AMD Threadripper 3990X CPU has the raw power to run Crysis without a graphics card

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,785
Pretty cool

"For now, the server equivalent of the 3990X, the AMD EPYC 7742 maintains the world record for the HWBOT x256 4K benchmark although it's worth noting that may be more down to the fact that 2 of them were used to achieve such a goal.

There's also some room for Intel in world records with the Core i9 9900KF hanging on to SuperPi 32M and Geekbench4 Single Core, demonstrating that Intel still has the edge when it comes to single cores. Still, can that processor run Crysis all on its own? Well, no one's tried but it's a safe assumption that it can't.

For now, it's fascinating to see what the fearsome Threadripper 3990X can accomplish."


https://www.bit-tech.net/news/the-threadripper-3990x-can-run-crysis-without-a-gpu/1/
 
Two issues with this clickbait (not your fault OP, I blame Linus and Quasimodo for the video content on this one)......first is that's not Crysis, it's Crysis Warhead, which was more heavily optimized and easier to run.............second, it's running at like 12-20fps looks like, I don't believe they even give close ups or a frame counter, the entire video looked phoned-in-AF.....that's more like "look you can boot up and get unplayable framerates in Crysis Warhead on a CPU!". Buy some Merch!

Sure not every video will be a home run, but this one was like.....barely any better than watching those frickin renders execute. And besides, maybe it's just me, but I just want to see how the damned super-chips improve gaming on modern cards...NOT Just 2080 Ti's and like 1660's or whatever the current two outlier cards happen to be.......

</cranky>
 
Two issues with this clickbait (not your fault OP, I blame Linus and Quasimodo for the video content on this one)......first is that's not Crysis, it's Crysis Warhead, which was more heavily optimized and easier to run.............second, it's running at like 12-20fps looks like, I don't believe they even give close ups or a frame counter, the entire video looked phoned-in-AF.....that's more like "look you can boot up and get unplayable framerates in Crysis Warhead on a CPU!". Buy some Merch!

Sure not every video will be a home run, but this one was like.....barely any better than watching those frickin renders execute. And besides, maybe it's just me, but I just want to see how the damned super-chips improve gaming on modern cards...NOT Just 2080 Ti's and like 1660's or whatever the current two outlier cards happen to be.......

</cranky>

agree but at the same time this is the closest it's gotten to run on cpu only, lol.. even the 3970 it was a slide show at sub 10fps. either way also agree with what linus said that they had nothing they could actually test the 3990x on other than crysis since none of their testing programs they used to test with could actually saturate 128 threads.
 
Two issues with this clickbait (not your fault OP, I blame Linus and Quasimodo for the video content on this one)......first is that's not Crysis, it's Crysis Warhead, which was more heavily optimized and easier to run.............second, it's running at like 12-20fps looks like, I don't believe they even give close ups or a frame counter, the entire video looked phoned-in-AF.....that's more like "look you can boot up and get unplayable framerates in Crysis Warhead on a CPU!". Buy some Merch!

Sure not every video will be a home run, but this one was like.....barely any better than watching those frickin renders execute. And besides, maybe it's just me, but I just want to see how the damned super-chips improve gaming on modern cards...NOT Just 2080 Ti's and like 1660's or whatever the current two outlier cards happen to be.......

</cranky>
That is not Crysis Warhead. At 9:49 in the vid, clearly states Crysis. Plus, that isn't how Warhead starts in the game play.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see Ray Tracing benchmark for World Of Tanks (DX11 using Intel's embree) on 64 core threadripper (smt may have to be disabled as Win pro limits to 64 threads)

Irony is Intel's Ryan (formerly of PC Perspective) claimed that gamers don't need more than 8 cores or something like that

Hope Schro makes this happen :)
 
I would like to see Ray Tracing benchmark for World Of Tanks (DX11 using Intel's embree) on 64 core threadripper (smt may have to be disabled as Win pro limits to 64 threads)

Irony is Intel's Ryan (formerly of PC Perspective) claimed that gamers don't need more than 8 cores or something like that

Hope Schro makes this happen :)

If you can convince AMD to sample us a Threadripper I can make this happen.
 
Irony is Intel's Ryan (formerly of PC Perspective) claimed that gamers don't need more than 8 cores or something like that

Why is that ironic?

It's still true.

Well, defining need as 'minimum cores for maximum performance', as in games don't benefit (themselves) from more cores. In an extremely budget-limited scenario, it's hard to justify going over six cores, where the balance would go to the GPU (or making sure that there is enough RAM or storage or not skimping on the PSU or cooling or...).
 
Why is that ironic?

It's still true.

Well, defining need as 'minimum cores for maximum performance', as in games don't benefit (themselves) from more cores. In an extremely budget-limited scenario, it's hard to justify going over six cores, where the balance would go to the GPU (or making sure that there is enough RAM or storage or not skimping on the PSU or cooling or...).

