[green.pixel]

No comments on the analysis?

[egoless]

Waiting for analysis of a mid and high-end configuration of a PC available at the launch of the respective console systems, but now equipped with the latest drivers as a point of reference.

[Neb]

If anyone has such PC they could test it. Maybe I'll see how much a 7900GT and AMD 4200+ would struggle. However it would be interesting to do this with Crysis 2/CE.

[user542745831]

Originally Posted by m.fox

No comments on the analysis?

Seems like nobody replied, not even in the appropriate thread:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...09#post1365809

Originally Posted by Nebula

If anyone has such PC they could test it. Maybe I'll see how much a 7900GT and AMD 4200+ would struggle. However it would be interesting to do this with Crysis 2/CE.

And don't forget to raise the arms of the character model if you want to make it look even more like in the CryENGINE 3 videos .

[Neb]

Yeah I'll do it with raised arms to. However I would need to resort to the Opteron 185/7900GT system as the other AMD system has faulty RAM stick and 1GB of RAM just doesn't cut it for test.

[L. Scofield]

I don't see the poit of such an analysis when we don't have a measurement of all the optimization done for CryEngine 3.

[NRP]

I imagine the point is as always: platform superiority.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

I don't see the poit of such an analysis when we don't have a measurement of all the optimization done for CryEngine 3.

Yeah true. Would be better with CE3. Though what could be interesting is how such things as sunshafts, SSAO, colorgrading runs on a non-unified shader architeture vs unified. And then also see how much Cell + RSX or Xenos + Xenon achieves by being fixed platform and by being more flexible (DirectX limitations) and Cell helping out RSX.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by NRP

I imagine the point is as always: platform superiority.

Ohh such bitter reply, got nothing better?

[NRP]

I honestly couldn't care less, but I wish you guys would stick to the PC forums instead of loitering in the Console forums.

Don't you have anything better to do?

[Neb]

Was asked about it and thought it interesting aside from article as to see how the fixed API and pixel/vertex shaders fairs in such conditions. After all it revolves around the article which is mostly console centric so this thread seems the proper one. And yes I have something to do, that is talk about article/CE unlike you who seems to just talk about groups/persons completly OT.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by NRP

I imagine the point is as always: platform superiority.

I would expect a meaningful article to do a baseline (e.g. a comparable PC system to say a PS3) and begin, first, examining the differences in the *software* irrelevant to platform, and then begin to analyze the hardware from a relative starting point. Comparing a different software and different hardware awash in a lot words doesn't get anywhere substantial.

As an unfinished product I would expect a lot to change between now and release. Looking at unreleased code verses a commercial product makes for difficult comparisons. We aren't even sure what game they will be releasing at this point.

[L. Scofield]

"CryEngine 3 to lack anti-aliasing?"

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=14153

What are your thoughts on that?

[AlStrong]

MSAA is possible with light pre-pass rendering... whether or not they'll use it due to the nature of their SSGI (cutting it close to 33ms @ 720p) is another question... On PC, they'd probably require DX10.1 to avoid some hassles. *shrug*

[slapnutz]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

"CryEngine 3 to lack anti-aliasing?"

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=14153

What are your thoughts on that?

Isnt this somewhat fixed with dx10/10.1/11? (not that I know anything about this)

[jlippo]

Originally Posted by slapnutz

Isnt this somewhat fixed with dx10/10.1/11? (not that I know anything about this)

Lets just say that it is easier as you get access to the MSAA samples in buffers, but it still requires more work than it would with forward renderer.

Is there actually any news that cryengine will use DX10 at all, wouldn't it be better for them to just use DX11 and forget that DX10 ever existed?

[user542745831]

Originally Posted by jlippo

Is there actually any news that cryengine will use DX10 at all, wouldn't it be better for them to just use DX11 and forget that DX10 ever existed?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...ing-soon/News/

Cryengine 3: DirectX 11 API coming soon

[egoless]

Originally Posted by NRP

I honestly couldn't care less, but I wish you guys would stick to the PC forums instead of loitering in the Console forums.

Don't you have anything better to do?

If I'm included in that bunch, you've misunderstood.

Crytek's creations are used to represent the greatest achievements in innovation and pushing the PC platform forward. You've seen this most notably since the release of Crysis where every forum mentioning new graphics kit gets asked one question... "can it play Crysis".

