Listen guys...you dont realize what kind of tech Crytek is preparing,there will be a scenes with 417,yes i said 417 light sources double the amount of KZ2...i have 2 pdfs for you guys,lightning and rendering,presentation by crytek...

http://www.crytek.com/filea...

http://www.vis.uni-stuttgar...

News are gonna disappoint you a bit,it actually renders frame faster on 360 and scene has double of triangles then UC2 ;)They noted a quality drop on "one" them to achieve comparable results...its ps3

if crysis 2 rusn at 20 fps on ps3 then it will run at 10 fps on x360

stupid bots the devs are talking about x360 limitations not ps3/pc

see ff13--576p on crap box 360

@shaman the garbage

thats for PC only

and also thats a tech showcase

UC2 had 80k poly on nathan's charcter and each car in GT5 has 500k poly as opposed to 150k poly on flopza3 (even when theres juts 8)

stupid bot stop posting BS

@shaman the idiot

nathan drake character in uc2 sported 80k poly

maybe a bot like u wont even believe that

just like 500k poly cars in GT5

sucks to be a BOT

u would be lucky to have crysis 2 runnning at 15 fps on crap box 3fixme

ps3 version excels everyhwere except pixel rendering

as for culling and poly count ps3 version will murder the crap box 360 version

It's regular ole bot humpfest in here. All the FF13 360 Failbox articles have you cornered

Dont know why disagrees...OH I know,open zone is reserved for sony fanboys...i gave you straight facts,but disagrees are kinda gluing to my posts :)

Sheik Nathan never seen 80k polys...are you fu*** crazy,you know how much is that?There is no point in spending those kind of polys on one character,btw its 32k to 37k,depands on clothes.Here is the link,he is actually working for ND as designer.ND used bump mapping great,thats why it seems like textures in general ar higher resolution while they are not just good use of bump mapping.

http://www.zbrushcentral.co...

And no,this is presentation from Crytek and they gave you console results and rendering frame,so please stop it,you dont know what you are saying delusional fanboy.

And here come the pc upgrades, let me know how spending alot of money to upgrade your pc works out for you. Unless of course you just recently purchased a high end pc that is. I'm sure the latest and greatest pc's far out do either home console, but most people do not have the very best pc's, most people have middle of the road pc's.

I applaud you Shaman but don't you know facts have no place here at N4G.com? Haven't you heard? It's unreasonable to assume you can reason with fanboys.

I know that lee but you know i think its nothing bad to be biased for your favorite but those kids are just plain ignorant.You have results from Crytek,360 and ps3 rendering frame with 2.3 million triangles thats 2 times more then UC2( http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

And for the same ol reason 360 renders it faster,why?GPU and more available gpu memory,next thing you hear from fanboys,they dont use spus,i mean they are part of developer team of crytek?They obviously dont know that spus are used by 3rd party for more then 2 yrs,its not like they are just sitting there and waiting,dumb kids...they got brainwashed this gen so much that some even claim cell>>>intel i7 processor,i mean i7 has more cache memory then ps3 has ram,but NOOO...

Shaman, on the papers you quote, you failed to read this:

"The injection and propagation stages are pretty similar in performance on both platforms. And the final LPV rendering stage is much faster on PlayStation 3 because we use half-resolution rendering mode with MSAA remapping trick."

You also missed this:

"This requires either
vertex texture fetches (used for DirectX 9/10, and Xbox 360), or
rendering to vertex buffer (faster on the PS3)."

They never say Xbox is better at anything in words; you also mind explaining why CryTek never complimented the Xbox 360 architecture as they did with the PS3? PS3 is overall better according to their numbers.

Sorry to disappoint you kid, but PS3 performs better for Crysis 2. I don't know what you were trying to prove with those technical papers which evidently you did not read (and you probably wouldn't understand them anyway), but you just owned yourself.

Yea, it's the DVD's limits that is making Crysis 2 limited. Thats why Crysis 1 on the PC was on....oh wait, one DVD.

Blu-ray (or ~47GB of space vs DVD's ~9GB of space)has NO EFFECT on graphics or screen resolution or texture resolution in a game. The only thing the amount of space would limit is HOW many levels/maps a game has (the detail in those levels is determined how much RAM a system has to load it, THAT has the impact on texture resolution and the size of a level). The main limiting factor for the smaller environments in console games is simply the processing power of the CPU/GPU and RAM.

