Crysis 2

[Skud]

HardOCP has posted detailed report of their experience of the 1.9 patch and DX11 pack with lots of comparison screenshots:-

Introduction - Crysis 2 DX11 Tessellation & High-Res Texture Pack | [H]ard|OCP


To summarize:-

*hardocp.com/images/articles/13092956304G2elw6sSd_1_71.jpg​

 

[macho84]

Hi all DX11 version is there. Dont you see the links for updated ultra patch for DX 11 with highres pack in digit. Check it out guysDirectX 11 Ultra Upgrade

 

[tkin]

I don't trust hard ocp at all, I'll have to review it myself, from the looks, dx11 may not work good but high res texture pack sure does.

 

[cyborg47]

I don't trust hard ocp at all, I'll have to review it myself, from the looks, dx11 may not work good but high res texture pack sure does.

The guy at that site believes that dx11 is just for 64 bit computers.
Maximum Game journalism FAIL!

Im waiting for Eurogamer's Digital foundry article on patch 1.9 and dx11. Not to base my judgement on them, but they're always kinda interesting

 

[tkin]

The guy at that site believes that dx11 is just for 64 bit computers.
Maximum Game journalism FAIL!

Im waiting for Eurogamer's Digital foundry article on patch 1.9 and dx11. Not to base my judgement on them, but they're always kinda interesting

You should read their gpu reviews, they never test cards with same settings, they test them with different settings(aa etc), so amd cards always look better, they do mention the settings below, but for quick grazers it'll look as if amd ones are winning by miles, that's bad journalism.
Their excuse is they test cards with highest settings they can handle, not same settings, gtx560 with 32xAA and hd5650 with no aa, low quality, guess which wins, that's really something.

 

[Skud]

You should read their gpu reviews, they never test cards with same settings, they test them with different settings(aa etc), so amd cards always look better, they do mention the settings below, but for quick grazers it'll look as if amd ones are winning by miles, that's bad journalism.
Their excuse is they test cards with highest settings they can handle, not same settings, gtx560 with 32xAA and hd5650 with no aa, low quality, guess which wins, that's really something.

Where do you get that? And in any case if the gtx560 can run any game at 32xAA, they always recommend cards based on higher image quality and highest playable settings, not some crappy fps numbers. And gtx560 will still beat the hd5650 anyhow.

Secondly, there's also a apples-to-apples test where they test the cards at equal footing. And fps freaks and quick grazers can always make their decisions based on these apples-to-apples tests.

And lastly, check their recent MSI N580GTX Lightning XE 3GB SLI Video Card Review. Despite it being astronomically costlier than its nearest Radeon rival (6970 CFX), they have given it a gold award. I remember, they were the only site who had recommended the 7950GX2 when it was released. So the AMD bias thing doesn't really hold water.

Of course, they are wrong about the dx11 thing being 64-bit only, that's the hi res texture pack.

 

[tkin]

Where do you get that? And in any case if the gtx560 can run any game at 32xAA, they always recommend cards based on higher image quality and highest playable settings, not some crappy fps numbers. And gtx560 will still beat the hd5650 anyhow.

Secondly, there's also a apples-to-apples test where they test the cards at equal footing. And fps freaks and quick grazers can always make their decisions based on these apples-to-apples tests.

And lastly, check their recent MSI N580GTX Lightning XE 3GB SLI Video Card Review. Despite it being astronomically costlier than its nearest Radeon rival (6970 CFX), they have given it a gold award. I remember, they were the only site who had recommended the 7950GX2 when it was released. So the AMD bias thing doesn't really hold water.

Of course, they are wrong about the dx11 thing being 64-bit only, that's the hi res texture pack.

Read the review: Introduction - MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk Video Card Review | [H]ard|OCP
Yes, apples to apples is there, but its at the last and most quick grazers will notice the first few images only, they should give a chart first and then give the highest playable stuff under it.

 

[skeletor]

You should read their gpu reviews, they never test cards with same settings, they test them with different settings(aa etc), so amd cards always look better, they do mention the settings below, but for quick grazers it'll look as if amd ones are winning by miles, that's bad journalism.
Their excuse is they test cards with highest settings they can handle, not same settings, gtx560 with 32xAA and hd5650 with no aa, low quality, guess which wins, that's really something.

This just tells me you don't read their reviews at all.

There are two things in their review:
1) The highest setting which a card can run.
2) An Apples-to-Apples comparison.

 

[Skud]

Read the review: Introduction - MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk Video Card Review | [H]ard|OCP
Yes, apples to apples is there, but its at the last and most quick grazers will notice the first few images only, they should give a chart first and then give the highest playable stuff under it.

Oh, the 6950, then the 5650 must be a typo.

