Could PS3 and X360 manage the Crytec 2 engine ?

Guesses and that you are bound by a NDA so you can´t really share the truths of the RSX. Obviously something is going on that we don´t know or haven´t been told. Something was added to what "we" think was a Nvidia "PC" chip that raised the performance in the PS3. What is actually known about the extras that isn´t covered NDA?

 

So you are saying that the 7900GTX wouldn't be vertex processing limited in a game like ratchet and clank then.

How can you proclaim to know so much about GPU usage but clearly absolutely nothing about CPU usage? There is no PC game in existance that is CPU bound (i.e. could not maintain an average 30fps) on even a mid range core 2 duo. Most aren't even CPU bound on half decent P4's.

If a midrange CPU can happily feed the GPU fast enough in a game like Crysis or UT3 with 63 AI bots then R&C would be no challenge whatsoever.

Can you point to anything that R&C is doing above and beyond every game on the PC that would make it too much for a PC CPU to handle?

 

If R&C was a PC game then yes..

You obviously haven't played most modern RTS games... Not to mention the fact that most modern games utilise multi-threading which, without the parrallelism of a multi-core CPU, you're going to be VERY CPU limited.. If this weren't true we'd all be using 8800GTXs with Pentium 1s..

If it could.. But it can't..

Massive amounts of vertex processing, massive amounts of animation data processing for both actors, NPCs & the hundreds of mobile objects constantly moving around in the background, physics, AI, massive amounts of collision processing, multi-channel high-quality audio..

Do I really need to go any further?

 

Well a single-core A64 3200+ (2GHz) manages 15 bots on high difficulty at atleast 30fps. I expect a mid-end dual-core to handle far more than twice the amount.

You must be joking!

 

This goes back to the arguement of whether or not one could consider a dual-core PC CPU "mid-range"..

Also consider my last paragraph in the previous post.. Even a dual-core PC part will struggle dealing with the sheer volume of work the Cell is crunching through in a first-party heavily-SPE-optimised title such as R&C..

If pjliverpool's arguement was against a game like Ninja Gaiden Sigma then I'd probably be more inclined to accept it but as it stands, the arguement is just plain wrong..

Fact of the matter remains that R&C (in it's current form) could not run on a mid-range PC, period..

 

Dual-core CPU's are even present in low-end PC's for sale. Dual-core CPU cost less than 100$. I think it is safe to call them no more than mid-end!

Most likely some things will have the PC CPU sweat but other parts not. We are after all not talking about stunning physics, AI, and hundreds of non scripted objects/events in the background. How advanced calculations?

But yes a mid-end PC might struggle with some parts of it.

 

Enough to be able to deliver cutting edge graphics, features and gameplay features (AI, physics etc)!

 

This is painful.

It doesn't matter how many polygons an 8800 GTX can push compared to a PS3 as any game currently running on that 8800 GTX has to be able to scale down to run on something far less powerful (and with far less assistance available from the CPU).

Resolution is another issue. Yes, PC games can run at crazy resolutions. A PC game that strugggled to manage 30fps at 1024 x 600 on a 7900 GTX or x1900 XT probably wouldn't be too well recieved by most people, and with the possible exception of Crysis on high detail I've not seen much of this yet.

The BASELINE for PC games is still WAY lower than for systems like the Xbox 360 and PC which is why exclusive console titles can show off in areas where PC games can't.

 

I don't know what's happening inside R&C, what I do know is the fact about 5% usage.
And if the usage gets to 20% most of games run slow like hell, do you know what is the cause for this behavior? I do.

Careful.

How do you know that? Why do you think that 30fps is GPU bound?

How do you measure "CPU-boundness"? Are you considering the fact that DX runtime is running on CPU and not on GPU?

Crysis is so heavily CPU bound that I've lost my faith in PC programmers...

Lots of dynamic geometry, I suppose, I don't know much about R&C tech.

 

Maybe he talk about RSX performance count with FlexIO(20 /15GB/sec) and without this acess:

Only with GDDR3 20.8GB/sec -> near geforce 7600GT
GDDR3 + Flexio (despite latencies +saved with more internal cache RSX etc...) -> Geforce 7800GT

 

But not enough to use even 20% of GPU power.

 

Oh dear, another topic for the PC fanboys to be shouting at Crysis pics and using that as evidence to what ever they're trying to prove. I really am not seeing much substance in this thread.

*thumbs up*

I'm out.

 

Agreed.. This thread deserves a lock..

 

I just tryed crysis demo on my old pc wich is an athlon xp 2600+ @2.17, 1gb ddr 400, 160gb sata HD and a G-force 7300gt 512 mb ddr2.

The game is running well enough with all settings at minimum at 800x600 resolution.
So i guess this might say alot about how a much more powerful hardware like xbox 360 is able to run crysis engine.

Just so you know i cant run Oblivion on this pc with settings in max will give me like 5 fps per second or 10 on open spaces.

