Crysis 32 vs 64 bit - the real story?

[YG_Bot]

One thing that can't be denied about Crytek's demo of Crysis is that it's very newsworthy! A sharp eyed forum regular (cheers UTGeneral!) noticed that Legion Hardware had posted a brief comparison between how well Crysis runs in 32 bit and 64 bit modes. Their conclusion was that 64 bit was quite a bit better. Well that piqued my curiosity, so we gave it a bash too! Hmm, the results are... different...


Read entire article: http://www.yougamers.com/news/13720_...the_real_story

[Dibrom]

Disappointing Also the yougamers watermark covers the screen res.

The only thing I could think of is Nick's using older drivers (ForceWare 163.69 vs 169.01). Still shouldn't matter unless the previous drivers were problematic. But then they wouldn't have about the same performance...

[Neeyik]

The resolution is in the text: the "Low" is 800 x 600 in both cases, whereas the "High" is 1650 x 1080 for the Vista machine, and 1600 x 1200 for the XP one. If I have chance tomorrow, I'll give it another look with the new beta drivers that NVIDIA have just released.

[Pirelly]

Nah, it isn't the drivers.
169.04 doesn't help either.
for me, the 64bit gpu bench is slower than 32 bit. It's about a 4-5fps difference (28 vs 33fps).
However, the cpu bench shows about the same results...(31fps average).

This is at all High, post processing and water at Very High and 1680x1050 res.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Ok. since a> cpu benches don't change with x64 ( where the biggest gains should be seen imho ) and b> I can't see this demo using all my cores and I'm seeing this posted all the time, I'm calling this beta very rushed!

Think their engine really isn't ready, or they left out parts which determine how many threads can be run. When cpu utilization is fixed, I think the x64 will also shine. As in the higher lows, that's a nice result already and I think caused because x64 allows for faster calculations in the physics thread mostly.

Edit: Did anyone with a quad already checked how many threads are spawned? I didn't bother to check if it uses more then one thread but I can see my cpu utilisation on one core being around the 20/30% mark and all other just iddle and peak to 15% once in a while. That doesn't seem right to me...

I've noticed this as well on my system:
Vista x64 Ultimate
AMD Athlon X2 4400+
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
2GB OCZ Platinum DDR500
Nvidia 8800 GTX
Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum

Regardless of settings I use 64bit crysis comes in 1-3fps slower on minimum, average and max for both the GPU and CPU benchmarks.

I was honestly expecting Crysis to murder my CPU but I pull a constant 40-50% usage total between the two cores so it doesn't seem to be utilizing dual cores properly. I'd much rather see 100% usage and have higher fps and not be able to run as much in the background.

[Pirelly]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I've noticed this as well on my system:
Vista x64 Ultimate
AMD Athlon X2 4400+
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
2GB OCZ Platinum DDR500
Nvidia 8800 GTX
Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum

Regardless of settings I use 64bit crysis comes in 1-3fps slower on minimum, average and max for both the GPU and CPU benchmarks.

I was honestly expecting Crysis to murder my CPU but I pull a constant 40-50% usage total between the two cores so it doesn't seem to be utilizing dual cores properly. I'd much rather see 100% usage and have higher fps and not be able to run as much in the background.

Yeah, same here...
But when I fire up the UT3 demo, both my cores are at a constant 100%
Shouldn't it be the same for crysis???

[ajbarnes]

I have XP64 / Vista64 on the same system, so I may install the demo on the XP drive to see if there is a performance difference. The only striking variable is the hard drive - my Vista drive is a 16MB cache Raptor (150GB), while the XP drive is an 8MB cache Raptor (74GB). Both OSes have minimal startup programs and unnecessary background processes are disable, so this may be a good test.

Of course, I may have to download the demo install file again...

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Originally Posted by ajbarnes

I have XP64 / Vista64 on the same system, so I may install the demo on the XP drive to see if there is a performance difference. The only striking variable is the hard drive - my Vista drive is a 16MB cache Raptor (150GB), while the XP drive is an 8MB cache Raptor (74GB). Both OSes have minimal startup programs and unnecessary background processes are disable, so this may be a good test.

Of course, I may have to download the demo install file again...

That would be a nice test for sure, I been wondering about xp64 performance with the dx10 hack

[ajbarnes]

I'll emulate Nick's tests and add a couple of 1920x1200 tests as well, and I'll give the "very high settings on XP" hack a try too, at the same resolutions as my Vista tests.

Results sometime tomorrow.