News:It's something we'll be keeping an eye on.
Ha-Ha! Good show!
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
Doesn't Crysis 2 in DX11 have hardware based occlusion culling? Therefore it would not be rendering the ocean underneath the ground, as it is culled (it is blocked by the ground). Also, there is a visual improvement in the bricks, if you look at them. They are extruded and are completely 3d, unlike 99% of games out there.
TR acknowledged the bricks as a good example of DX11 in action. Also, the GPU tool used describes what the GPU is actually rendering. The water below the ground may not be going through the full rendering process, but it *is* being tessellated. It's functioning like an anchor--pulling down scene performance without actually doing anything.
Is this something to be disabled with a switch somewhere? Or is it all in the way the game was coded and can't be adjusted?
TR discusses how this can be mitigated through the use of some in-driver switches AMD has introduced. Stepping down one tick from maximum has a marked impact on performance.
Joel H:Realneil, TR discusses how this can be mitigated through the use of some in-driver switches AMD has introduced. Stepping down one tick from maximum has a marked impact on performance.
OK, so forgive my slow understanding of this,.....is this a problem if you're using GTX570's in your systems? (only affecting AMD Hardware?)
it all hinges on your definition of "problem." Nvidia has generally turned DX11 into a referendum on tessellation performance, which makes sense given that Fermi's tessellation throughput smacked ATI's 5000-series around quite thoroughly. AMD's Cayman-based GPUs closed this gap significantly, but NV still has an edge in tessellation.
If you're asking "Do both cards waste processing power in Crysis 2?" the answer is yes. The ATI card isn't being handed a different scene. The trick, in this case, is that the NV cards take a much smaller performance hit when being asked to render all the useless geometry.
There's a nice level of plausible deniability baked in as well. Since Crysis 2 is both using tessellation sub-optimally *and* tessellating invisible water, NV can justifiably say that Crytek's flawed DX11 implementation isn't their fault. If this was the first time anyone had seen the company's hand in the tessellation cookie jar, it'd get written off as suspicious, but not necessarily suspicious enough to call anyone out.
This is the third time, the second with a shipping title, and the second time we've seen issues with a title NV took a hand in helping to develop.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms