Yeah but Halo was a launch title so there were bound to be games that improved greatly on it. Halo 3 on the other hand is at least a second gen game on the 360 so significant improvements are unlikely IMO. Console graphics will get better, there is no doubt of that but at this stage we are talking marginal improvements IMO.
Could PS3 and X360 manage the Crytec 2 engine ?
- Thread starter !eVo!-X Ant UK
- Start date
- Status
Yeah but Halo was a launch title so there were bound to be games that improved greatly on it. Halo 3 on the other hand is at least a second gen game on the 360 so significant improvements are unlikely IMO. Console graphics will get better, there is no doubt of that but at this stage we are talking marginal improvements IMO.
Hazuki Ryu
Regular
I dont think all that much is needed "too be more appealing to the eye" than crysis.
Ofcourse it will never beat crysis in every way but doesnt need to do that to be more eye friendly, i think a game like resident evil could easily do that, and yes you are right about being a lunch title.
You can actually emulate 3Dc on any DXT5 compatible hardware as 3Dc is just two DXT5 alpha channels glued together. If your shader samples two identical sized DXT5 color textures (with the same texture coordinates) and doesn't need the alpha channels of them, you can store your normal vector to the both alpha channels (3Dc is a 2 channel format just like CxV8U8 or V8U8). This way the quality and needed space is exactly the same as with 3Dc. In some cases you might even save some performance, as you need to only sample 2 textures (DXT5*2) instead of 3 (DTX1*2+3Dc). However this hack complicates your texture management a bit and works only if you have two extra DXT5 alpha channels to spare.
Compression ratios (assuming 8 bit per component source precision):
R8G8B8 = 24 bits per pixel (baseline)
3Dc = 8 bits per pixel (3:1 compression)
CxV8U8 or V8U8 = 16 bits per pixel (3:2 compression)
3Dc results in half the size of 2 channel integer based "compression" methods.
2 x RGB color textures (without alpha) + compressed normal:
DTX5 + DTX5 = 16 bits per pixel
DXT1 + DXT1 + 3Dc = 16 bits per pixel
The double DXT5 alpha channel hack needs exactly the same space as real 3Dc (and the quality is identical too).
And anyone claiming the RSX closer to a 7900GTX tha a GT must be smoking strong stuff.
7900GTX 650+MHz, 50GB+/sec, 24/8 pixel/vertex, 16 rops
7900GT ~500+MHz, ~45GB+/sec, 24/8 pixel/vertex, 16 rops
RSX 500MHz, ~2*22.5GB/sec (~22.5GB/sec for VRAM) for whole system, 8 rops
Actually RSX specs are more near Geforce 7600 GT specs than Geforce 7800 GT specs. Comparing RSX specs to Geforce 8800 GTX specs doesn't make any sense (the raw performance difference is more than 4x in most cases).
Last edited by a moderator:
pjbliverpool are you in the right forums?? you defend the PC with such blindness and fanboyism, it seems that no matter what thread you post its always the SAME story with you "the PC is better, PC version is faster" WE DONT CARE, this is the CONSOLE section, cut the consoles some slack.
Id really like to see a 7800GTX equiped PC with 512mb of RAM handle Uncharted, or Racthet & Clank at the same quality/framerate as PS3.
Id really like to see a 7800GTX equiped PC with 512mb of RAM handle Uncharted, or Racthet & Clank at the same quality/framerate as PS3.
archangelmorph
Veteran
Lol, did I touch a nerve or something? If you have a reasonable argument against anything I have said then by all means, present it. But don't make childish accustations about my motives without at least making some attempt to mount a counter argument.
As for the rather pointless comment about the 7800GTX equiped PC. Why even make such a random statement? Never have I made any attempt to claim a PC's memory is directly comparable to that of a console. In fact if you had read my posts a little more carefully you would have realised I made the exact opposite statement earlier in the thread.
Now a 7900GTX coupled with a good CPU and a gig or so of RAM should have no problem handling a well ported version of R&C or uncharted at 720p with at least the same level of performance as the PS3.
archangelmorph
Veteran
Your PCs gonna be severely vertex limited which would be the deal breaker.. & without Cell to back you up on vertex processing (something no x86
core on the market could reasonably provide at acceptable performance levels) it's not going to happen pjliverpool..
Perhaps. It depends exactly how much they are using Cell to enhance RSX's vertex processing in this game. The 7900GTX has 30% more vertex processing power than RSX. If thats not enough to make up the difference then perhaps they would need to get a bit more agressive with the LOD but then they could scale up other areas to compensate. Higher res textures for example, or more pixel shader effects.
Overall it could certainly produce something very similar, give or take some effects as per each systems advantages.
You care to share the numbers for amount of gemometry used in those 2 games? Why need the CPU to do what the GPU can do eitherway?
fixed..
That fix won't work after all. You'd gonna add several hundreds of mega-bytes for Vista to that figure
That fix won't work after all. You'd gonna add several hundreds of mega-bytes for Vista to that figure
Isn't that the whole point? PC's do many, many more things than a console because they have an OS. Therefore to be equivilent you need a lot more memory to run that OS. Strip out the OS and what do you have? An Xbox!
Its neither a bad thing or a good thing, its simply a trade off. Want the functionality? Need more memory.
What can possibly make you think that Crysis, or any other PC game, uses at least 20% of this power?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's all down to the developers. Cevat said Crysis cannot be done on the consoles. Fran and nAo have implied that it most likely can.
The only certain disadvantage the consoles have is the amount of RAM. The consoles' cpus and gpus, given their low overhead and thin APIs, are most likely up to the challenge.
Personally, I have the feeling Crytek could do Crysis on the consoles if someone paid them enough money to do so. They are very talented.
The only certain disadvantage the consoles have is the amount of RAM. The consoles' cpus and gpus, given their low overhead and thin APIs, are most likely up to the challenge.
Personally, I have the feeling Crytek could do Crysis on the consoles if someone paid them enough money to do so. They are very talented.
Consoles dont?
If I understand you correctly, you just suggested that no game even requires the vertex processing power of a 7900GTX?
In which case your supporting my argument that a 7900GTX could handle R&C with no issues whatsoever. Yes?
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course they do.
But surely you didn't really fail to understand my point?
The OS on a console is extremely lightweight and focused on the specific tasks the console is designed to be able to perform.
How many apps can you download from the internet and run on your console in comparison to a regular PC? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?
If you want a console to be able to run the amount of software that your average Vista (or XP) powered PC can. Your going to need a real OS. And thats going to require memory.
djskribbles
Legend
this has been discussed to death here. the general consensus was that in most cases, RSX is comparable to a 7800GTX or 7900GT (some say 7800GTX 512MB) but sometimes would be comparable to a 7600GT.
If you open any new PC game in profiler, you'll see the first "strange" number: 95% of vertex block is idle.
If we are talking about PC - no, it could not.
You seem to forget that grfx card can not do anything that was not processed by CPU, placed in memory by CPU and pointed to by CPU on PC.
So it's more of the question: can a PC CPU feed the grfx card fast enough? And in most cases I've seen the answer is: NO.
And this is based on what?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
