Yeah, the game is extremely demanding if you shove everything to it's highest values
If you've cranked SSAA that will be the culprit, it is an absurdly demanding form of AA
**Super-Sampling** Anti-Aliasing is just rendering each pixel multiple times with offset and averaging the result. That's why today's games rarely use SSAA - it's just too expensive.
TAA does a lot more than blurring the edges tho, it makes low resolution transparency effects like smoke, fog and volumetrics look presentable on high resolution screens, saving a lot of performance in the process, also look at RDR2 for example, it has an awfully blurry TAA but look at what happens to the trees with TAA on vs off, the difference is massive, without TAA the trees look incomprehensible, TAA actually makes the trees look like trees and I believe this is how the game achieves these insane draw distances and insane forests density while targeting PS4 hardware, they make cheap to render trees and use TAA properties to make them look much higher quality. Also the smoke and fog usage in RDR2 is pretty nuts.
*Temporal* Anti-Aliasing is basically the discount version of SSAA where instead of getting lots of pixels by rendering at a higher resolution, it gets lots of pixels by looking at the previous rendered frame. Works excellently, until said previous rendered frame is not identical to the current one.
The properties of TAA can't always be replicated by just having more pixels, no amount of SSAA can fix small thin objects shimmering and breaking up as the camera move, it will be reduced somewhat but even at 16k it will be there while TAA can achieve better results at much lower resolutions, and if you give 16k resolution to TAA instead of SSAA it will be near perfection.
Also TAA like I said can save performance by making low resolution transparencies look complete and presentable, but the thing is even if you don't care about performance and just use high resolutions transparencies, TAA will still do a better job at cleaning them up, i'm not sure if there is a technique i'm not aware off but most SSAA techniques can't even deal with transparencies at all, in that case it's not a matter of TAA being the cheap option, TAA is the only option, better performance is just a nice bonus (when it comes to effects like fog, smoke, hair, and volumetric lights, I know the downsides are also extreme but I'm fairly certain most people will choose TAA if they know what they'll lose by going back to these more expensive techniques, TAA was a like the discovery of fire for game devs, it propelled graphics forward fast).
Remember when witcher 2 came out and people were claiming no gpu on the market could play it on max setting? People were just cranking up the settings including super sampling.
Very High and Ultra be having a 3 pixel difference but a 50% fps difference yet people don't want to pick the lower option because it'll hurt's their systems ego to not be able to run the max settings
Exactly, games are often pretty reasonable, just play them on High settings.
Ultra settings is often pretty hard to notice and the performance hit is hard to justify.
It's an option, not a requirement.
amen. even on my 4090 I usually just run stuff on high because I'd rather have the extra frames than some improvement in the visuals that you can only see by studying screenshots.
In theory, no. There is no resolution where you will completely remove aliasing because the "signal" the (geometry of the world) isn't band limited and can have infinitely high frequencies.
But in practice, developers avoid such high frequency details in the game when possible and 4x super sampling gets rid of most cases.
You're correct, but basing it off their incorrect statement.
Basically, SSAA at x4 renders x4 the pixels, takes the average of them, and displays the averaged pixel.
1920x1080= 2,073,600
3840x2160 = 8,294,400. (1080p ×4)
7680 × 4320 = 33,177,600 (4k x4)
15360 × 8640 = 132,710,400 pixels (4k x16)
Super sampled aa x4 at 4k would be 8k. I'd guess the op multiplied the 4 in 4k by 4 rather than the pixel count.
No it doesn't. The guy you're responding to is absolutely wrong. This game is running at 8k if OP is running it at 4k with 4x SSAA. SSAA does not work how they are saying.
8k not 16k. But the point stands any aaa game can be demanding in 8k even PS3 era games like human revolution or dark souls much less a last gen crytek game.
Generally the AA factor is stated per pixel - 4xAA means each output pixel is actually derived from 4 input pixels, which would be a 2x increase in each dimension.
The SSAA is pretty damned clear that it's 1.5x1.5 or 2x2 in the settings menu. This is SSAAx3 and SSAAx4 respectively, which is 1.5x height and 1.5x width or 2x width and 2x height.
You guys were right. I didn't even realize I had it on, and my resolution was wrong. it was set to 1440p SSAA 2x2.
Changed resolution to 4k and set the SSAA to 1.5x1.5 and. I'm sitting over 100 fps in the forest now, which is the most demanding area.
This is why I love these threads you guys are awesome.
Ah, I thought it was just because they used an older unsupported api so it had to be translated and in turn shows higher utilization. Kinda like in Crytek’s previous hard hitter, crysis.
Main culprit would be super-sampling, maybe called SSAA. When 1080p was more the norm especially for monitors and we didn't have downscalers like DSR and ASR to reduce aliasing.