Most of the people on N4G are retarded. Bluray has no effect on the "color" quality or allows a game to be 1080P. The video card is the MOST important factor in rendering resolution. A bluray movie is 1080P because its just a bunch of pictures, no rendering. A dvd can't hold a 1920x1080 2 hour long movie. Sure, you could have 1080P on DVD that looks the SAME as bluray. It will only be 15-25 minutes long though.

EDIT:

In case those who don't know:

http://www.flickr.com/photo...

BlackKnight, you've got it correct except for one thing. The texture resolution is effected by the size of the medium it is stored on. As you mentioned, ram plays a crucial part in level size, texture quality, amount of 3D meshes being shown on screen. The reason why? Well the higher quality a texture is, the more memory it takes up due to it being a larger file size. You can compress this texture and load it into the ram thus bypassing the dvd storage limitations however this only goes so far and the compression can cause some minor detail loss (normally not noticed by anyone but the most hardcore N4G BlueRay fans). Anyways, point being: Even when compressed, the higher res a texture is, the more space it will take up on the dvd/ blue ray. So a DVD can limit the amount of details in a game, however this is normally taken up by different content in a game, not how big a lvl is on the screen. That is determined, like you said, by the amount of polys a system can push and the amount of textures/ 3d meshes a system can load via ram/ vram. Now there are creative ways around this too though via streaming higher res textures into the game the closer you get to an object while replacing those same textures with low quality ones the further you get away from it. Games with confined places tend to look the best because developers can use more resources on special effects like lighting and physics.

Thus, yes the median the data is stored on can effect the look of a game or even the amount of content that the game has but not as much or in a lot of the ways most fanboys on this site would like you to believe. Is BlueRay needed? No. Does it benefit the people who choose to use it correctly? You bet your butt.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the limitation this company talks about are the same limitations any pc company has faced when making a game for pc and console at the same time. They do not have all the recourses a pc can offer. The graphics cards are not as powerful or do they contain the fast memory or as much memory as graphic cards do on pc. The amount of memory is far less than what is present on most computers. Imagine designing a game with a minimum requirement of 3gigs and then trying to bring that game to a console that only has 512 Mb. Not easy. Thus the limitations.

Yes, that is exactly what we've been trying to say. But try explaining that to the fanboys who seem to claim "Cell makes up for everything else the PS3 doesn't have".

I agree however the only way DVD will limit the quality of a texture is if the developer chooses to have so many levels that they must sacrifice the resolution of the textures (or uses even more compression)in each of the levels. And this is rarely done. Even games on PS3 have compressed textures but not because of bluray, its to benefit the the amount of RAM used. There are special texture compression formats that are used to not only reduce the amount of space on a disc (just slight benefit), but the MAIN benefit and intention was to reduce the memory footprint taken on the video memory of a video card; or in the case of consoles, the 512mb unified ram on the 360 or the 256mb video memory on the ps3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

And every level/map doesn't have to use all new textures. Character textures, vehicle textures, particle effects, skyboxes, etc are used over and over which is why with even 9 gigs you can still have a lot of content.

EDIT:

And its very true about the resources of a PC compared to consoles. Crysis doesn't actully use 3GB of memory when the box says it needs that much. Its just taking into account the OS as well. Another thing that people don't realize is that Crysis uses about 1-1.5GB of memory when running. But thats JUST system. People don't realize that PC video cards have DEDICATED video memory, ie RAM meant for just the video card. So Crysis needs 1-1.5GB of system memory AND a video card with 512mb-1GB depending on resolution and AA and texture resolution. The 360 has a unified memory setup, all 512 is system/video memory while the PS3 has 256 system and 256 video. I hear there is a way to use the system memory as video but it has some downsides. But you can see how actually tiny the resources are on a console compared to a PC

Nobody can disagree with that!

I felt so sorry for PC owners when I heard the news, I felt akin knowing how many multiplats have been gimped on PS3. Then I remember how they troll PS3 articles all the time and the pity disappeared!

Guys who are always trolling PS3 news and now a PC news article is here and where are these guys? Probably trolling GoW3 news saying crap like, "teh PC has teh bestest graphicz and teh Crysis destroyz teh GoW3!"

I'd prefare lower quality graphics and a better game, we have enough COD's

you guys need to stop comparing consoles to pc like that for one thing i have 4gb of ram but my operating system and basic back up programs alone tkae up 1 gig of ram and even when i run crysis it doesnt max out my ram so whats the point

the point is, how much is crysis taking up ram wise on your computer? 1.5gig? That's about 1gig more than what current consoles offer.

