Thats because although Warhead is more streamlined it enables more effects at a given level.
Warhead 'gamer' has more effects enabled then Crysis 'high' and 'enthusiast' has more things enabled then 'very high'
Its a funny old thing
CryENGINE 3
- Thread starter Kanyamagufa
- Start date
Thats because although Warhead is more streamlined it enables more effects at a given level.
Warhead 'gamer' has more effects enabled then Crysis 'high' and 'enthusiast' has more things enabled then 'very high'
Its a funny old thing
Question is, would a 7800GTX run CE3 better then the consoles? My guess would be yes
I think that is sig worthy if you are saying a PC with 512MB of memory and a 7800GTX GPU and whatever CPU you want to toss in there is going to out perform the consoles at the same graphical fidelity (or look better at the same framerate).
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Heh, I'd REALLY be suprised if CE2 would even run well on a PC with only 512 megs of memory. Even running a stripped down versioin of XP.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
If the 512 MB was just SRAM and there was still another VRAM pool of 256 MB or so, it would probably be pretty easy, but these consoles are basically like dealing with 256 MB give or take of VRAM with 256 MB of SRAM. To the smart people here:
Does Crysis store textures and game data on system RAM in a compressed or de-compressed format? Since it will use more than 1 GB of RAM I assume it isn't but I would be interested to know as I assume that CE3 console games would have to use texture compression before writing to VRAM (please clear my logic up if it's wrong) with such limited memory space.
Textures are always compressed these days with DXTC. It saves on RAM and bandwidth. Not using 4:1 compression would result in 2GBs VRAM with 4x the bandwidth, say 100 GBs versus 25 GBs, needed to achieve the same results as a 512 MB graphics system.
He has a point though, cause there's a lot of research nowadays on further compressing textures with some jpg-like algorithm that is decompressed on the fly to some cache direct as DXTx before using the texture.
So, imagine this pipeline:
1) stream texture in main memory in compressed form
2) decompress texture to DXTx in video memory (or equivalent)
3) use texture
There are two texture pools here, one for streaming and one for decompression.
This idea also helps a lot on reducing streaming bandwidth, DVD usage, main memory footprint. There are also other advantages, if you imagine that not the entire texture is always used, so the "empty" areas can just be filled with some constant color that further helps compression.
Some of these ideas have been used in Fable 2 for example.
Oh, so Mobius1aic meant image-compressed in RAM? There was talk on this board of this on PS3 in the early days, using Cell to decompress JPG2000 images and pass the results to the GPU. That's an option if you have 'spare' CPU cycles, but if you're doing that on consoles, it'll likely be a win for PC too unless you have an excess of RAM. Or putting it another way, if you used that system on Fable 2, would you throw it out and use uncompressed textures on Fable 2 for PC? What would be the RAM requirement increase and how much perceptible difference would there be in image quality using uncompressed textures?
I don't think I would go that route on PC, simply to avoid the complication involved in such a system (it's one more indirection and it's source of bugs).
Unfortunately on console memory is the main issue most of the time and I often would rather spend some cycles in order to save memory than something else.
The quality loss is usually minimal, and compression can be set by an artist to priortise important textures where you probably want to spend more memory.
This setup will be definitively restricted by the platform API (D3D in the case, in conjunction with the OS) and the driver overhead. RSX, even as a cut down derivative, has much more clean environment and less overhead to work with, in the face of its PS3 platform, to squeeze more of the hardware.Question is, would a 7800GTX run CE3 better then the consoles? My guess would be yes
That's because the variables controlled by the ingame settings are flat out terribly designed. While using the 'gamer' setting across the board seems like the reasonable thing to assume for a consistent experience on a medium-high end system, you can get a much better looking game at a higher framerate with a little bit of tweaking. You can increase the framerate by almost 50% with an effectively zero visual difference simply by dropping object detail and shadows down to mainstream and disabling texture streaming in the console. You can use that performance differential to increase every other setting to it's maximum and still have a higher framerate than you started out with.
I've often seen complaints about the engine being badly optimized when it's actually the game itself that's the problem. My modest 4850 handles the game quite nicely with everything but object detail, shadows and post-processing (medium/medium/high, respectively) set to 'enthusiast' at 1680x1050. Throwing in a couple of tweaks, like the disabling of texture streaming and enabling color-grading, will pretty much give a maxed out looking game at a much higher framerate.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Actually now that you put it that way...
