Why does crysis look better in 64bit?

S

SuperKeijo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
705
Both screenshots are taken in "high" details. So why does the 64bit version look so much better? Look at the mountains for example..

64:

crysis64.jpg


32:


crysis32.jpg
 
Since it's a game engine that is heavy on floating point calculations (which can make for much better precision), there is much more data space available in 64 bit as opposed to 32-bit. I've noticed that too despite being in high mode in both xp and vista, that crysis just seems "better" looking although slower. I'm really doubting that the reason vista's slower with crysis is due to vista, but rather due to taking advantage of being 64 bit (in my situation at least).
 
not gonna be downto calculations due to 64bit being able todo 64bit maths in less clockcycles (that would drop fps) IT will however be downto 64bit games being able to count/use more objects on the screen

if there was a way to display the number of splines in use you would probably see the 64bit version using alot more


UNLESS this is another one of those conn's by EA/Crytek where they purposely gimp the defaults

ie DX9-default < DX10-default < DX10_64-default

and via little tweaks you can actually get virtually all of the gfx effects back


I would be more incline from a technical P.O.V. to go with the spline count BUT knowing EA's track record (and where this game is concerned) I would goto some setting being turned off
 
It does look a little better if you look down on trees and stuff. I think that the first guy to reply got it right :).
 
As the OP suggested, the mountain's most evidently different. I clearly see the difference.
 
How about XP64, anyone tested crysis on that OS, to see if it's faster than XP32?
I'm thinking of buying 4GB of ram but I don't want to use VISTA until it matures and offer equal xp performance.
 
It may be the jpeg compression. Here's a 200% image of the mountain. See any difference now?

crysisd.jpg
 
what did you use to get the printscreens, I tried, and all I get is black screens (Vista32)
 
Paulo Narciso said:
How about XP64, anyone tested crysis on that OS, to see if it's faster than XP32?
I'm thinking of buying 4GB of ram but I don't want to use VISTA until it matures and offer equal xp performance.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started. This is like switching from ME to XP, ME was faster. Vista is faster than XP, it is very efficient.
 
some of you need to get your eyes checked, there is a difference...

edit oops post above shows it clearly...
 
aFive said:
Don't get me started. This is like switching from ME to XP, ME was faster. Vista is faster than XP, it is very efficient.
Click to expand...

If Vista was faster I won't do this question. I have both OS on different partions and Vista is slower, slugish and less responsive.
 
Paulo Narciso: What are your system specs? When I changed to vista a few months ago from XP, it wasn't slower or less responsive in any way. It does propably require a somewhat modern system to be as responsive as xp, but anyway.. vista runs very well and with 4gb of memory it's more responsive than xp 32bit atleast :D
 
I'm running Crysis on both XP64 and Vista64, and XP is decidedly faster when using the same settings.

As for 32 vs 64 bit, I believe texture streaming is used (or used more aggressively) in the 32 bit binary to compsenate for limitations on addressable application memory. Having played Crysis on my brother's 32-bit XP install, I can tell you definitively that the 64-bit version of the game looks better at the same settings. I can't speak on 32 v 64 bit performance since I haven't used the 32-bit Crysis binary or a 32-bit OS in months, but most tests around the web seem to show 64-bit being faster when testing on the same OS (32 vs 64 bit Vista, or 32 vs 64 bit XP)

Interestingly when [H] tested Crysis, they found little difference between DX9 and DX10 performance, however they were testing both render paths in Vista, and did not test XP, so that leads me to believe that XP is simply faster at DX9 (which of course is common knowledge, and has even been stated outright by devs from both MS and major GPU makers). Hopefully SP1 for Vista will bring performance more in line with what XP currently offers.
 
Paulo Narciso said:
How about XP64, anyone tested crysis on that OS, to see if it's faster than XP32?
I'm thinking of buying 4GB of ram but I don't want to use VISTA until it matures and offer equal xp performance.
Click to expand...

I use Crysis on x64, and I swore I got 3-5 fps more playing the 64 bit version. Might have to go back and check.
 
They did the same with Far Cry when they made a 64bit patch for that game.

Here's a link to the [H] article with comparing screens from back then.
 
I think XP runs faster than Vista with regards to Crysis because it has LESS to render than Vista does...

Whether this is because something was disabled in XP or something in Vista that XP can't do, is another matter. Since testing in XP and Vista doesn't feel like an apples to apples comparison of the same game.

It's kind of like comparing two corvettes run down a drag strip of the same year. If one is faster than the other, there can be more than 1 reason for this. It's simply not clear cut as to what Crysis is doing in both environments.
 
Droc said:
lol, they look exactly the same to me.
Click to expand...

The textures on the mountains are ever so slightly crisper in the 64bit one, but other than that, the only thing I noticed was one of the rocks looks slightly bigger in the 64 shot.
 
64 v 32: I got a few FPS higher in the included benchmarks on 64-bit. But I can't get SLI to work on 64-bit so I'm running 32-bit for now.

This is on XP64.
 
It's the texture streaming, try disabling it on 32-bit:

Both (cfg and console command) should be possible and when you use it with a cfg you need to add a line like this:

r_TexturesStreaming = 0

and when you want to use it with the console you need to open the console and type this line first to unlock the advanced console commands:

con_restricted 0

and then disable the streaming textures (without "="):

r_TexturesStreaming 0
Click to expand...
 
PliotronX said:
It's the texture streaming, try disabling it on 32-bit:
Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly what it is. 64-bit lets you use high-res textures without having to stream them in (64-bit lets it allocate memory locations ahead of time). That's why the mountains look muddier in 32-bit - the mountain textures haven't been streamed in yet because you're not close enough to them.
 
So...does disabling texture streaming have any truly adverse effects in 32bit? If not...well then!
 
I get strictly worse performance with 64bit. Anyone else get that? I was hoping for a modest improvement, it was a bit of a let down.
 
This is down to texture streaming which is turned off when running in 64bit mode, it means that the textures aren't streamed in as and when they're needed they can all be put in place straight away.

I dont think it's a compatability issue or anything like that, as other people have said you can turn this feature off in 32bit mode as well, I suspect it helps to have 64bit so that all the textures can be delt with at once due to larger address range, I expect this is partly due to the 2Gb limit applications running in 32bit are restricted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top