There may be no port, but they are taking the entire CONCEPT of Crysis and porting it to something that can work on consoles.
I can guarantee you, it won't be the same experience we're used to. It may be a great game, but no true Crysis.

I know this is a 3 day old post, but the above comment was just so STUPID that I have to do this...

"are you serious? lol.. just because your monitor has a full HD 1080p resolution doesnt mean the game is full 1080P, only that its upscaled to that resolution.. aka what the 360 does with there 640p games.. the console just up-scales them..

the game must be published graphically in 1080p for you to actually be playing it in full 1080p otherwise its only being up-scaled.."

PC games don't work like consoles. You set a resolution in the options, it runs at that resolution NATIVELY. There's no "coding" to be done. All PC games can run at ANY resolution. It only upscales if you have your game running at a lower resolution than your monitor, then the monitor upscales it to fill the screen.

"again with your 60FPS remarks.. if the game isnt published to run at that, your only up-scaling it.. which isnt actually that great of a difference because of the fact up-scaling barely does anything.. where as if a game is published and coded to run at 60fps then it would run better than your up-scaled game.."

This is one of the worst comments I have EVER seen posted here. First, there's no such thing as framerate upscaling, in fact I don't even think you know what 60 fps means. And hey don't code the game to run at a certain framerate on PC. THIS ISN'T A CONSOLE. There is no cap. It runs as fast as your graphics card can handle it, and caps at your monitor's refresh rate (most of the time 60hz, higher end monitors at 120hz, ect.)

"and yes pc's have more RAM, but the ps4 for instance has more powerful processors and 7 of them are useable.. so they can easy push processes onto them, and they can even do the same with the graphics cards data processes allowing it to push out more power in its colours etc."

.....I'm not even gonna bother anymore.

Guys come on now, you know actual hardware components are less important to graphical fidelity than storage format or some other console war claim.

Ya man I put a Blu-ray drive on my PC recently and I'm getting 10 fps faster on average in every game. Next upgrade is a 2 TB HD, should let me run Crysis/STALKER/Far Cry 2 all at once, I can just alt tab through each one. /sarcasm off

@4.2 I completely agree with you that the current gen consoles couldn't run Crysis 1, but I have to make some corrections to your comment.

You are dead on about the 360 it has a better GPU than the PS3, but the Cell is a much better processor than the 360's. However, the Cell is capable of running games without the use of the PS3's GPU. For example Uncharted 2 is running using supposedly 100% of the Cell, and barely touching the GPU (according to Naughty Dog's Developer diaries), so you can imagine that once a game uses both to 100% of the Cell and GPU then the difference between PS3 and 360 games will be even more apparent (Killzone 3 is supposedly that game).

But even with the Cell and GPU being maxed out I don't think the PS3 could run Crysis 1 at a playable framerate just because of the 512MB of RAM. So in the end both consoles are the blame for Crysis 2 not being as big as it was in the first game, but PC pirates are also the reason it's coming to consoles limiting the game in the first place.

Maybe next gen consoles will be able to keep up with PC's a little more.

It's not DVD. It's ram, cpu and gpu that will hold the game back.
You do realize that both Crysis and Crysis Warhead are on DVD right?
Don't believe everything Sony tells you. Blu ray is ok, but not a game changer.

*facepalm*

CPU's crunch numbers, GPU's draw pixels, textures, shaders. CPU's are single(getting better at multi threading now though) operational with high clocks to obtain this, GPU's are multitasking processors with lower clocks to obtain this. CPU's cannot process graphics well AT ALL, have you ever seen a CPU test on 3D Mark Vantage? There is a reason why Intel does not have a GPU because they do not have the tech, there is a reason why Nvidia does not have a CPU because they do not have the tech(Check out Fermi supercomputer to understand this). The Cell is not some amazing piece of do all tech from planet Xenos, its has silicon based transistors, on a die, just like everything else.

Bubbles to you, sir. One of the best comments I've seen today.

You do know that PC developers dont develop base on maximizing processing power right? You do know the biggest difference in PC-Console develepment is not the power but how the power that is there is used right? With that being said the average PC game doesnt use 2 cores to power the game while on consoles developers use the CPUs to compacity because that is their sole purpose to run the games not for huge O/S or running 5 different things at the same time + game. Also you do know that Crytek Engine however was created to take advantage up to 4 cores which is still weaker than the CELL by far (dont argue w/ it its fact). The CELL was CREATED to do jobs that the normal GPU can do its NOT A REGULAR PROCESSOR!. If it was then you be able to go to Intel's site and purchase a CELL for your comps instead of the i7/i5s. What the CELL does PC developers dont even use because they can just run their power from the extremely powerful GPUs which to them is just easier (not better). If you read the article and if you read previous interviews who KNOW about the crytek engine like umm... the CREATORS... u know they STATED the ps3 is capable of almost everything they want and the coding is identical to how they already been developing their engine. He clearly states that the 360 was the thing that gave them creative restrictiveness and not the ps3.

If you want put PCs on high pedestal know exactly how they actually work first w/ games.

God, why do I even try to explain things to technically inept people, try again man, GPU's have many many many many many more parallel(this is what games need) processing units than your cell. You speak how games are made, what all 5 of PS3's exclusives? Enjoy craptastic(and the terrible framerates) graphics that the cell isn't doing much for. You can bet on PS4 not having one, Sony won't make that mistake again.

Actually they typically DO design a game for a high end rig. But PC games have a GRAPHICS OPTION MENU where you can scale things back for less capable rigs. Your entire argument is invalid.

And the Cell is a 1 core processor with 6 SPEs. SPEs are similar to videocard cores in many ways. Its actually very fast but can only do some graphical computations, so it can only take SOME load off the GPU. The cell is WAY slower than a quad i5 in every aspect except for certain graphics/sound calculations that the SPE's can do.

I think you really need to understand the difference between what a "core" is and what an SPE is. Best way to describe the SPE's to a more "general purpose core" like the 1 PPC in the Cell or the 3 PPC's w/ SMT in the 360 is that an SPE can do certain calculations VERY fast, faster than the 360 cores and maybe some core i7 cores; but when it comes to the tasks that a CPU normal does like AI, physics, event handling, etc the SPEs are MUCH slower than the xbox and especially PC.

And if you could get a Cell processor for a desktop computer you would buy from IBM, not Intel. And there is another PC CPU maker called AMD in case you didn't know.

If you want to count SPE's as full "cpu cores" then thats like calling a nvidia 285 GTX video card a "240 core CPU". Or the 360 GPU a "48 core CPU".

The SPE's can definitely help take some load off a GPU, but only a small fraction. Its not the end all processor. It's actually quite dated, limited and slow compared to PCs, by far.

You talk like the ps3 has no GPU. The PS3 GPU is a very capable GPU. All PC games do is run higher res textures at a the same rate which if your running your thigns on a 1080p monitor you dont see much difference anyway. I never played a ps3 only game w/ bad frame rate and screen tearing so idk what games you own or play because the way you sound your gaming library only has Crysis in it and you must have like a quad core w/ the 500 dollars radeon 5870 because thats the only thing that can run the crap u speak of at that power which is more than the ps3 itself. How about you do us all a favor start menu Run -> dxdiag -> let us know ur comp specs silence means you dont have shyt and dont just go online looking for best pc specs u can find.

Edit: @ Black there is not setting on any pc game that lets u use more processing power than the game has been programmed to use. Settings are for your GPU. Any PC developer would tell u that Epic/Valve/ and ppl behind Crysis.

The PS3 has a very weak GPU. Very od tech. It was old when it landed in the PS3. The Cell is ok, but still not that fast. It certainly doesn't carry the GPU the way Sony thought it would.
You may say that exclusives look great. And sure they do. But that's it. Multiplats fall on their face every time when running on PS3. You can't say that about PC gaming. You can have your ~ 720p@30. I'll take my 1080p@60 all day long. : )
And yes, you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a monitor. More so than a Tv. I mean geeze, your what 2 feet away?

Ps3 has couple games at 1080p @ 60 fps and even more at 720 @ 60. And mutliplats are what multiplats could care less how they run because most of them I dont even buy and if I do buy a multiplat its because they have awesome GAMEPLAY which the PC has very little of. If you can tell me Crysis is as good as killzone gameplay wise then you can go talk. Ill take my better game over your higher resolutions any day and you dont need anything higehr than 40 frames in almost most games because the HUMAN EYE can see but so much its only when frames dip is when there is a problem.

Lol I didn't say it had no GPU, and I didn't say it was crap. I actually prefer Nvidia video cards over AMD.

