Is deferred lighting more GPU hungry than RT?

Is it heavier than real time rendering? Is it more light than Crysis 1's light rendering technique?


EDIT : typo at title, I mean lighting*

 

I think that's the thing Crytek is using in CE3 for consoles(maybe pc), it seems to look better though. Not sure if it needs more resources or not.

 

If you're comparing Deferred Rendering to Forward Rendering, then there's pros and cons to both, which I won't get into for the time being. However, Deferred Rendering is much lighter on the system under certain circumstances.

Deferred shading and rendering are much better for having multiple light sources that aren't as intensive as they can be less expensive on the GPU resources. This is why Crysis 2 has more flashy dynamic lighting without taxing your GPU. Other examples of similarly cheaper lighting can be found in games like Dead Space, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and the critically acclaimed PS3 exclusive, Killzone 2, which is known for its flashy appearance that hides much of its weaker facets.

And the observations about Crysis 2's lighting being better are accurate. Even at low settings, the game looks bland, but the lighting is leaps ahead of what we had for even HIGH setting in the original Crysis. The original Crysis with its Forward Rendering really made some high-end hardware struggle under dynamic lighting. So yes, Deferred Rendering is a nice alternative, which is why it is being used on the consoles and certain PC titles.

 

So, 2 things :

1) One of the reasons why C2 runs better than C1 is for using Deferred instead of Forward lighting?

2) I guess the recommended specs in BF3 should be only a little higher tgan C2's?

 

Yes, one of the reasons why Crysis 2's 'Sun Shafts' alongside various smaller light sources -- as they call 'em -- don't impede the frame rates, is because of the use Deferred Shading. In the original Crysis, you had a very large primary source of dynamic lighting but very few additional sources; where you did have more sources, the game would slow down. CryEngine 3.0 uses a hybrid of the two techniques, which is why when it comes to lighting, our hardware doesn't struggle as much.

This is a bit more complicated. I mean, they're not the same game, and they're not doing the same thing on the same scale. What I can say is that if the creators of BF3 want lots of smaller dynamic light sources, then Deferred Shading or Rendering will make them less GPU hungry.

 

BF3 also uses deferred shading.

 

Great. Well if they're going to exploit a lot of flashy lighting with many dynamic sources then this technique should really help them produce a game that won't tax the hardware with the lighting aspect of its engine.

 

Phew... Glad we won't see Crysis again

 

So long as the laptop in my sig can run the game at least on low (it runs the original Crysis on medium), and my desktop can do medium/high, I'll be happy.

 

IMPOSSIBLE! I get stable 20-30 FPS on Crysis @ 1080p! With Very High on Textures, Objects, Sound; High on Shadows, Shaders, Physics, Volunetric Effects; Medium on Water; Low on Post Processing

How don't you get my frames... I have the same GPU... ._.

 

Probably because I value frame rate more than I value visual quality, I am usually above 45 at the settings I play at, and I think my minimum is around 32-35. Between 20 and 30 would not be playable for me.

 

Well... For you it might not be playable, but I tried a scene with lots of soldiers at 25 FPS... Pwnd them all

 

Well, my laptop ran the final mission of ArmA 2 at 20-25 fps, completely CPU-limited. I gave up and played on my desktop, which, even with an overclocked i5 750, didn't fare much better (30-35 fps, with dips into the high 20s).

Of course, handling a map of (iirc) 250 square miles, and doing the AI for every single unit on that map at all times will do that! And we still get stupid tank drivers that crash into each other.