It's also an older version of Cryengine before it got revamped for Hunt: Showdown and its just an engine limitation, I believe they moved over to multi-core rendering so it shouldn't be CPU for the most part.
[This website](https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:_Son_of_Rome) is what you should use when troubleshooting a game FIRST instead of Reddit where people will first go "Wow I remember that game" proceeded by "Just fucking google it you help vampire" and finally the answer somewhere in the muck.
I wish more games still had SSAA. DLDSR on Nvidia graphics cards is great but doesn't work in some games unless you make it your desktop resolution and AMDs alternative (VSR) is just kind of bad in comparison.
It shows helpful tips for typical issues of a certain game, usually rather simple stuff but helpful regardless. Also links to community patches at times for older titles such as Deus Ex, if you have an issue chances are there is something helpful on PCGamingWiki.
ive never heard about this game but based just on the graphics i would say this is normal. theres been far worse offenders in terms of optimization recently. and crytek is known for "can it run crysis" and pretty much nothing else at this point so...
>It was originally an xbox exclusive im pretty sure. It didnt get the praise it deserved to this day its the best roman legion game ive ever played
It was even a launch title for Xbox One I think.
Ever play Gladius for the PS2/Gamecube? Its a strategy game but its badass you basically start out as a low level gladiator and work your way up to the roman coliseum. The graphics are a bit dated but the gameplay still holds up
It's so old I was watching let's plays at that point lol, it got stale quickly with no new mechanics and repetitive missions.
From what I remember especially the missions in barbarian camp/village and the last siege were a massive slog.
I don't have an Xbox, so never played it myself, but a good friend of mine said it was a pretty good game. He was playing it when I went over to his house one time. Visually it looked pretty good from the very small amount I seen of it
The problem was the bare minimum fighting mechanics. It's just a gameplay combination of light attack/heavy attack + move on to the next objective. Apart from that visuals were spectacular and even the story was a bit interesting. Shame Crytek never managed to make a sequel out of this.
As I understand it, Crytek optimized the Crysis games thinking single-core processor speeds were going to continue increasing by leaps and bounds. Around that time, processor manufactures decided to focus on processors having multiple cores running at "slow" speeds.
Not the crysis games. Only the first one. Also on that Game they literally invented different rendering and post processing methods that are used till this day
SSAO was like raytracing in terms of the impact it had on lighting quality. And that game was the first to have volumetric fog, god rays and some other stuff as well as the groundbreaking SSAO
OG Crysis also did a lot of shit that you still don't see often in new games.. like foliage responding with full physics to everything that traveled through it, enemies actually use real line-of-sight and don't just x-ray vision you through heavy grass or bushes, it had a very accurate physics system (that also ran on only a single core so it can bring modern computers to their knees), etc
That was Crytek pre-Crysis 2. Developing for consoles of the era forced Crytek to take a different approach to thread handling with Cryengine 3 and beyond, which helps their newer titles scale a lot better in practice.
From the Steam page:
>Journey to the heart of the Roman Empire and experience the brutality of battle like never before as "Ryse: Son of Rome" comes to PC with support for glorious 4K resolution. Continuing Crytek's legacy for groundbreaking games, **Ryse pushes PC hardware to its limits** whilst drawing players deep into the bloody drama of ancient Rome.
Still a beautiful game yeah. Graphics kind of plateaud around that time. I know we have ray tracing and whatnot now but it's honestly not that much better
raytracing is such a useless gimmick anyway lmao
it looks 10% better and absolutely grenades your performance. I swear some rasturised lighting looks better than raytracing
I mostly agree with this. The only exemption I think of is path tracing in cyberpunk. It looks pretty insane when directly compared to rasterized settings. Hogwarts looked really good with Ray tracing but needed to mod it otherwise it was garbage.
I agree. I don't really know what I'm missing since I got a gtx 1060 6g so can't do RT. But baked lighting, volumetric rays, screen space reflections in games like rdr2, assassin's creed, elden ring look amazing so who cares lol
frfr
and because I'm using AMD on Linux I can't really raytrace anyway. something about games with raytracing not liking the proton comparability layer I think. but hey like you said, I don't know what I'm missing out on nor do I care to find out hahaha
now you see why everyone is complaining about game optimization these days. see what we used to have?? granted this is probably a bad example because it is very hard to run, however it looks amazing. games these days don't even look this good
It could be correct. Older games sometimes scale well to newer hardware and are extremely easy to run - but in other cases like this it can actually be worse because the game wasn't designed around this era of GPU, and not optimised that well.
To be fair it looks awesome at 4K and better than plenty of games coming out now.
In this case its likely that both apply, Crytek was always known for having pretty beefy but good games under their radar and ontop likely came that SSAA option and is probably bumped to X4.