PC gamers now cry foul because they say that consoles have ruined PC development. They like to pull out that derogatory term "consolitis" in regards to PC gaming. The mantra now is why do you need a high-end rig anymore when all gaming is tainted by consoles. They also like to say that any mid to high-end rig can play Crysis NOW.

The DF article does a lot to answer whether consoles have hindered or aided gaming development. It can also serve to answer value questions. I was merely seeking an extra step taken with the article to more fully answer those areas. It would be a great follow-up to the Xenos article here on Beyond3D.

Cross platform developers now mention DX10 targets when discussing console development. That's interesting because that says the capabilities of the consoles aren't as limiting as the hardline DX9 consolities crowd spews. There's also a unified shader architecture available here. Was that even available to PC at the launch of these consoles? And so on.

If I'd purchased a mid to high-end rig at the launch of the consoles, what do I get TODAY with that same rig in regards to CryENGINE 3. What features am I missing with respect to consoles. What features did I gain because of development on the console (such as performance improvements). With the raw data in a follow-up article, we could see the benefits of BOTH the console and the PC, and hopefully retire fallacies and those derogatory terms.

[green.pixel]

* I had to split post in two, looks like there's "images" limit in one post.

Originally Posted by egoless

Waiting for analysis of a mid and high-end configuration of a PC available at the launch of the respective console systems, but now equipped with the latest drivers as a point of reference.

That doesn't necessarily makes it a fair comparison because of couple of things:

1. The price of both consoles and mid/high-end PCs has come down a lot since launch of both consoles. You can't buy X360 at launch price anymore (well, you probably could somewhere, but that would make you an idiot ). Same goes for PS3, in some European countries at 2007 march launch it was something like 600-700 euros.

2. For the same price of mid/high-end PC in 2005/2006, you can buy much more powerful tech now OR the ~same perfomance for much less money - http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=3061

3. And why would someone want to compare consoles and PCs at their prices from 3/4 years ago, when present day matters most, right? IMO, the "fairest" and only way to do it is to compare both the "old" high-end and new at the same price (but that would be difficult due to inflation and all other factors), as well as other configurations, but that would be a lot of work.


Even then, they are different aproaches to both the tech side and business models, which affects everything. Personally, I would be very surprised that the PC version with all it's gabbage and bloat on its back with APIs, OS load etc., could acomplish the same perfomance/detail level as the console versions with 2005/2006 PC CPUs and GPUs, especially considering the drivers going the legacy route with profiles and perfomance tweaks for new games are pretty much non-extinct; and when C2 comes out, they will be even more outdated. Consoles are fixed tech, with much higher bandwith utilization (e.g., there are almost zero to very little gains in PC space moving from 10GB/s DDR2 to 20GB/s DDR3 in games apps, IIRC) and in general, better efficiency. Three years ago, Carmack said this:

power terms?

Very much so. While it’s true that right now you can buy a PC that’s probably twice as high-performance as a 360 or a PS3 - and the hype machine has blown that all out of proportion about how it’s some radically different thing – but basically, you’re getting a really high-end PC’s power in a several-hundred-dollar console box. But you can get effectively three times the performance if you’re targeting a fixed platform than if you’re targeting the PC space. And we saw that well with Doom III – the Xbox version looks pretty darn good, and it’s running off something that’s effectively a third of the power and memory of the typical PC that you would play Doom III on.

Are his perfomance numbers correct or he's blowing smoke?
I believe that it depends on game-by-game/engine basis, right?

Originally Posted by egoless

PC gamers now cry foul because they say that consoles have ruined PC development.

It's just that the development is slowed down, because PC can't handle AAA development on its own, except in few rare cases (Blizzard and Relic games, 'cause they don't have fan base on consoles and due to lack of proper controller device for their gamess), but that's a whole another issue.

http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6...il-2012-crytek

Games 'til 2012 will not look very different than [they do today], since engines are bound to console cycles."

But basically, that's because they can't make ROI on PC alone. The costs to make high-end PC game and profits are the biggest issues, not the consoles themelves. Is there something that could be done about it and how to actually change the current situation, has a big question mark all over it.

Originally Posted by egoless

The mantra now is why do you need a high-end rig anymore when all gaming is tainted by consoles.

