Wednesday, November 13th 2019

Crytek Releases Hardware-Agnostic Raytracing Benchmark "Neon Noir"

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (56 Comments)
Crytek today released the final build for their hardware-agnostic raytracing benchmark. Dubbed Neon Noir, the benchmark had already been showcased in video form back in March 2019, but now it's finally available for download for all interested parties from the Crytek Marketplace. The benchmark currently doesn't support any low-level API such as Vulkan or DX 12, but support for those - and the expected performance improvements - will be implemented in the future.

Neon Noir has its raytracing chops added via an extension of CRYENGINE's SVOGI rendering tool that currently Crytek's games use, including Hunt: Showdown, which will make it easier for developers to explore raytracing implementations that don't require a particular hardware implementation (such as RTX). However, the developer has added that they will add hardware acceleration support in the future, which should only improve performance, and will not add any additional rendering features compared to those that can be achieved already. What are you waiting for? Just follow the link below.
System requirements:
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2500X CPU/Core i7-8700
  • AMD Vega 56 8 GB VRAM/NVIDIA GTX 1070 8 GB VRAM
  • 16 GB System Ram
  • Win 10 x64
  • DX11
Sources: Cryengine Marketplace Neon Noir, via Neon Noir

Related News

Add your own comment

56 Comments on Crytek Releases Hardware-Agnostic Raytracing Benchmark "Neon Noir"

#1
Omwe
P4-630What link?
Only see a youtube video...
The link is right below the video. Shows only on front page, though.
Posted on Reply
#2
fancucker
Many people clamour over the increased RTX line cost but people have to realize that the massive dies ate into manufacturing. In addition to the R&D of the first generation implementation. Plus the traditional rasterized Turing power still leads the market.

I am assuming AMDs low cost Navi 23/console version will be open sourced but very limited in terms of impact. Plus 7nm Ampere will scale up and sadly all but obliterate their initial response.
Posted on Reply
#3
ZoneDymo
Very cool, but question, what is Crytek making money from these days?
Posted on Reply
#4
TheoneandonlyMrK
fancuckerMany people clamour over the increased RTX line cost but people have to realize that the massive dies ate into manufacturing. In addition to the R&D of the first generation implementation. Plus the traditional rasterized Turing power still leads the market.

I am assuming AMDs low cost Navi 23/console version will be open sourced but very limited in terms of impact. Plus 7nm Ampere will scale up and sadly all but obliterate their initial response.
What are you on about, this has f all to do with Nvidia ,Rtx or any fanboi comments or battle.

A game engine maker ,Crytek has a demo that does ray's.

This is my tamest reply btw.

Navi 23 is way out there and irrelevant or trust I would say more on the shilly connection you just made between it and low cost, something it Won't be.

Assume this useless tat in a pm to yourself next time.
Posted on Reply
#5
kapone32
It is interesting that you need a Vega 56 to get into this. That means that anyone with a Polaris (more than Vega) will be SOL for this. Makes me wonder if the 5500s will come with Ray tracing support? I do have another question though. Will AMD use a software based ray tracing becuise I am confused that DX12 has Ray tracing support but this one seems to only support DX11?
Posted on Reply
#6
delshay
Why is the link to download kind of camouflage & so small. Where's my glasses.
Posted on Reply
#7
cucker tarlson
fancuckertraditional rasterized Turing power still leads the market.
5700xt: 2560 sp, 64 rop, 256-bit gddr6 at 1840mhz avg.

2070 super: 2560 cuda, 64 rop,256-bit gddr6 1880mhz avg.



there's 14% between them.that's still a lead,not a small one,but this is nothing once pricing is involved.nvidia offers better oc and rtx (plus other features,like nvenc and ulmb) and that's why they're staying ahead of 5700xt but considering only rasterized performance only at stock I'd say amd is better perf/price
Posted on Reply
#10
dirtyferret
cool...what would be cooler? Start making games again, re-boot Crysis without the stupid aliens.
Posted on Reply
#11
sutyi
delshayThat's better, you can clearly see an link to download.
...to donwload yet another launcher. Ehh.
Posted on Reply
#13
john_
I would love to see a solution that takes advantage of a second GPU and leaves the primary for graphics. This way we could see more value in integrated GPUs and also many will find a nice way to use mid range or older GPUs in their second PCIe x16 slot again. Now that SLI and CrossFire have been abandoned, it would have been nice to see other ways to utilise a secondary GPU instead of having to lower settings (because my sweet Nvidia and AMD, we are not going to spend hundreds of dollars more, because you hope so, we'll just lower settings and be happy with that).