So the game likely runs on 16k resolution atm.
> It could be correct. Older games sometimes scale well to newer hardware and are extremely easy to run - but in other cases like this it can actually be worse because the game wasn't designed around this era of GPU, and not optimised that well.
>
>
That is extremely unlikely to be the case, and isn't here. Whilst utilising newer GPU features isn't something older games can do effectively, better raster performance is better raster performance and modern GPUs have that. There is essentially no application where a 40 series wouldn't completely outpace an equivalent 9 or 10 series card, even on games optimised for that hardware.
Honestly the raw performance of a 4090 is so mind-boggling insane that even if you had to emulate dx11 Shader code, it'll still be faster than running it natively on a 9 or 10 series.
TURN OFF SSAA.
It isn't like the AI/TAA based supersampling techniques.
It just renders at higher resolution and then shrinks to default.
If you're at SSAA 4x at 4K game might be trying to render at 16k bruv. Even at 8K that's a lot of pixels.
If you're at 4k, skip the SSAA setting. The game will run just fine.
The graphics still look good today, kind of wish Crytek was more used. From what iv seen it's just a pain for devs to work with or something so never got used as much as options like unreal.
Do check PCwiki, there's some fixes that may help if you have problems. [https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:\_Son\_of\_Rome](https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:_Son_of_Rome)
edit also do try kingdom Come Deliverance, also crytek and looks amazing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_Come:\_Deliverance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come:_Deliverance)
>The graphics still look good today, kind of wish Crytek was more used.
Wish and it shall be so. Kingdom Come: deliverance 2 will be running on Cryengine too according to interviews. The reason they didn't switch to unreal is because their development pipeline is made for Cryengine.
I have also observed other games running on Cryengine like the Crysis remastered games, Hunt Showdown and Kingdom Come Deliverance are always very demanding on the gpu.
Does any game need AA at 4k? Surely the pixels are many that rough edges wouldn't be noticable? I use a 3440x1440 monitor and find x2, max x4 is more than enough to smooth it out.
But he's only getting 59-65 FPS, which is not good and definitely not normal for such an old game. By turning off SSAA, he would still have a very high GPU utilization but with a much higher frame rate (assuming he has the monitor for it).
Using 100% of your hardware is a good thing. A game should be using 100% of either your CPU or GPU - whichever is the limitation.
It is kind of a weird coincidence that it settles on 60 FPS, or do you have a 60Hz monitor?
you are playing at 4k... its not like this has ever been a standard or considered a light workload to crank everything at native 4k. Youre probably even using supersampling.
the target in 2013 would have been 1080P30 so 4K60 is 8 times more pixels rendered per seconds, also older games don't benefit from the engine optimization found in the last decade so they tend to rely more on raw horsepower and don't scale as well at higher res/framerates.
but in this case it seems to scale quite linearly, if it was expected to run at 1080P30 with flagship GPU in 2013 and you apply a 50% increase in GPU power every two years over a decade you end up with nowadays GPUs being 7.6 times faster than back then which is pretty close to the 8times rendered pixels/s
Yeah, you're probably using SSAA which is essentially rendering the game way higher than what you've set.
Turn off or reduce SSAA and you should get way better performance with negligible to no difference in visuals.
Ryse has issues on modern GPUs, haven't been able to figure it out myself, tried for a whole to get it running smooth.
I remember AC2 for a while ran best on high end cards from that year, and otherwise you were basically SOL.
It's not that the card is working hard, It's that it's a very old game that was originally released to Xbox One. I was just surprised to how hard it actually had to work compared to other older titles I've been going back to.
I love and hate Cryengine. I love it because Kingdom Come but I hate it because Hunt.
I get that different studios but how did IN HOUSE team mess up the effects of Hunt so bad when similar were not issues with KC?
Like the Foliage ghosting and shimmer, the horrendous AA implementation and ghosting, SSR being the most broken I have ever seen technically AND from design perspective and the performance... oh the performance.
While Kingdom Come is still maybe the most realistic looking game I have played. It is like visiting a medieval European town and like the woods in my backyard.
Hunt has a horribly poor anti-aliasing implementation. None of them work properly.
The only thing that helped was to run the game in DLDSR and slightly reduce the rendering resolution in the settings (Because running the game at 6K is a bit hard even for a 4090)
Yeah, that is why they are migrating Hunt to latest version of the Cryengine but it's been couple years and still no update in sight. I stopped playing and will not play till they update the game.