I have a Intel Quad core 2 Q6600 OCed to 3.Ghz
4GB RAM
Gefore 8800GTX 768MB

Crysis 1 can run on high/high settings on a ~500 dollar PC at 720P with 2-4xAA and 4-8x AF at 30FPS. PC's not only run higher texture resolution and screen resolution but also have better texture filtering (which is GPU dependent) like 4-16x AF. Did you you Post Processing effects have resolutions indpendent of screen resolution, are precision? Those resolutions are higher on PC as well so you get better HDR and volumetric lighting and motion blur and DOF. You also get more particle effects and so on. I could go on but I will stop there for over-information sake.

I actually own over 100 PC games easy. Stalker series, all Half life games, CS, TF2, Deus Ex, Thief, BF series, Max Payne series, Giants, Splinter Cell series, Bioshock, Mirrors edge, Blade of darkness, Assassin's creed, Crysis and Crysis Warhead, Tribes series, Tomb Raider series, Monkey Island series.......thats off the top of my head. My fist PC I built had an old 25Mhz (thats .025Ghz) intel processor. I know what I am talking about and have plenty experience with gaming. I also own a 360 (and about 15 games, thats after just trading in 8 this last Sunday) and play on my friend's PS3 plenty. I plan on getting the PS3 slim very soon since going to my friends place to play it is pretty inconvenient.

Anyhow, yes, PC games have "sliders" or options for CPU side computation. Did you know particle effects physics is CPU side? Did you know how many sounds playing at once is affect by CPU? 3d sound positioning is also done on the CPU. So is non-interactive physics simulation meaning you can turn that off and it won't effect gameplay. Here are some examples of CPU options:

http://img143.imageshack.us...
Object Quality is part CPU (due to poly construction and destruction, thats why tessellation is cool since the CPU is not needed for it for GPUs that support it)
Physics Quality, Game Effects, Particle Effects, and Sound Quality all require work from the CPU, not just the GPU.

http://www.nextlevelgamer.c...

Hey look, multicore rendering option incase you don't have a multicore CPU...I also like how these are recommended low settings and the resolution is a near-720P resolution. (Don't get me wrong, 720P is pertty good looking with 2-4x AA for the consoles, just sayin)

Anyways, I'll take some screenshots from other games if you like when I am home. But I think its quite clear, you have little to no idea what you are talking about.

EDIT (I would do another reply but I am still new on N4G and hit my limit in this topic so this is my last reply)

Yes, I am saying that the "cell"/PS3 will run at much lower settings than the high settings on PC. Console CPUs are stripped of many things like branch prediction which is extremely useful for physics and AI. A core on one processor can be faster than another core on a different processor, while at the same time the former processor can be slower at a DIFFERENT kind of calculation! There aren't "CPU" calculations and just "GPU" calculations. There are THOUSANDS of types and there are cases where the cell will beat an i7 while a 360 CPU (Xenon? I forgot the name) will beat the cell at something else.

Core 2 architecture is actually quite similar to core ix architecture . You must realize that processors are faster and slower at DIFFERENT things. My processor will beat a cell in many aspects and the Cell will beat it in others (only a few, mainly graphical).

The source engine also can run on 1 core. Even then, there are options that effect CPU load and doesnt deal with using cores or not. PC CPUs also have different speeds (Ghz), cache sizes, bandwiths, instruction sets, etc.

Again, the cell is not weak, only in certain areas/calculations. You just can't seem to wrap your head around that. GPUs are processors specialized at graphics computation but suck at other calculations where the more common CPU excels much better. The cell can help do SOME scientific research but not all calculation types can be done on the cell at high speed.

And I agree when the cell and RSX used together well (um, duh) you get excellent results like kz2 and uc2 and gow3, etc. I think you are just buying into sony marketing terms WAY too much. Anyways, sorry, won't be able to respond any more in this topic!!! Bet you are happy! haha

your saying a ps3 cant run crysis in those same settings ?? And I clearly said that the game wont run on a higher setting than it was programmed for on the CPU side ya if u put particle affects higher but if the game was used to run that on 1 core only it will only use 1 core to render that and there are less than a handful of engines that are capable of that for PC games CryEngine and the UE3 are 2 to name the only 1s I know of.

Also you talk about all that for the physics the CELL pushes that and much more MUCH easier than any PC you can build w/o an i7/i5 and you have a quad core which is nothing close to an i7 unless its being overclocked. You know that researchers use the ps3 for the biggest processing projects EVER? DNA research etc..? There are countless research firms and even the governement who use ps3s to power their research and they wouldnt do it if it was as weak as you try state it is. And ya the RSX alone is not that strong but it was made w/ the CELL in mind to push together the things you need if you dont use them right you wont get good results the good and bad developers already said this.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...