

 

[Mr. President]

I agree and disagree. I don't particularly care which game looks best (though I would give the title to the original) but Crysis 2 still looks admirable given how lightweight it is under DX9. While the original may be better looking, I'll still give a huge credit to Crysis 2 from a cost vs. performance standpoint.

DX11 is a different issue because the visual gains pale in comparison to how stressful it is on the hardware. Which leads up to an important point because I think that many developers are simply at a loss when it comes to more powerful hardware. It's easy to tack on superfluous effects that kill performance but it seems that no one knows how to do it meaningfully.

I'm starting to think that it's simply an R&D issue; the performance is there but no one knows how to use it. I don't think that it's a coincidence that, every year or two after a particular Siggraph, the new techniques start popping up in games. It's also no coincidence that both Crysis 2 and the new Unreal Engine Samaritan demo feel a bit like a bullet list of recent Siggraph papers and with very similar feature sets.

 

[RussianSensation]

And if you are speaking *generally*, you can blame the consoles for holding back PC development.

Yes, I am describing the general state of graphics in the industry.

You have also got to realize that if games looked a LOT better, we would not have the hardware to run them now.- hardware HAS been making progress over the past 5 years and still it has trouble playing the most demanding games at max details and at high resolution

99% of games have no problems at 1080P on a $200-250 GPU today (you couldn't play games at 1080P on a $200-250 GPU 5-10 years ago). Remember when Doom 3 came out and you are look $@%@!%*, can't even play this at 1280 with AA and soft shadows, and then Far Cry 1 came out and you are like $@%@!%*, slide show at 1280 0AA (HDR is killer), and then Crysis 1 came out and you are like $@%@!%* can't even go past high on 1280 0AA.

There isn't a single game out right now or in the last 4 years where I felt this with a single GPU (Maybe Arma II / III but I don't play those games). The only realistic way to bring down a single high-end GPU is to crank resolution skyhigh + enable high/advanced filters like 8AA or SSAA and use things like 3D or 2-3 displays. So ya, they aren't pushing the envelope enough imo.

It's a nice change not to have to buy $500 graphics card every 12 months, but in the last 5 years esp. the need to upgrade is now more of a hobby rather than necessity.

 

[apoppin]

So the point is that no one will ever be satisfied. Everyone b!tched to high heaven when games were far ahead of hardware and we were paying $650 for a top single-GPU video card.

i think the progress is OK and reasonably balanced despite the greed inspired by consolitis. Frankly i like being able to play at super-widescreen resolutions and in S3D - i believe it is the future and that next gen consoles will support these features routinely.

 

[Carfax83]

So the arguement has shifted from AMD's poor tessellation performance (which was what I proposed initially), to unoptimized drivers, to TWIMTBP sabotage, and now back to AMD's poor tessellation performance in combination with TWIMTBP sabotage to explain why the game runs much slower on AMD hardware

And anyone who thinks that the original unmodded Crysis looks better than Crysis 2 DX11 probably hasn't actually played the game, and is relying on screenshots and compressed video footage to come to their conclusion......which is unacceptable as the game looks far better in person as screenshots don't do the game justice . D:

Crysis 2 DX11 to me looks a LOT better than the original unmodded Crysis. People keep forgetting that Crysis 2 DX11 Ultra reputedly has as much as 10x the number of unique textures that the original game had, so obviously the texture resolution isn't going to be as high as it was in Crysis generally speaking.

Anyway, I doubt very much that Crytek is done improving Crysis 2 DX11. They will probably continue to release more updates to the game, enhancing both image quality and performance, until no one in their right mind can doubt that it has eclipsed the original in all aspects.