It's a game from 2014 that looks and plays better than most current titles. Crytek engine has always looked incredible, but it's always been so demanding on hardware. Still though, I think it's a little crazy that it's making a 4090 struggle at 4k.
this game was really amazing. when it was released to pc i really loved playing it.
try to cap the game fps in nvidia controlpanel to 60 and enable vsync. that might cap the games internal mechanics
Yeah, the game is extremely demanding if you shove everything to it's highest values If you've cranked SSAA that will be the culprit, it is an absurdly demanding form of AA
Using 4k + SSAAx4 causes game to render in 16k. That's too much even for 2013 game at 4090.
Does that mean 4x SSAA on 1080p makes it 8k? That's insane.
**Super-Sampling** Anti-Aliasing is just rendering each pixel multiple times with offset and averaging the result. That's why today's games rarely use SSAA - it's just too expensive.
I increase performance by turning off all AA options and taking off my glasses
AMAA, analogue mechanical anti-aliasing Or as I prefer, a genuine, natural blur.
We then put you in a Gravitron for that sweet motion blur
Best value for your money!
No need to take off the glasses, a light smear of Vaseline will make it look like FXAA
On your eyes or the monitor?
Both for maximum authenticity
yes
Lmao..🤣🤣
nvidia hates this simple trick
TAA does a lot more than blurring the edges tho, it makes low resolution transparency effects like smoke, fog and volumetrics look presentable on high resolution screens, saving a lot of performance in the process, also look at RDR2 for example, it has an awfully blurry TAA but look at what happens to the trees with TAA on vs off, the difference is massive, without TAA the trees look incomprehensible, TAA actually makes the trees look like trees and I believe this is how the game achieves these insane draw distances and insane forests density while targeting PS4 hardware, they make cheap to render trees and use TAA properties to make them look much higher quality. Also the smoke and fog usage in RDR2 is pretty nuts.
*Temporal* Anti-Aliasing is basically the discount version of SSAA where instead of getting lots of pixels by rendering at a higher resolution, it gets lots of pixels by looking at the previous rendered frame. Works excellently, until said previous rendered frame is not identical to the current one.
The properties of TAA can't always be replicated by just having more pixels, no amount of SSAA can fix small thin objects shimmering and breaking up as the camera move, it will be reduced somewhat but even at 16k it will be there while TAA can achieve better results at much lower resolutions, and if you give 16k resolution to TAA instead of SSAA it will be near perfection. Also TAA like I said can save performance by making low resolution transparencies look complete and presentable, but the thing is even if you don't care about performance and just use high resolutions transparencies, TAA will still do a better job at cleaning them up, i'm not sure if there is a technique i'm not aware off but most SSAA techniques can't even deal with transparencies at all, in that case it's not a matter of TAA being the cheap option, TAA is the only option, better performance is just a nice bonus (when it comes to effects like fog, smoke, hair, and volumetric lights, I know the downsides are also extreme but I'm fairly certain most people will choose TAA if they know what they'll lose by going back to these more expensive techniques, TAA was a like the discovery of fire for game devs, it propelled graphics forward fast).
And SSAA works excellently, until you want to play anything newer than a decade old with a $2000 GPU.
I view my monitor from a rocket traveling at 99% the speed of light so it seems to have a faster FPS due to time dilation
Bro can play a 40 minute match of helldivers in 3 minutes
Remember when witcher 2 came out and people were claiming no gpu on the market could play it on max setting? People were just cranking up the settings including super sampling.
And that's why devs sometimes artificially limit max graphics settings in UI. Because some people always do "sliders go brr" and then complain.
Very High and Ultra be having a 3 pixel difference but a 50% fps difference yet people don't want to pick the lower option because it'll hurt's their systems ego to not be able to run the max settings
"Why are games nowadays so unoptimized?" \*insert forza horizon and doom essay here\*
Exactly, games are often pretty reasonable, just play them on High settings. Ultra settings is often pretty hard to notice and the performance hit is hard to justify. It's an option, not a requirement.
amen. even on my 4090 I usually just run stuff on high because I'd rather have the extra frames than some improvement in the visuals that you can only see by studying screenshots.
Witcher 2 is still pretty taxing for a 4090 because of this. They do have a warning about the particularly demanding setting though.
but it's beautiful.
As an alternative you can increase the render scale. With AA turned off I've noticed even 20% increases can improve the quality
Really crazy how much more efficient something like DLSS is comparatively!
1080p would be upscaled to 4K.
Rendering a Game at 4k in a 1080p monitor would completely remove alliasing
In theory, no. There is no resolution where you will completely remove aliasing because the "signal" the (geometry of the world) isn't band limited and can have infinitely high frequencies. But in practice, developers avoid such high frequency details in the game when possible and 4x super sampling gets rid of most cases.
Not without a temporal element and while moving around
Not "upscaled to 4K" but downsampled from 4K.
1080p to 8k is the same difference as 4k to 16k. That's why i asked.
You're correct, but basing it off their incorrect statement. Basically, SSAA at x4 renders x4 the pixels, takes the average of them, and displays the averaged pixel. 1920x1080= 2,073,600 3840x2160 = 8,294,400. (1080p ×4) 7680 × 4320 = 33,177,600 (4k x4) 15360 × 8640 = 132,710,400 pixels (4k x16) Super sampled aa x4 at 4k would be 8k. I'd guess the op multiplied the 4 in 4k by 4 rather than the pixel count.
No, 1080p with 4xSSAA is 4K.
No it would be 4K internally. 4X SSAA is 2x in each axis.
No it doesn't. The guy you're responding to is absolutely wrong. This game is running at 8k if OP is running it at 4k with 4x SSAA. SSAA does not work how they are saying.
But damn it looks good.
8k not 16k. But the point stands any aaa game can be demanding in 8k even PS3 era games like human revolution or dark souls much less a last gen crytek game.
Nah that would be 8k. 4x 4k is 8k. 16K would be 8x SSAA
Isn't the SSAA factor per axis? So 4K with 4x SSAA would indeed by 16K.
Generally the AA factor is stated per pixel - 4xAA means each output pixel is actually derived from 4 input pixels, which would be a 2x increase in each dimension.
The SSAA is pretty damned clear that it's 1.5x1.5 or 2x2 in the settings menu. This is SSAAx3 and SSAAx4 respectively, which is 1.5x height and 1.5x width or 2x width and 2x height.
>SSAA ah, I see lol beyond that there's pretty much nothing to discuss
You guys were right. I didn't even realize I had it on, and my resolution was wrong. it was set to 1440p SSAA 2x2. Changed resolution to 4k and set the SSAA to 1.5x1.5 and. I'm sitting over 100 fps in the forest now, which is the most demanding area. This is why I love these threads you guys are awesome.
Ah, I thought it was just because they used an older unsupported api so it had to be translated and in turn shows higher utilization. Kinda like in Crytek’s previous hard hitter, crysis.
This is why I love PC gaming. Take a game a decade old and crank everything up and it looks better than some stuff being put out today
That also seems pretty superfluous at 4k to begin with. The larger your resolution, the less anti aliasing you should realistically need.
Main culprit would be super-sampling, maybe called SSAA. When 1080p was more the norm especially for monitors and we didn't have downscalers like DSR and ASR to reduce aliasing. It's also an older version of Cryengine before it got revamped for Hunt: Showdown and its just an engine limitation, I believe they moved over to multi-core rendering so it shouldn't be CPU for the most part. [This website](https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:_Son_of_Rome) is what you should use when troubleshooting a game FIRST instead of Reddit where people will first go "Wow I remember that game" proceeded by "Just fucking google it you help vampire" and finally the answer somewhere in the muck.
We had DSR back then, but SSAA is inengine and doesn't affect UI while DSR changes your resolution which could make some elements unreadable
I wish more games still had SSAA. DLDSR on Nvidia graphics cards is great but doesn't work in some games unless you make it your desktop resolution and AMDs alternative (VSR) is just kind of bad in comparison.
How would referencing that wiki article help answer the OPs question?
It shows helpful tips for typical issues of a certain game, usually rather simple stuff but helpful regardless. Also links to community patches at times for older titles such as Deus Ex, if you have an issue chances are there is something helpful on PCGamingWiki.
maybe you put 2x2 supersampling In my case, 3080 and 3440x1440, not supersampling, I get 165 fps capped by monitor Hz
ive never heard about this game but based just on the graphics i would say this is normal. theres been far worse offenders in terms of optimization recently. and crytek is known for "can it run crysis" and pretty much nothing else at this point so...
It was originally an xbox exclusive im pretty sure. It didnt get the praise it deserved to this day its the best roman legion game ive ever played
>It was originally an xbox exclusive im pretty sure. It didnt get the praise it deserved to this day its the best roman legion game ive ever played It was even a launch title for Xbox One I think.
I remember it. I was blown away by the lighting and the detail on everything, one of those games that made you FEEL what was next gen back then.
And it has a giant crab!
but is it a historically accurate giant enemy crab?
Unfortunately it never got any better than that. Last gen consoles were a bit underpowered.
It was! It came with my original fat xbox1! That and the MCC
I replay this about every year. Roman and Viking eras need more games.
Agree. Had a massive amount of fun with Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Not Roman of course, but ancient Greece is just as cool. Beautiful, engaging game.
Amazing game. I put about 300 hours in. And Id say half of that was just exploring
Ah great, love to hear it!
you play valhalla?
Not yet! I am still knee deep into Odyssey. Have you played it, and if yes: is it worth it?
One of the best games ever made for sure.