So let me check :-

1. Dragon Age II - same playable settings for both the cards. 6950 wins by a couple of fps, not significant.

2. Civ 5 - Hawk tested with 8xAA and 6950 with 4xAA and the Hawk still wins!

3. F1 2010 - Quick graze, Hawk wins, Apples-to-apples, 6950 has a 10% lead!!!

4. BF:BC 2 - more or less same settings, more or less tie.

5. Metro 2033 - Hawk has more fps, but 6950 can play at 4xAA. (quick grazer will go for Hawk seeing this )

Then OC results, and what... no comparison with OCed 6950, as if the 6950 can't be OCed???


And how to do you or any other gamer play their games? Do you strive for 100+fps with lower settings (such gamer do exist) or smooth enough gameplay with as much eye candy turned on as possible? If you belong to second category, then HardOCP results are more significant.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tkin]

This just tells me you don't read their reviews at all.

There are two things in their review:
1) The highest setting which a card can run.
2) An Apples-to-Apples comparison.

No no, I read it all, just I recommend these sites to me friends, when they see it they skip through it and and up at totally at the wrong conclusion most of the times(noobs), that's why I used the term "Quick grazers," I mean how many of us are geeks anyway? 90% of my friend think nvidia and evga, msi etc make different cards, I just couldn't make them understand that nvidia makes the core, they even buy zebronics card as it has this large nvidia logo on front unlike other companies that feature their logo. I just want a simplified chart so they can drwa conclusion from it, lately I am suggesting Guru3d and anandtech GPU bench for now.

 

[skeletor]

Read the review: Introduction - MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk Video Card Review | [H]ard|OCP
Yes, apples to apples is there, but its at the last and most quick grazers will notice the first few images only, they should give a chart first and then give the highest playable stuff under it.

Register on their forum and make your point?

The guy at that site believes that dx11 is just for 64 bit computers.
Maximum Game journalism FAIL!

hmmm

Both the DX11 Tessellation and High-Res Texture packs require a 64-bit operating system and a video card with at least 1GB of memory. If you don't have either, there is no "gift" for you.

This package provides higher texture resolution for a wide variety of assets. It supports both the DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 versions of Crysis 2. A 64-bit operating system and a graphics card with at least 768 MB of memory are required.

Both DX9 and DX11 versions of Crysis 2 will support the snazzier textures, but it’s worth noting that you’ll need a graphics card with at least 1GB of VRAM and a 64-bit OS.

Note: I am not playing this game. What they mean probably is, with Tessellation and High resolution pack, you can expect your memory usage to cross 3.2GB RAM and GPU's VRAM easily.

 

[tkin]

Register on their forum and make your point?

Not exactly like this, but I did register there once, kind of got bashed when I told them to give apples to apple first with pics, long time ago, they did not agree, so I left and never went back.

One more thing, did anyone among you had issues with the patch? Cause my friend got it and installed without any issues, so this is also my point, if the reviewer has issues with his pc(software/game/os config issue) and his pc only(not widespread problem) is it ok for him to bash it like that(crysis 2 hd pack review), this will again give wrong impression to people, they'll think it is a issue with that patch, just my $0.02.
Above comment does not hold true if it is a widespread problem, but my friend did not get it.

 

[skeletor]

Weighing in at 1.7GB, the texture pack increases the resolution of Crysis 2’s assets by a factor of two, quadrupling the game’s memory requirements in the process. As such, players will require a 64-bit operating system and a graphics card with 1GB of memory just to enable them.

[H]ard|OCP - DirectX 11 Tessellation Package For Crysis 2

 

[rchi84]

I can only speak for myself, and my game updates just fine without any problems on the first launch.

The update does cause a substantial hit in the FPS. Are the changes always noticeable? Yes and no, depending on the scene.

But then again, when my card gave me between 40-50 FPS in DX9, it's unrealistic to expect the same performance on DX11.

The only thing i make sure of, is to turn off motion blur completely

 

[Skud]

Here you go:-

MyCrysis - DX11 Now Available!

Check the comments.

1.9, DX11 and Hi-res patch really made my crysis ugly. I need almost 100% brightness and everything still seams smudgy (kinda dark blurred - yeah I have motion blur disabled). FPS is way down, so now it's lagging a little - enough to piss me off. I can't see any difference between DX9 and DX11 other than my game now looks smudgy. I really hope for a fix - cause this is unplayable. Specs: I7K2600, 8GB ram, NVidia GTX 580, everything on Ultra.

Also check the faq and known issues of 1.9 patch.

 

[comp@ddict]

Every patch adds more bugs, bah!

 

[gameranand]

Every patch adds more bugs, bah!

Well thats new.

 

[Skud]

Crytek have screwed up the PC version, lets admit it and move on. Most of us are disappointed and that's a sour fact.

 

[asingh]

The guy at that site believes that dx11 is just for 64 bit computers.
Maximum Game journalism FAIL!

Im waiting for Eurogamer's Digital foundry article on patch 1.9 and dx11. Not to base my judgement on them, but they're always kinda interesting

Actually the patching load released, is only complaint with 64BIT OS. Due to the code structure.

 

[ithehappy]

Thanks for the replies guys.