CryENGINE 3

[Acert93]

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]

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

Any of them programmers?

 

[almighty]

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]

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

 

[Neb]

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

Well it would have to be CE3 engine vs CE3 engine for fairness on different platform. Atlhough CE2 could be used, the settings have to be customised to match the techdemo atleast as there is a lot more to render at distance in med-high and that affects perfomance greatly etc. An then see if shadow updaterate can be changed ~10hz as that would improve perfomance quite well to. Actually even getting it "1:1" will still have the CE2-PC do more work as I doubt shadows update rate can be changed.

 

[Neb]

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.

Well have you actually tried it for real?

Very high comes with object motionblur, increased draw distances, water with FFT, colorgrading, increased detail for mapping etc etc. Quite some changes from high that makes great visual difference.

 

[pjbliverpool]

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)

I really don't think that is the case at all. Crysis clearly craves GPU power and a system with a pair of 285's and only 2GB of RAM will slaughter a system with 8GB of RAM and a single GTX 260.

I'm not sure Crysis needs more than 2GB of RAM anyway.

BTW, 4GB RAM + 1GB GPU RAM is not low end. Thats pretty damn high end! And I don't think anyone has 8GB in their system. Although 6GB is becoming a high end standard.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Well have you actually tried it for real?

Very high comes with object motionblur, increased draw distances, water with FFT, colorgrading, increased detail for mapping etc etc. Quite some changes from high that makes great visual difference.

I must admit the difference didn't seem anywhere near as obvious as when I play the game myself. Perhaps it was a poor capture of the video?

It certainly didn't look worse in V.High to my eyes but I did have difficulty spotting it looking better in some places as well.

Obviously that doesn't reflect the playing experience though were V.High is a major step forward from high.

 

[pjbliverpool]

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?

It definatly looks very impressive in the interview video. But I would attribute a lot of that extra wow factor compared to the trailer simply to the fact that its an offscreen capture.

Off screen always looks more photorealistic IMO.

 

[green.pixel]

There is also UltraHigh aka "beyond VeryHigh".

 

[Neb]

There is also UltraHigh aka "beyond VeryHigh".

I am very familiar with that.

It definatly looks very impressive in the interview video. But I would attribute a lot of that extra wow factor compared to the trailer simply to the fact that its an offscreen capture.

Off screen always looks more photorealistic IMO.

Off screen almost always looks much better due to looking more life-like. Was the same story with pre-Crysis mp offscreen videos. With graphic settings of high but looked way beyond very high/non offscreen footage/video. Heck I remember a video which I thought was very high custom but in reality was medium! :S

 

[Neb]

I must admit the difference didn't seem anywhere near as obvious as when I play the game myself. Perhaps it was a poor capture of the video?

It certainly didn't look worse in V.High to my eyes but I did have difficulty spotting it looking better in some places as well.

Obviously that doesn't reflect the playing experience though were V.High is a major step forward from high.

Video doesn't show it well, looks almost like he got colorgrading for both settings. :S

Ingame on screen the difference is very clear for the better. Much better.

 

[FirewalkR]

What's color grading exactly, in the context of CE at least?

 

[Neb]

What's color grading exactly, in the context of CE at least?

Like an advanced color filter to give a certain tone to the scene and some other functions.

r_ColorGrading=1
r_ColorGradingDof=1
r_ColorGradingFilters=1
r_ColorGradingLevels=1
r_ColorGradingSelectiveColor=1

 

[FirewalkR]

Like an advanced color filter to give a certain tone to the scene and some other functions.

r_ColorGrading=1
r_ColorGradingDof=1
r_ColorGradingFilters=1
r_ColorGradingLevels=1
r_ColorGradingSelectiveColor=1

I shall investigate further, thanks.

 

[Solarus]

On another forum, some are saying that PS3 version doesn't have dynamic shadows, while the 360 version does (based on video with the console labels.) I'm sure they'll get it up and running right?

 

[AlNom]

On another forum, some are saying that PS3 version doesn't have dynamic shadows, while the 360 version does (based on video with the console labels.) I'm sure they'll get it up and running right?

The engine is still in development... And who knows what the next CE3 game will require..

 

[Solarus]

True, I didn't even notice it PS3 version didn't have dynamic shadows myself until someone pointed it out. Then I watched the video again and noticed no shadows at the beginning with the rotating logo bit.

 

[Rangers]

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

Maybe, with a powerful Core2Dou and 2GB+ RAM..

Considering I really cant run Warhead quite at all gamer (high) on my 9800GTX/Q6600/4GB at 1680X1050. It gets just about 25 FPS. Just slightly less than I'd like.

And I tried turning it down to 720P, because I considered playing it on my 720P HDTV, and it doesnt improve the performance a whole lot. IIRC I cant pull off enthusiast settings at 720P either, which disappointed me.

Then again, I see benchmarks of Crysis in the reviews that run much better, while Warhead benches line up with my experience. The thing is as far as I can tell Warhead despite everybody saying it was better optimized, is actually significantly slower than regular Crysis (which I dont own). It is a real beast.