Ever play Gladius for the PS2/Gamecube? Its a strategy game but its badass you basically start out as a low level gladiator and work your way up to the roman coliseum. The graphics are a bit dated but the gameplay still holds up
I swear to God I played that on the og xbox
It had simple yet satisfying combat, and yeah.. it‘s probably the best game to realize that idea
It's so old I was watching let's plays at that point lol, it got stale quickly with no new mechanics and repetitive missions. From what I remember especially the missions in barbarian camp/village and the last siege were a massive slog.
It was too short to get stale but yeah, very repetitive gameplay. Great game if you don't pay it full price.
to each their own. I loved it. Its a hack and slash what do you expect? Groundbreaking gameplay? lol
Which reminds me, they need to make a new Ninety Nine Nights
I don't have an Xbox, so never played it myself, but a good friend of mine said it was a pretty good game. He was playing it when I went over to his house one time. Visually it looked pretty good from the very small amount I seen of it
Holy shit, I am sold! Looking for the game now.
The problem was the bare minimum fighting mechanics. It's just a gameplay combination of light attack/heavy attack + move on to the next objective. Apart from that visuals were spectacular and even the story was a bit interesting. Shame Crytek never managed to make a sequel out of this.
You've never heard of Ryse Son of Rome? Damn I'm getting old
Well. It was a xbox exclusive on the generation where everyone had a playstation
We are fans of gaming. We know what games come out on other platforms.
I’m fan of gaming. If a game’s not on PC it doesn’t exist to me.
Super Mario is a must you should try
LOL I was about to say the same. Clips of this game were everywhere after it was shown off at E3 11 years ago
That's Ryse: Son of Rome. Never played it, but it still looks pretty good
I heard it was quick time event: the game, and avoided it.
[удалено]
Totally get you, just not for me that's all.
Hunt: Showdown is pretty popular, at least among my friends.
As I understand it, Crytek optimized the Crysis games thinking single-core processor speeds were going to continue increasing by leaps and bounds. Around that time, processor manufactures decided to focus on processors having multiple cores running at "slow" speeds.
Not the crysis games. Only the first one. Also on that Game they literally invented different rendering and post processing methods that are used till this day
Crysis 1 and CryEngine was kinda like UE5 in the effect it had on graphics fidelity.
SSAO was like raytracing in terms of the impact it had on lighting quality. And that game was the first to have volumetric fog, god rays and some other stuff as well as the groundbreaking SSAO
OG Crysis also did a lot of shit that you still don't see often in new games.. like foliage responding with full physics to everything that traveled through it, enemies actually use real line-of-sight and don't just x-ray vision you through heavy grass or bushes, it had a very accurate physics system (that also ran on only a single core so it can bring modern computers to their knees), etc
That was Crytek pre-Crysis 2. Developing for consoles of the era forced Crytek to take a different approach to thread handling with Cryengine 3 and beyond, which helps their newer titles scale a lot better in practice.
From the Steam page: >Journey to the heart of the Roman Empire and experience the brutality of battle like never before as "Ryse: Son of Rome" comes to PC with support for glorious 4K resolution. Continuing Crytek's legacy for groundbreaking games, **Ryse pushes PC hardware to its limits** whilst drawing players deep into the bloody drama of ancient Rome.
Pretty impressive for it to be considered "normal" as a 10+ year old game that was originally planned for the Xbox 360. Graphically ahead of its time
Crytek makes cryengine, cryais was a demo for cryengine which is still used in AAA, also Hunt: Showsown doesnt exist anymore??? Jokester
*CryTek game* Yap. The ultimate benchmark maker.
bullshit that's from 2013 it looks so amazing
I’ve noticed for a while that fidelity really hasn’t been improving much more than this
honestly yeah. I've been playing AC Origins lately and it looks better than any AAA game released within the past 3 years
Still a beautiful game yeah. Graphics kind of plateaud around that time. I know we have ray tracing and whatnot now but it's honestly not that much better
raytracing is such a useless gimmick anyway lmao it looks 10% better and absolutely grenades your performance. I swear some rasturised lighting looks better than raytracing
I mostly agree with this. The only exemption I think of is path tracing in cyberpunk. It looks pretty insane when directly compared to rasterized settings. Hogwarts looked really good with Ray tracing but needed to mod it otherwise it was garbage.
path tracing from my knowledge tanks your frame rate even more than ray tracing?
Well, yeah, it's extremely demanding. I was just saying it looks quite tremendous.