P.S. That's something that Nvidia could have done in the past with their PhysX and other effects, but unfortunatelly they failed to see past their arrogance.
Posted on Reply
#14
bug
...explore raytracing implementations that don't require a particular hardware implementation (such as RTX)
Nice pirhouette there, pretending DXR doesn't exist ;)
Posted on Reply
#15
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
sutyi...to donwload yet another launcher. Ehh.
Just found this out too... I really want to bench my 1080Ti but a launcher for a benchmark?? No thanks. I'll wait till someone makes a portable version of the benchmark without me having to jump through a hoop for it.
Posted on Reply
#17
IceShroom
fancuckerMany people clamour over the increased RTX line cost but people have to realize that the massive dies ate into manufacturing. In addition to the R&D of the first generation implementation. Plus the traditional rasterized Turing power still leads the market.

I am assuming AMDs low cost Navi 23/console version will be open sourced but very limited in terms of impact. Plus 7nm Ampere will scale up and sadly all but obliterate their initial response.
Then why you guys were complaining about Vega prices. HBM was not cheap and was more expensive than TU104 die.
Posted on Reply
#18
biffzinker
The benchmark seems to run without the additional launcher.

Posted on Reply
#19
erixx
register for a download, how nice. Report back when it is an open distribution.
Posted on Reply
#20
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
biffzinkerThe benchmark seems to run without the additional launcher.

can you zip it up and upload to mega??
Posted on Reply
#21
biffzinker


I ran the benchmark at the below settings.



Stayed above 40 FPS (43.2) highest was above 60 FPS (63-66)
Posted on Reply
#22
Crowley
This benchmark had some very nice reflections going on.

On Ultra and 2K resolution, I was able to pull 7192 on the benchmark
Posted on Reply
#23
biffzinker
FreedomEclipsecan you zip it up and upload to mega??
Not likely since there is a "crytek.msi" installer that has to run. It's gone from the temp folder after the launcher ran the installer.
[2019/11/13 11:56:45] Installer exe started

[2019/11/13 11:56:45] No embedded config found

[2019/11/13 11:56:46] Msi extracted ok to path C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi (71766016 bytes)

[2019/11/13 11:56:46] Installing the msi file...

[2019/11/13 11:56:46] Transferring log file to installer engine...

=== Verbose logging started: 11/13/2019 11:56:46 Build type: SHIP UNICODE 5.00.10011.00 Calling process: D:\Downloads\ce-launcher.exe ===

MSI (c) (58:8C) [11:56:46:052]: Font created. Charset: Req=0, Ret=0, Font: Req=MS Shell Dlg, Ret=MS Shell Dlg


MSI (c) (58:8C) [11:56:46:052]: Font created. Charset: Req=0, Ret=0, Font: Req=MS Shell Dlg, Ret=MS Shell Dlg


MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:067]: Resetting cached policy values

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:067]: Machine policy value 'Debug' is 0

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:067]: ******* RunEngine:

******* Product: C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi

******* Action:

******* CommandLine: **********

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:083]: Machine policy value 'DisableUserInstalls' is 0

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:083]: Note: 1: 1402 2: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer 3: 2

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:083]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: Verifying package --> 'C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi' against software restriction policy

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:083]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi has a digital signature

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:242]: SOFTWARE RESTRICTION POLICY: C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi is permitted to run at the 'unrestricted' authorization level.

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:273]: Cloaking enabled.

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:273]: Attempting to enable all disabled privileges before calling Install on Server

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:273]: End dialog not enabled

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:273]: Original package ==> C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi

MSI (c) (58:4C) [11:56:46:273]: Package we're running from ==> C:\Users\*\AppData\Local\Temp\crytek.msi
Posted on Reply
#24
Jeager
FreedomEclipsecan you zip it up and upload to mega??
This
Posted on Reply
#25
londiste
RTX2080
RT Ultra:
- 1080p: 10071
- 1440p: 6495 (6803 with a small OC)
RT Very High:
- 1080p: 11959
- 1440p: 7818

Very high has obviously lower resolution, both have temporal artifacts (more noticeable at RT Very High).
What I assume is a cutoff point from RT to voxels seems to be closer at Very High as well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 05:46 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts