[Gerry]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Carmack has stated you get roughly ~2X speedup by using fixed console hardware. Given a game like KZ2 running on essentially a 7800GTX, that seems about right to me. Heck, if not more considering it's all done on a measly 512MB RAM!

So 4X may be extreme, but "a little extra juice" hardly cuts it from the other direction either.

I distinctly remember Peter Molyneux making exactly the same guesstimate. A x2 benefit when using a fixed hardware platform.

[_phil_]

If someone is really playing in the background ,then big kudos for the loading/streaming.Even through a portal , loading is faster than light...

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Gerry

I distinctly remember Peter Molyneux making exactly the same guesstimate. A x2 benefit when using a fixed hardware platform.

Saying that though, it doesn't seem to bare out in reality.

I have a GTS 640 which is at best 2x faster than Xenos or RSX. So in theory I should be equaling the consoles graphics in cross platform ports but no more. In reality though I can play at higher settings / framerates in almost all cases.

For example 1360x768 with 16xCSAA and 16xAF are the bare minimum for any console port I run that supports AA. And usually they come with enhanced graphics as well.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Fran

Man, it's like asking what the Romans were playing at when they invented the War Charriot; they could have invented directly a modern Tank

Fair enough, I hear what your saying there but we are still taking one hefty performance increase from one iteration of the engine to the next if we are talking a true match of Crysis V.High visuals on the consoles. Assuming creativity and smart asset creation are factors that would have been equally present in the development of Crysis's visuals and granting the 2x performance increase for a fixed platform, we are still talking about CE3 being twice as fast at a given level of visual output compared to CE2.

Or in other words, if Crysis were remade on CE3 for the PC it should be playable at maximum graphics on my GTS 640. Sounds like quite a tall order but kudos if they pulled it off.

It would of course be far and away the best graphical achievment to date on a console. And multi platform at that!

[Rangers]

The new-ish gametrailers vids. interview with cryengine apparantly being played on 360 in the background, are extremely impressive, especially in HD
pt1
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47412.html

pt2

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47411.html

[SlmDnk]

@Rangers

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...68#post1282668

[almighty]

Originally Posted by Fran

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

So as PJB said, what happened with CE2 then?

And can i use AF with POM in CE3? Thats one thing that the engine NEEDS to be able to do, all those gorgeous textures spoilt by no filtering

And as i said, the consoles might match CE2 in places but they wont in loads of others, fixed platforms or not, they just dont have the raw power

I merely base this on what i have seen in videos and screenshots and so far IMO its CE2 PC >>> CE3 Consoles by a long way

[Neb]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

If that were the case then no offense Fran but what the hell were Crytek playing at with CE2?

Since a 4870 is pretty much a minimum to get smooth framerates at very high in Crysis even at console resolutions, that would mean you need a GPU with around 4 times the raw power of a console GPU simply to produce the same results?

Squeezing a little extra juice out of a fixed platform is to be expected but 4x the performance of the equivilent PC setup? That to me suggests exremely poor use of the PC setup.

Looking at the techdemo cutbacks, bad framerate, 10hz shadow update rate(?) and no gameplay logic running really makes it something!

Not that I heared/read the same in other occasions and never seen the result nor will I unless they talk about constrained levels/corridor gaming type!

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Carmack has stated you get roughly ~2X speedup by using fixed console hardware. Given a game like KZ2 running on essentially a 7800GTX, that seems about right to me. Heck, if not more considering it's all done on a measly 512MB RAM!

So 4X may be extreme, but "a little extra juice" hardly cuts it from the other direction either.

I doubt that, maybe some special functions vs DX9. Becouse I dont see 2x the fillrate perfomance etc. Every single multiplatform game bar some titles runs equal or better on a 7900GT/Opteron 185 with same/better settings and same res. A Core2duo and a 8800GTS (old type) does far more, that tells something.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by Nebula

I doubt that, maybe some special functions vs DX9. Becouse I dont see 2x the fillrate perfomance etc. Every single multiplatform game bar some titles runs equal or better on a 7900GT/Opteron 185 with same/better settings and same res. A Core2duo and a 8800GTS (old type) does far more, that tells something.

The point in fixed hardware is that you can optimize every last drop of performance out of your code due the fact that you know exactly what it will be running on, you tailor it for that specific product.
On PC field however, it has to run on too wide variety of different hardware&software combinations to do such optimizations.

[almighty]

Check out this comparison, CE3 Consoles gets hammered by CE2 PC at High settings from what ive just seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO...114&feature=iv

So can all this crazy talk of CE3 Consoles matching or beating CE2 PC stop now?

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

The point in fixed hardware is that you can optimize every last drop of performance out of your code due the fact that you know exactly what it will be running on, you tailor it for that specific product.
On PC field however, it has to run on too wide variety of different hardware&software combinations to do such optimizations.

Indeed fixed hardware will net you more perfomance but a 2x figure is laughable considering proof available. Sure some things perhaps but others not. You just dont get 2x fillrate perfomance, VRAM throughoutput, etc unless it is in comparision to a badly optimised games results. Optimisations some might say, sure but that often includes cutbacks which could aswell be present on PC but not preffered due to "flaw" visibility in high resolutions. And then that the x1900xt/7900 has much higher VRAM bandwidth, 2xROPs... +/- for the architectures.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by almighty

Check out this comparison, CE3 Consoles gets hammered by CE2 PC at High settings from what ive just seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO...114&feature=iv

So can all this crazy talk of CE3 Consoles matching or beating CE2 PC stop now?

He isn't even using a custom TOD which the CE3 demo is using. IMo Crysis had flat-neutral TODs that didn't really showcase the games detail/lighting as it could. Imagine if Crysis would have shipped with these TODs at very high settings, and of course same perfomance since TOD tweaks are basically free..

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=682


Though I thought first why the slow perfomance for PC demonstration but then I read FRAPS...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by almighty

Check out this comparison, CE3 Consoles gets hammered by CE2 PC at High settings from what ive just seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO...114&feature=iv

So can all this crazy talk of CE3 Consoles matching or beating CE2 PC stop now?

Okay, but let's frame this discussion into the proper perspective: CE3 isn't done yet. While I also don't believe either CE2 has been beaten already nor will it be throughly beaten by CE3_console, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Nebula

He isn't even using a custom TOD which the CE3 demo is using. IMo Crysis had flat-neutral TODs that didn't really showcase the games detail/lighting as it could. Imagine if Crysis would have shipped with these TODs at very high settings, and of course same perfomance since TOD tweaks are basically free..

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=682


Though I thought first why the slow perfomance for PC demonstration but then I read FRAPS...

Good god those are amazing! I agree that they definitely didn't put enough love into Crysis TODs. Warhead was much better but there's still room for improvement, in my opinion. I think if they can up the quality further from the GDC vids and keep improving the TODs, then they might get something that looks better up close compared to Crysis. I'm sure that it'll still be beat when comparing them technically though (poly count, draw dist, textures, post proccessing and shader effects, etc...).

[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by Gerry

I distinctly remember Peter Molyneux making exactly the same guesstimate. A x2 benefit when using a fixed hardware platform.

I can see where they could get that from developing Doom 3 and the original Fable comparing NV2A to another great chip of that era 9800 XT, since it was the recommended card for Doom 3 on PC by Carmack, however it runs Doom 3 at higher resolution and at high settings with good framerate. I must say that Doom 3 and Fable did look great but 2x graphics just because of fixed hardware? BS, pure BS. Considering the 8600GT is in the same realm of capability as the Xenos and the RSX, and renders many of the same games that are multi-platform with the same graphics fidelity, that's a stupid assumption to make. Gears of War PC and Unreal Tournament III are good examples of this. If that was the case then we'd have some very very lazy developers on our hands who lack either the talent or drive to make proper PC ports.

[AlStrong]

OT stuff removed folks... if you'd like a new thread about PC <-> Console ports & "equivalent" specs, please PM.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by almighty

Check out this comparison, CE3 Consoles gets hammered by CE2 PC at High settings from what ive just seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO...114&feature=iv

So can all this crazy talk of CE3 Consoles matching or beating CE2 PC stop now?

Weird, the very high settings actually look worse (or not much better) to me in many cases than high, despite the i7-GT295 having 5X the power of the budget 8800gt. It's like 5% improvement at best.

The main reason Cryengine 3 cant match 2 is RAM. The PC's have 8-10X as much, at the least. (thats assuming a low budget PC with only 4GB RAM+1Gb card, most PC's today have at least 8GB)

[Acert93]

Just a side comment, but all the PC CE2 > CE3 Console chatter is really lost in the details of hardware. The only really relevent discussion is will CE3 on the PS3 look better than CE2 on a 7800GTX PC. This would give us some insight to the theory that a closed box can outperform a PC. CE2 is very, vey scalable and checking off every feature on a brand new 2009 GPU at some ungodly resolution doesn't say much about CE2. Heck, when Crysis 2 launch games really, really suffered trying to even run it with decent features enabled.

On CE3 on the consoles if they can get their framerate up, a compelling MP mode (really, really important guys!!), and want to take the whole sandbox thing to the consoles (ala Far Cry... but offer more play modes, features, etc) they could make a huge splash. The game already looks good from a technical standpoint compared to most console games. it is all about delivering content now. But if the framerate cannot hit a stable rate that could be a big issue.

EDIT: If that is console gameplay going on behind him, well, it looks like they have done an excellent job of getting it running on the consoles.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

Just a side comment, but all the PC CE2 > CE3 Console chatter is really lost in the details of hardware. The only really relevent discussion is will CE3 on the PS3 look better than CE2 on a 7800GTX PC. This would give us some insight to the theory that a closed box can outperform a PC. CE2 is very, vey scalable and checking off every feature on a brand new 2009 GPU at some ungodly resolution doesn't say much about CE2. Heck, when Crysis 2 launch games really, really suffered trying to even run it with decent features enabled.

On CE3 on the consoles if they can get their framerate up, a compelling MP mode (really, really important guys!!), and want to take the whole sandbox thing to the consoles (ala Far Cry... but offer more play modes, features, etc) they could make a huge splash. The game already looks good from a technical standpoint compared to most console games. it is all about delivering content now. But if the framerate cannot hit a stable rate that could be a big issue.

EDIT: If that is console gameplay going on behind him, well, it looks like they have done an excellent job of getting it running on the consoles.

How can a closed box not outperform a PC of the same specs? That would be downright illogical. Theres no debate about that. Good luck finding PC of 512MB RAM though..

Also even the PS3 versus 7800GTX isnt entirely fair..PS3 can use Cell to help..in a way that PC CPU's are not used..also RSX isnt even as powerful as a 7800GTX in some ways..(rops, memory bus etc). But you have to look at things in general terms imo.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by Rangers

How can a closed box not outperform a PC of the same specs? That would be downright illogical. Theres no debate about that. Good luck finding PC of 512MB RAM though..

I think you will find that some posters here have argued that the difference is nominal.

Also even the PS3 versus 7800GTX isnt entirely fair..PS3 can use Cell to help..in a way that PC CPU's are not used..also RSX isnt even as powerful as a 7800GTX in some ways..(rops, memory bus etc). But you have to look at things in general terms imo.

I was going to point out that there is give and take, i.e. RSX isn't even up to snuff compared to a 7800GTX (not just rops and memory bus, but frequency, memory footprint, available bandwidth, and so on). And Cell can help... but Cell giveth, and Cell taketh away. The number of multiplatform titles that struggle is an indication that this isn't a sure thing.

But then again that would just go to prove the point that closed boxes get more efficient return.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

I think you will find that some posters here have argued that the difference is nominal.

Any of them programmers?

[almighty]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

The only really relevent discussion is will CE3 on the PS3 look better than CE2 on a 7800GTX PC. This would give us some insight to the theory that a closed box can outperform a PC.

I had a 7900GTX and that managed a mixture og medium and high at ~720p

And also that question is unfair, of course the console are gonna out perform CE2 on PC with a 7800GTX because its a different engine.

Question is, would a 7800GTX run CE3 better then the consoles? My guess would be yes

[slapnutz]

Originally Posted by Rangers

The new-ish gametrailers vids. interview with cryengine apparantly being played on 360 in the background, are extremely impressive, especially in HD
pt1
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47412.html

pt2

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47411.html

Must say that does "feel" more impressive to me than the initial trailer. Dunno why, maybe because I know its running on a console... maybe the framerate seems smoother too?

[GuestLV]

thats assuming a low budget PC with only 4GB RAM+1Gb card, most PC's today have at least 8GB

most PC today use winXP