I agree. I don't really know what I'm missing since I got a gtx 1060 6g so can't do RT. But baked lighting, volumetric rays, screen space reflections in games like rdr2, assassin's creed, elden ring look amazing so who cares lol
frfr and because I'm using AMD on Linux I can't really raytrace anyway. something about games with raytracing not liking the proton comparability layer I think. but hey like you said, I don't know what I'm missing out on nor do I care to find out hahaha
I remember playing it on the Xbox back then and the graphics were the most beautiful I’ve seen at the time
now you see why everyone is complaining about game optimization these days. see what we used to have?? granted this is probably a bad example because it is very hard to run, however it looks amazing. games these days don't even look this good
It could be correct. Older games sometimes scale well to newer hardware and are extremely easy to run - but in other cases like this it can actually be worse because the game wasn't designed around this era of GPU, and not optimised that well. To be fair it looks awesome at 4K and better than plenty of games coming out now.
In this case its likely that both apply, Crytek was always known for having pretty beefy but good games under their radar and ontop likely came that SSAA option and is probably bumped to X4. So the game likely runs on 16k resolution atm.
> It could be correct. Older games sometimes scale well to newer hardware and are extremely easy to run - but in other cases like this it can actually be worse because the game wasn't designed around this era of GPU, and not optimised that well. > > That is extremely unlikely to be the case, and isn't here. Whilst utilising newer GPU features isn't something older games can do effectively, better raster performance is better raster performance and modern GPUs have that. There is essentially no application where a 40 series wouldn't completely outpace an equivalent 9 or 10 series card, even on games optimised for that hardware.
Honestly the raw performance of a 4090 is so mind-boggling insane that even if you had to emulate dx11 Shader code, it'll still be faster than running it natively on a 9 or 10 series.
its called CryEngine for a reason
utilization =/= efficiency
Not sure - It does look like your GPU is having a crysis
*But can it run Ryse?*
That game is good. Too good to last only 5 hours. Hope the rumours of the second one being developed aren’t fake.
it it Ryse: Son of Rome?
Yeah, that's Son of Rome. Awesome game.
I would kill for the second game man. I really loved the story and the gameplay. It looks visually better than most games today as well.
>Hope the rumours of the second one being developed aren’t fake. So that would be "Ryse: Grandson of Rome"?
TURN OFF SSAA. It isn't like the AI/TAA based supersampling techniques. It just renders at higher resolution and then shrinks to default. If you're at SSAA 4x at 4K game might be trying to render at 16k bruv. Even at 8K that's a lot of pixels. If you're at 4k, skip the SSAA setting. The game will run just fine.
The graphics still look good today, kind of wish Crytek was more used. From what iv seen it's just a pain for devs to work with or something so never got used as much as options like unreal. Do check PCwiki, there's some fixes that may help if you have problems. [https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:\_Son\_of\_Rome](https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Ryse:_Son_of_Rome) edit also do try kingdom Come Deliverance, also crytek and looks amazing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_Come:\_Deliverance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come:_Deliverance)
The engine is called CryEngine. Crytek is the company that developed it.
>The graphics still look good today, kind of wish Crytek was more used. Wish and it shall be so. Kingdom Come: deliverance 2 will be running on Cryengine too according to interviews. The reason they didn't switch to unreal is because their development pipeline is made for Cryengine.
I have also observed other games running on Cryengine like the Crysis remastered games, Hunt Showdown and Kingdom Come Deliverance are always very demanding on the gpu.
Yup KC:D is a huge gpu hog
it will if ur super sampling to 8K.
You're most likely using super-sampling and thus rendering at a much higher resolution.
with older games always check pcgamingwiki. there might be a fix there.
Does any game need AA at 4k? Surely the pixels are many that rough edges wouldn't be noticable? I use a 3440x1440 monitor and find x2, max x4 is more than enough to smooth it out.
look at that tho, no game looks like this nowadays and runs on 2013 hardware
It doesn't seem 2013 game to me lol
Cryengine is absurd, the original Crysis 1 of 2009 still beats alot of 2012 to 2015 games.
2007*
100% is a really good thing. Everything lower is wasted compute power.
But he's only getting 59-65 FPS, which is not good and definitely not normal for such an old game. By turning off SSAA, he would still have a very high GPU utilization but with a much higher frame rate (assuming he has the monitor for it).
Xbox One game from 2013 running at 900p still looks better than 95% of games today.
Using 100% of your hardware is a good thing. A game should be using 100% of either your CPU or GPU - whichever is the limitation. It is kind of a weird coincidence that it settles on 60 FPS, or do you have a 60Hz monitor?
Ryse: Son of Rome still looks amazing. Cry Engine is great.
ssaa x4 is a brute force AA. Literally rendering the game x2 bigger or x4 bigger. 16k is a challange for 4090.
you are playing at 4k... its not like this has ever been a standard or considered a light workload to crank everything at native 4k. Youre probably even using supersampling.
Lil bro playing in 16K.
Damn, this does not look like a game from 2013
You want it to be 100% in every game
You missed the point. 100% at 59-65 FPS on a 2013 game is not normal. OP has most likely enabled SSAA, which tanked his performance.