Hope this helps someone to have an idea how it could run on xbox 360 and ps3

 

http://www.crytek.com/technology/cryengine-2/specifications.html

Next Generation Real-Time Renderer

Our renderer provides seamless support for both indoor and outdoor environments on DirectX9 and 10, as well as support for next generation consoles such as the Xbox360 and PS3 (under development).

 

psorcerer was clearly saying that this game doesn't max out the RSX's vertex capaibility just as no game maxes out the vertex capability of the 7900 in the PC space.

I'm not for one moment saying thats true. I was merely highlighting the fact that he was stating pretty much the exact opposite to yourself. In fact I would be inclined to believe what you said over him, that The G7x series is quite vertex limited in "next gen" games.

No RTS game is severly CPU limited in terms of being unplayable. Sure the CPU may limit their performance but not to the point of being unplayable on a decent dual core. Besides, why on Earth would you use the example of an RTS when comparing against a platform game. The two are so different its not even funny. The very fact that you had to single out that genre to provide an example makes that obvious. Can you name any platform/action games on PC that are CPU limited to the point of being unplayable on a mid range dual core?

Regadring your comment about mutli threading. Very few games currently show significant (to the point of being unplayable on a single core while playable on a dual) improvements when going 1 to 2 cores. That includes all the 360/PS3 ports. More cores is obviously better but I see nothing at all in R&C that makes me think even a single core couldn;t handle it just fine.

Funny, then I guess I must be dreaming when i'm playing Crysis on my E6600 then? Crysis is GPU limited, not CPU even with physics set to very high. I can play at medium details/very high physics at well over 40fps.

Yes, much further if you want me to believe that any of that is beyond what Crysis or UT3 are doing. Shifty made the argument the other day, perhaps in this very thread that if you want to present claims as facts, i.e. the fact that a PC CPU can't handle R&C then you need to provide some solid evidence. Actual performance characteristics compared to the limits of a PC CPU would be a good start. The simple fact that other games which have just as much or more going on are already running fine on the PC puts serious doubt on that claim.

 

The Core2 range doesn't even come in single core form to my knowledge. So unless Intel populated its mid range and low end with discontinued products then its safe to say that both of those catagories fall under dual core these days. In fact I would argue quad core is coming into the mid range now aswell.

Also consider my last paragraph in the previous post.. Even a dual-core PC part will struggle dealing with the sheer volume of work the Cell is crunching through in a first-party heavily-SPE-optimised title such as R&C..[/quote]

But how do you know what Cell is doing? Or for that matter if its better than an x86 for those workloads. Graphics work, sure it will tear that apart compared to an x86. But AI, phsyics? Not so clear, it would depend on how well optimised for the SPE's the game is and neither of us know that.

Again, there is nothing visibile in R&C that looks beyond anything thats already being done on the PC so why couldn't a PC CPU handle it?

Hey, all i'm asking is for you to provide some evidence for that rather than assumptions which don;t seem to tally with real world results from other games.

Again, depends how you define mid range. IMO a mid range gaming PC purchased today is at least an E6700 + HD3850 with 2GB of RAM. All of those components together probably come in at around the cost of a PS3 so hardly high end prices.

For the purpose of this argument though we're defining the GPU as a 7900GTX, the RAM as 1GB and the CPU as a very modest midrange dual core. Say an E6400 or equivilent AX2.

 

But thats not really true. Look at any cross platform game on PC and 360 (or PS3 for that matter). 9 times out of 10 the PC version sports graphical improvements. This isn't in second tier console games. This is in the top, best looking console games available like Bioshock, Gears of War, UT3, COD4 etc...

PC games scale which is why PC games don't come out looking like they were designed for a GF4MX.

A perfect example of why what your saying is wrong is Crysis. At max its the best looking game available bar none but scale it down to its lowest settings and it will run on 3 year old hardware no problem at all.

Besides, what you say isn't related to the current conversational thread which is whether a mid range PC could run R&C. Whether PC devs have to target games at low end hardware or not has no baring on that.

 

If you look at the stats Valve picks up you'd see that an average mid range PC is still a single core 2.3Ghz to 2.6Ghz with 1Gb ram. And the graphics cards have taken a bit of a leap with the 7600 being about average now.

 

Good for you. The fact of the matter is that Archangelmorph is saying the G7x series is severely vertex limited in modern games. Your saying its the exact opposite. And funnily enough its both in support of the PC being unable to run R&C. Perhaps you need to have a seperate talk with him.

How do I know that? Show me one! Show me a benchmark of a game that can't reach playable settings regardless of the GPU its using, on a midrange Core2. I.e. I want to see a game that can't exceed 30fps (25fps if its an RTS) even with an 8800Ultra SLI system at 720p were the CPU is only a mid range one.

I measure it by looking at how the game scales with faster graphics hardware. If you add more graphics power and the framerate stays the same then the game is CPU limited. If the framerate goes up then its not. If that CPU limited framerate is is below 25-30fps then the game is CPU limited to the point of being unplayable. My point is that no such game exists were the CPU is at least a mid range dual core.

Err, so your saying that adding more GPU power in Crysis makes no difference?

As opposed to Crysis? Or HL2:Ep2 for that matter. Or CoH?