A similarly configured PC would have to only have 256 megs of system memory with a 7800 GTX using only 256 megs of memory. I'd REALLY hate to even run XP on only 256 megs of memory.
I just can't see how anyone could argue that a PC is even remotely as capable of coming anywhere even close to console if using similar levels of hardware.
As someone stated earlier, you'd need a PC at the very least 2-4 times as powerful as a console to achieve the same results.
Regards,
SB
Actually now that you put it that way...
A similarly configured PC would have to only have 256 megs of system memory with a 7800 GTX using only 256 megs of memory. I'd REALLY hate to even run XP on only 256 megs of memory.
I just can't see how anyone could argue that a PC is even remotely as capable of coming anywhere even close to console if using similar levels of hardware.
As someone stated earlier, you'd need a PC at the very least 2-4 times as powerful as a console to achieve the same results.
Regards,
SB
No you dont, you just need game code thats aswel optomised as consoles have it.
AMD 5600+ X2
1gb of DDR2 RAM
Nvidia 9600GT
Cheap motherboard, cheap HDD
Cheap DVD Drive
Very Cheap PC, imagine what that would do if coded to metal like consoles are
Sure, but PCs do a lot more than just play games. We sort of need a "real" operating system and some other such "complications"
And yeah, the cost of abstraction (DirectX, arguably big OOO CPU cores, etc) shouldn't be understated. There's a big hit for having to support endless permutations of hardware and software.I think that's pretty hard to quantify, but in either case PC hardware is far more than 2-4x ahead of consoles, and this generation that was true even the day that the PS3 was released...
That said, if all you're doing is gaming, I don't think anyone can argue that a console gives you good bang for your buck.
No you dont, you just need game code thats aswel optomised as consoles have it.
AMD 5600+ X2
1gb of DDR2 RAM
Nvidia 9600GT
Cheap motherboard, cheap HDD
Cheap DVD Drive
Very Cheap PC, imagine what that would do if coded to metal like consoles are
That is exactly the point he is making.They cannot be coded to metal.
djskribbles
Legend
And BR movie watching. To build a HTPC capable of doing everything the PS3 does, you're probably looking at over $500, just for the tower and insides alone, and this wouldn't play games -- if you want it to play games, add another ~150 for a video card (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been following video cards for the last 2-3 years).Sure, but PCs do a lot more than just play games. We sort of need a "real" operating system and some other such "complications"
I think that's pretty hard to quantify, but in either case PC hardware is far more than 2-4x ahead of consoles, and this generation that was true even the day that the PS3 was released...
That said, if all you're doing is gaming, I don't think anyone can argue that a console gives you good bang for your buck.
A big chunk of that $500 comes from the soundcard alone (the ASUS HDAV1.3) which is the only soundcard capable of bitstreaming or decoding TrueHD/DTS HD MA.
Of course, not everyone cares about DTS MA/TrueHD, just saying. Serious HT buffs will definitely care (like me
).I do all of my gaming on console now. I haven't updated my PC in years (about 3-4). I realize that current gen consoles are dated, but there are still some good looking games coming out, and many are exclusive to console.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting, never considered a 7900GT/Opt185 combo to be near or better than 2-4x regarding mp games. And that should put a E6600/8800GT combo at 8-12x.
Well I think it is obvious looking at game tech aswell as possible resolutions, amount of AA and AF aswell as framerate. Just looking at a system like the one below. But I suspect some use GTAIV as an example or God forbid... Saints Row 2!
Thing is one could aswell use QuakeIV as an example or even CE3 vs the system below or even one with weaker capabilities!
AMD 5600+ X2
1gb of DDR2 RAM
Nvidia 9600GT
Cheap motherboard, cheap HDD
Cheap DVD Drive
Very Cheap PC, imagine what that would do if coded to metal like consoles are
Well ya but then even not down to metal it still is doing much better, techwise and visually for games and mp games that are decently ported. And there is the difference between CPU and GPU utilisation and requirements. Bad ports requiring lots of CPU power but fairly weak GPUs.
Though talking about CE3 I read about CE2 for Crysis Wars patch 1.4 implementing optimisations and there is a mod to play Crysis levels on that engine build.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheWretched
Regular
I mean, just look at games like Half Life 2, that run like cr*p on the PS3, but run decently fast on my 3 year old laptop (1.8Ghz Centrino, 2GB RAM, Mobility Radeon X700) at very high settings. But a game like GTA4 won't run at all on it.
It just depends on how much time the developers have to finalize the game.
It just depends on how much time the developers have to finalize the game.
Similar threads