Yes, it is true in the general case

I am referring to an edge case where a DX11 game can't make use of RTX hence needs more cores from CPU.
would like to see how this scales. I am guessing it should scale well to atleast 10 core because Intel had 10 core cpus at the time they released this Ray Tracing suite

Question I have in mind is does this DX11 Ray Tracing solution ( created by Intel & implemented in World of Tanks) scale beyond to 12 cores, 16 cores, 32 cores or even 64 cores etc
 
I am referring to an edge case where a DX11 game can't make use of RTX hence needs more cores from CPU.
would like to see how this scales. I am guessing it should scale well to atleast 10 core because Intel had 10 core cpus at the time they released this Ray Tracing suite

Question I have in mind is does this DX11 Ray Tracing solution ( created by Intel & implemented in World of Tanks) scale beyond to 12 cores, 16 cores, 32 cores or even 64 cores etc

While I get that Intel produced a software solution on DX11 -- other than as a proof of concept, I can't say I see the appeal of doing anything with it except benchmark racing, and well, this would only be a measure of itself and not applicable otherwise. I wouldn't mind seeing the results myself either, but it's a limited curiosity.

To put it in perspective: would it be reasonable to purchase a TR 3990X CPU to play WoT fully ray-traced?
 
the question to ask might be ... "will Crysis still be the ultimate gaming benchmark software for a $3000 mid-range GPU being made in the year 2033?

does anyone really see it as a plus to be using a 12 year old game as the ULTIMATE test for today's gaming GPU's?
 
Last edited:
the question to ask might be ... "will Crysis still be the ultimate gaming benchmark software for a $3000 mid-range GPU being made in the year 2033?

does anyone really see it as a plus to be using a 12 year old game as the ULTIMATE test for today's gaming GPU's?
Testament to the game really
 
Testament to the game really

not really ... I recall attending an online fortum with Microsoft, back in the Combat Flight Sim days where a Microsoft rep said (I paraphrase here) "give us the graphics horsepower and we will EASILY write the gaming software no problem."

so any number of game developers could have also written a Crysis-level game (graphics-wise) but chose not too so yea, kudos to CryTek for releasing such a game but I was referring to advances in GPU performance, not game coding
 
the question to ask might be ... "will Crysis still be the ultimate gaming benchmark software for a $3000 mid-range GPU being made in the year 2033?

does anyone really see it as a plus to be using a 12 year old game as the ULTIMATE test for today's gaming GPU's?

Hey, this is a CPU test :p Pretty pointless but fun to see when you know how inefficient software mode is for rendering game graphics.
 
not really ... I recall attending an online fortum with Microsoft, back in the Combat Flight Sim days where a Microsoft rep said (I paraphrase here) "give us the graphics horsepower and we will EASILY write the gaming software no problem."

so any number of game developers could have also written a Crysis-level game (graphics-wise) but chose not too so yea, kudos to CryTek for releasing such a game but I was referring to advances in GPU performance, not game coding
The horsepower has been there, game developers go the cheap and easy route. Occasionally you get someone who pushes the boundries, but not very often.

"so any number of game developers could have" But they don't do they? Back on topic
 
That is not Crysis Warhead. At 9:49 in the vid, clearly states Crysis. Plus, that isn't how Warhead starts in the game play.

<SHAME>

I CLEARLY effed-up......for some reason I thought they showed Crysis running at the beginning level of Warhead where your VTOL gets shot down, and you "follow the troops" through the riverine area learning how to duck, crawl, power-jump..........I'm either thinking of another video they did (I watched that LTT video a day or two ago as I think its a day or two old but....), or I'm thinking of a later level in Crysis.....either way I take the well-deserved beating of stupidity on this one for spreading false information on the Internet.

This is inexcusable....mostly cuz I enjoy being right all the time in everything I post. :D

cMfod.gif
 
<SHAME>

I CLEARLY effed-up......for some reason I thought they showed Crysis running at the beginning level of Warhead where your VTOL gets shot down, and you "follow the troops" through the riverine area learning how to duck, crawl, power-jump..........I'm either thinking of another video they did (I watched that LTT video a day or two ago as I think its a day or two old but....), or I'm thinking of a later level in Crysis.....either way I take the well-deserved beating of stupidity on this one for spreading false information on the Internet.

This is inexcusable....mostly cuz I enjoy being right all the time in everything I post. :D

View attachment 223524
Lol, no worries. I agree that they should have shown fps though.
 
not really ... I recall attending an online fortum with Microsoft, back in the Combat Flight Sim days where a Microsoft rep said (I paraphrase here) "give us the graphics horsepower and we will EASILY write the gaming software no problem."

so any number of game developers could have also written a Crysis-level game (graphics-wise) but chose not too so yea, kudos to CryTek for releasing such a game but I was referring to advances in GPU performance, not game coding
So one developer talked about it and one developer actually did it? Hmm.
 
But can it run Crysis any other 13 year old games?

No, it was specifically made to run Crysis in software-only mode at low frame rates. How's that for exclusive
 
This is rubbish.

Almost every CPU can run Crysis without a GPU in windowed low-resolution software renderer.



Above is a 10-year-old Xeon W3680. Runs exactly the same like Linus Tech Tips.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top