Well, it's true for all mplt. games. If you want a "like-for-like" experince/same res & IQ/~30fps, that system is fairly cheap these days. 50$ CPU and ~80$ GPU can run almost everything at 1080p with AA too, with framerate being the same and often higher WRT X360/PS3 versions.

Originally Posted by egoless

They also like to say that any mid to high-end rig can play Crysis NOW.

Thats's true too. Just depends on what res/detail level/IQ/fps are you satisfied with.

Originally Posted by egoless

There's also a unified shader architecture available here.

Well, available to only one console.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by egoless

The DF article does a lot to answer whether consoles have hindered or aided gaming development.

If all the statements Crytek made about PC version benefitting from console optimizations are true, then they are aiding, that's for sure.


BUT, it could also be that the levels are more "closed" as opposed to their previous games. The gameplay could still of course be excellent, but without its vast open environments would lose its biggest gameplay differentiator. See couple of paraghs below.

Originally Posted by egoless

Cross platform developers now mention DX10 targets when discussing console development. That's interesting because that says the capabilities of the consoles aren't as limiting as the hardline DX9 consolities crowd spews.

True. Arwin wrote :

And here I am reading a presentation on DICE's Frostbite engine 1.x that supports PS3, 360 and DX10, and the 2.x engine their working on PS3, 360 and DX11. Now the interesting bit is that they mention things that they can do with the PS3 and 360, that they couldn't do on PC until DX10 allowed them to. It underlines a discussion we've had before - the consoles aren't tied to DX9 or whatever, they can be programmed on a much lower level than on PC and that has benefits that shouldn't be underestimated. In fact, they even give an example of something they could do on consoles but couldn't do on PC until DX11.

Can someone link to this presetation? Thanks.

Originally Posted by egoless

Was that even available to PC at the launch of these consoles?

True, it wasn't. But with mid-to-high-end GPUs and mainstream CPUs of the time, you could still play games of the time. For example, A64 3200+ and X1950XT/XTX/7900GT-GTO/GTX you could play a bunch of games at 1440x900/1680x1050, a fair number of them even at 1920x1200! While their console counterparts were/still are 720p/no AA/30fps. So while the tech inside of those GPUs and CPUs is less advanced compared to Xenos or Cell offloading a bunch of GPU stuff, they ran games fairly well.

Originally Posted by egoless

What features am I missing with respect to consoles. What features did I gain because of development on the console (such as performance improvements)

We can't measure that since we won't have the same game on different engines, e.g., Crysis on CE2 and CE3. Even moreso, the level design and game mechanics could be very different than their previous games, "levels and gameplay that do suit a cross-platform product", more "corridor-like".

Is it because of limited memory space they have to work with or something else? That would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Originally Posted by egoless

With the raw data in a follow-up article, we could see the benefits of BOTH the console and the PC, and hopefully retire fallacies and those derogatory terms.

Yeah, completely agree.


No need for nonsensical PC vs. console fights, as seen on other places in the tubes (). B3D is way above that level.

Regards.

[assen]

Originally Posted by m.fox

BUT, it could also be that the levels are more "closed" as opposed to their previous games. The gameplay could still of course be excellent, but without its vast open environments would lose its biggest gameplay differentiator.

What? No.

Open the first level of Crysis in the editor and look around it. It's a gameplay corridor surrounded by huge empty mountains with the occasional cliff mesh. Crysis is Crysis because of what's crammed in that gameplay corridor (and how it is rendered), not because of some vastness.

[green.pixel]

Yes, but you still have more options wrt to gameplay, as opposed to say CoD-like games, which are completely linear. So is Crysis, but in the second half od the game.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by assen

What? No.

Open the first level of Crysis in the editor and look around it. It's a gameplay corridor surrounded by huge empty mountains with the occasional cliff mesh. Crysis is Crysis because of what's crammed in that gameplay corridor (and how it is rendered), not because of some vastness.

You're speaking of the first level. Harbor and Onslaught are pretty darn big.

The later levels tend to play out as corridor shooters, which was a decision made by Crytek not based on technical limitations.

[liolio]

m.Fox you will find the presentation in my signature.

[green.pixel]

Yeah, saw it, thanks. Excellent thread btw.