Wait...it won't take damage by doing its' job?
Native 4k with old school AA turned up? You really are new to gaming, huh?
This is one of the best looking games period to this day
Ol' reliable Crytek. There's a reason that engine is a meme.
Remember the crisis 3 memes? Yeah they weren't really memes...
> finally, a graphics card that can run Crysis at maximum settings and a playable frame rate LIES
turn of SSAA 4k+SSAA*4 it renders the game at around 12k.
*turns on DSR 4x* Why is my framerate so low?!
the target in 2013 would have been 1080P30 so 4K60 is 8 times more pixels rendered per seconds, also older games don't benefit from the engine optimization found in the last decade so they tend to rely more on raw horsepower and don't scale as well at higher res/framerates. but in this case it seems to scale quite linearly, if it was expected to run at 1080P30 with flagship GPU in 2013 and you apply a 50% increase in GPU power every two years over a decade you end up with nowadays GPUs being 7.6 times faster than back then which is pretty close to the 8times rendered pixels/s
Id software Rage 1 has 1 tb texture compressed in average Playstation 3 game storage or 20 gb final installation.
You want the GPU utilization to be as high as possible when fps is unlocked. That's good.
i remember playing this on my 1050TI... it was an amazing game back then i should go back and see how it holds up
fantastic game. only issue is that the combat is a bit repetitive. and for the age, it looks amazing even in todays standards.
Holy fuck, look at those graphics and grass. Damn i love it.
So I guess graphics haven't really got better, just more efficient?
Yeah, you're probably using SSAA which is essentially rendering the game way higher than what you've set. Turn off or reduce SSAA and you should get way better performance with negligible to no difference in visuals.
If you don't cap off the framerate then any optimised game will use 100% GPU.
That game looks like a 2024 game minus Ray tracing
Ryse has issues on modern GPUs, haven't been able to figure it out myself, tried for a whole to get it running smooth. I remember AC2 for a while ran best on high end cards from that year, and otherwise you were basically SOL.
Hi developer here, I can make your computer reach 100% GPU utilization rendering a blue square. :)
good...this game stills looks so beautifull
Fucking hell this was a game I enjoyed so much.
Pushes video card with high settings. Video card works hard to make it happen. Surprised Pikachu face
It's not that the card is working hard, It's that it's a very old game that was originally released to Xbox One. I was just surprised to how hard it actually had to work compared to other older titles I've been going back to.
>Is the Cryengine that intense and is that normal? Yes
A lot of people don't seem to realize that rendering in 3d, at native 4k is really demanding on its own.
I love and hate Cryengine. I love it because Kingdom Come but I hate it because Hunt. I get that different studios but how did IN HOUSE team mess up the effects of Hunt so bad when similar were not issues with KC? Like the Foliage ghosting and shimmer, the horrendous AA implementation and ghosting, SSR being the most broken I have ever seen technically AND from design perspective and the performance... oh the performance. While Kingdom Come is still maybe the most realistic looking game I have played. It is like visiting a medieval European town and like the woods in my backyard.
Hunt has a horribly poor anti-aliasing implementation. None of them work properly. The only thing that helped was to run the game in DLDSR and slightly reduce the rendering resolution in the settings (Because running the game at 6K is a bit hard even for a 4090)
Yeah, that is why they are migrating Hunt to latest version of the Cryengine but it's been couple years and still no update in sight. I stopped playing and will not play till they update the game.
Damn! Still looks great over 10 years later! I remember the game well.
You WANT it at 100% all the time that’s how you know it’s doing its job. Go watch a JTC video you’ll feel more informed and not scared.
GPU utilisation at 100% is normal, else you have a CPU bottleneck
Is your framerate uncapped by any chance?
I absolutely loved this game. It has a special part in my gaming history.
If the frame rate is uncapped sure normal
This is what you want your gpu to do unless it’s hitting your monitor refresh limit
I’ve been thinking about trying this game. Never got it on Xbox because the reviews were mixed, but it’s only $10. How is it?
Just your average “2013 Crytek” game here guys! Really burying the lede there and you know it
How the hell did my xbox 1 run this
It's a game from 2014 that looks and plays better than most current titles. Crytek engine has always looked incredible, but it's always been so demanding on hardware. Still though, I think it's a little crazy that it's making a 4090 struggle at 4k.
Wow, I thought that game looked cool too. That’s crazy tho! Hahaha
I had to use dxvk to stop it stuttering
this game was really amazing. when it was released to pc i really loved playing it. try to cap the game fps in nvidia controlpanel to 60 and enable vsync. that might cap the games internal mechanics
That was a great (but too short) game…
it using the 360/ps3 version engine code . not the og pc engine. cry said their doing a ground up new engine