Crysis DirectX 9 & 10 MP Performance

Total Crysis offers an update on how multiplayer will work in Crysis (thanks Voodoo Extreme). A number of topics are covered, including how DirectX 9 servers will be limited compared to DirectX 10 servers, not because of software, but hardware:
DX9 vs. DX10 – The endless question
To shed some light into one of the most discussed topics regarding Crysis multiplayer I would like to explain you the differences between Crysis MP DX9 and DX10.

As for the DX9 version we won’t have physics and day and night cycle in-game. That means you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map. Additionally the time of day setting doesn’t change dynamically. This is caused due to the tremendous server load such physics might cause on crowded gaming servers. Still you will be able to experience maps with different time of day settings since the maps can be altered in the Sandbox2 Editor.

Rather than providing the community partially working features we limit this for the DX10 version only. Due to the strong hardware available with DX10, server load is less and performance is increased. This ensures the pure physics and day and night cycle experience without any limitation.

Gamers with a DX10 card are able to play on DX9 servers, but with the limitation of the respective server. Vice versa it is not possible for gamers with DX9 cards to play on DX10 servers due to the limited features.
View : : :
103.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
Re: No subject Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
 
maximus0402 said "Tephlon you have thoroughly convinced me to stay at my samsung 244t 24" choice.....Thank you for your very thoughtfull comment."

My pleasure. I've just been so very thrilled with my monitor, I don't like the idea of having fellow gamers miss out on the experiance a good monitor like that can bring. My advice to anyone is that if it's in their budget, then go for it.

"As far as Nvidia new card the G92 I think?? It is still speculative at this point but rumors were favoring it to be 10.1 directx, yet midstream card, not the high end one"

Yeah, I haven't been following it all as closely as I normally do (tend to do so more when upgrade time rolls around), but I'd just heard something about it, just not much in detail. If that's all it's gonna be, then I'd say current generation cards will do perfectly.

"I agree that Crysis will be a factor and the demo will be out in 12 days so the benchmarks will be there. But as far as I am concerned, if I can have a single 8800 gtx run crysis at 1900 x1200 on very high settings and get fps at 40 or higher then I am completely fine."

Again, I can't give any promises about a game like Crysis, as we don't know much about performance yet. But it'll really be great to see how well it scales to lower-end hardware/graphics settings, that way you'll know you have plenty of flexibility to confidently tweak as you see fit... but I'm still gonna make the bet that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Like I said before, I'm still tickled pink with the way [i]my[i] machine performs, and if I very rarely have to compromise my resolution (only from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050), you should have no issues at all. Widescreen gaming is the best favor you can do yourself as far as I'm concerned!



theyarecomingforyou said "It's not about problems but the user experience. The whole point about having a top end machine it getting an experience that is silky smooth with the eye candy turned on (that means AA at 2x minimum and everything on max)."

I can understand the desire to have the game look as good as possible, but there's a point when you step past what's reasonable. There's lots of graphics settings (that vary by game) that don't scale well... by that I mean the visual result does not outweigh the cost in performance. If I can't tell the difference between 2x and 4x AA in a particular title (at a particular resolution), or at least not enough to sacrifice the 10fps, why do it? If taking my aniso from 8x to 16x tanks my machine for so very little gain graphically, why do it? Better yet, why even be bothered by it at all? So many times the only way you'll tell the difference between one setting to another will be through analyzing screen-shots, which is silly in my opinion. If you play it and it runs smooth and looks pretty, well done. I don't understand the need to max things out for the sake of having them 'maxed out.'

"I guess I have high standards but a 7800GTX with a 24" screen... that is not what I'd class as a nice experience."

I guess thats just where you and I differ, because I wouldn't call being stuck with a small screen and a max res of 1280x1024 a 'nice experiance' either. Having options to go up and down as you see fit is the beauty of having a pc. Having OPTIONS. Being stuck in 4:3 (or 5:4) with (relatively) low resolutions doesn't leave way for many choices.

"Then you have to factor in newer games. Performance at 1920x1200 in Crysis with max settings and 4xAA is just not going to be good with current generation cards like the 8800GTX"

How do you know this? Source? The devs have to be using something to test/build the game on. Even in the wild chance that they have access to some 'top secret un-released' hardware, the difference between it and current gen hardware can't be earth-shattering.
EDIT: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25311788&union_id=3092&print=1
From the link: "A single 7800GTX will run the game quite well on fairly high settings according to Crysis Art Director, Michael Khaimzon"

"- even in SLI it's entirely likely the framerates will drop below 50, which is far from ideal."

Again, I don't want it to sound like I'm calling you a liar, but I think you're exaggerating. Source?

"Obviously others are free to disagree with me and I'm not claiming my viewpoint is any more relevant or true than anyone else's (except for Riley - he's always wrong)."

I completely agree. It's all a matter of opinion, and I certainly hope my comments don't come across as if I'm attempting to 'invalidate' yours.
The other thing thats good to remember is that with a screen that big and beautiful, sacrificing a jaggy here or slightly more muddled texture there isn't going to detract from the fact that that's a big honkin', immersive field of view you're sitting in front of. Better to sacrifice those small things, in my opinion, than having graphics cranked up on a screen too small to enjoy them.
But again, that's the wonderful thing about PCs... you can have it your way. :-)

This comment was edited on Sep 16, 02:16.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
2.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
21.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
25.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
27.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
40.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
3.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
4.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
12.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
15.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
5.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
7.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
8.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
10.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
11.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
     Re: No subject
14.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
      Re: No subject
18.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
      Vista/DX10
31.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: Vista/DX10
32.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
        Re: Vista/DX10
35.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
        Re: Vista/DX10
97.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: Vista/DX10
56.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
13.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
22.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
33.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
39.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
54.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
83.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
     Re: No subject
95.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
      Re: No subject
71.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
55.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
58.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
61.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
64.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
69.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
     Re: No subject
72.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
      Re: No subject
74.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: No subject
76.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
        Re: No subject
79.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
         Re: No subject
82.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
          Re: No subject
66.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
68.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
     Re: No subject
70.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
      Re: No subject
73.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: No subject
75.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
        Re: No subject
78.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
         Re: No subject
6.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
9.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
16.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
17.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
19.
Sep 13, 2007Sep 13 2007
36.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
20.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
23.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
29.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
30.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
34.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
41.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
43.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
45.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
46.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
60.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
     Re: No subject
62.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
      Re: No subject
65.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
      Re: No subject
67.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: No subject
98.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
       Re: No subject
100.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
        Re: No subject
105.
Sep 17, 2007Sep 17 2007
         Re: No subject
44.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
24.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
26.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
28.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
37.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
38.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
42.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
47.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
50.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
52.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
53.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
   Re: ...
57.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
59.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
   Re: ...
48.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
49.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
51.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
63.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
80.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
 103.
Sep 16, 2007Sep 16 2007
  Re: No subject
104.
Sep 16, 2007Sep 16 2007
77.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
81.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
84.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
85.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
86.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
87.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
89.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
90.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
96.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
101.
Sep 15, 2007Sep 15 2007
102.
Sep 15, 2007Sep 15 2007
88.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
91.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
92.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
93.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
94.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
99.
Sep 14, 2007Sep 14 2007
106.
Sep 17, 2007Sep 17 2007
107.
Sep 17, 2007Sep 17 2007