After Playing Uncharted I Think Crysis Could Be Done On PS3

[QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

Different doesn't mean that it needs more power. They could make it work on the PC processor. There is nothing special about Uncharted, if ported properly to the PC my PC would max it and get better frames than the PS3. Graphics are more depandent on the GPU anyways and not the processor, calculations are more demanding on the processor. I don't like when uninformated people spread lies like you in threads.

[QUOTE="imapieceofwood"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

whocares9

define decent pc in $400 or less

Why $400?

[QUOTE="whocares9"]

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]Well I have played the demo and I must say this game is beautiful. I didn't think any game on PS3 this year would top Heavenly Sword in the graphics department but man was I wrong. Some of the little bushes on the ground actually move when you walk past them like in Crysis. TheAI is some of the best I have ever seenin a game theymove in such wide areas.I don't need to read any reviews for this game this game will be a day one purchase for me. Damn I'm glad I own a PS3. :D Back to CoD 4 now. 8)Polaris_choice

The thing is, have you played Crysis? I have both demos. Clearly Crysis is the better game in everyway thus far. I don't want to get into technical terms with you so I will just say that the PS3 can not pull off Crysis at high-very high settings at the demanding resolutions that HDTVs require.. /end

chances are you dont have both demos and probalby never played a PS3 the fact is the only thing the PS3 lacks to do a flawless version of Crysis is Ram( as said by the dev himself) and there is new streaming technologies being devleoped to cope with such issues.

You are wrong. First of I have just finished Ratchet and Clank so don't tell me I don't have a PS3. Crysis is not RAM, it is video card depandant. People see huge gains jumping from the 8800 GTS to a 8800 GT and yet no change when adding more ram. Crysis uses 768 mb of RAM out of my 2 gigs.

[QUOTE="whocares9"][QUOTE="imapieceofwood"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

define decent pc in $400 or less

Why $400?

Must suck to play a PS3 with no TV.

:|...............:lol:

Uncharted has open ended enviroments that are fully destructible? Didn't think so.Vandalvideo

It doesn't look as good either.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

whocares9

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

Different doesn't mean that it needs more power. They could make it work on the PC processor. There is nothing special about Uncharted, if ported properly to the PC my PC would max it and get better frames than the PS3. Graphics are more depandent on the GPU anyways and not the processor, calculations are more demanding on the processor. I don't like when uninformated people spread lies like you in threads.

You have absoutley no clue what your blabbering about. Do you actually take the time to read the trash you type? The PS3 as I said before uses a completely different architecture one in which the processor actually helps render the visuals. Uncharted has the best animation system in any game to date and yes thats a processor function the devs use the SPU's to calculate the animations not the GPU. Decent pc's got raped by Lost Planet. Hell the only singple GPU solution that runs it better then the 360 is a 8800gtx while top of the line DX9 cards got trashed. Now explain to me how a game like Uncharted that has far superior visualsin every conceviable way then a game like LP would have a chance in hell on running on your pc. It would most likely bring your rig to its knees as ive said before for the simple fact it uses " A COMPLETELY DIFFERNT ARCHITECTURE" if you dont now the signficance of that in game development dont even bother talking.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Uncharted has open ended enviroments that are fully destructible? Didn't think so.whocares9

It doesn't look as good either.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="whocares9"][QUOTE="imapieceofwood"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

whocares9

define decent pc in $400 or less

Why $400?

Must suck to play a PS3 with no TV.

So you include the price of the high end monitor that can actually show those superior resoltions that the pc offers in the price of your pc? Becaus last time I checked I could use my tv on my PS3,360 and my pc. And 5 years from now when newer pc tech and next gen consoles make your pc look like a Nintendo 64 my TV will still be fully useable .

Predicted console games that will have just as impressive graphics as CRYSIS:

RESIDENT EVIL 5
FINAL FANTASY XIII
ZONE OF THE ENDERS 3
GEARS OF WAR 2
Adrian_Cloud

But Crysis is physically incapable on consoles, so the only way those could match Crysis in Graphics would be through art-$tyle which is purely opinion. Therefore, allow me to rebut your opinion with my own opinion, NO.

From a technical standpoint, no console game can look as good as Crysis, and if you say a console game looks better, your basing it off of the art-$tyle meaning you could just as easily say Okami>Crysis. Since that statement cannot be proven, let's stick to the incontrovertible facts, you're wrong.

So you include the price of the high end monitor that can actually show those superior resoltions that the pc offers in the price of your pc? Becaus last time I checked I could use my tv on my PS3,360 and my pc. And 5 years from now when newer pc tech and next gen consoles make your pc look like a Nintendo 64 my TV will still be fully useable . Polaris_choice

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="whocares9"]

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]Well I have played the demo and I must say this game is beautiful. I didn't think any game on PS3 this year would top Heavenly Sword in the graphics department but man was I wrong. Some of the little bushes on the ground actually move when you walk past them like in Crysis. TheAI is some of the best I have ever seenin a game theymove in such wide areas.I don't need to read any reviews for this game this game will be a day one purchase for me. Damn I'm glad I own a PS3. :D Back to CoD 4 now. 8)whocares9

The thing is, have you played Crysis? I have both demos. Clearly Crysis is the better game in everyway thus far. I don't want to get into technical terms with you so I will just say that the PS3 can not pull off Crysis at high-very high settings at the demanding resolutions that HDTVs require.. /end

chances are you dont have both demos and probalby never played a PS3 the fact is the only thing the PS3 lacks to do a flawless version of Crysis is Ram( as said by the dev himself) and there is new streaming technologies being devleoped to cope with such issues.

You are wrong. First of I have just finished Ratchet and Clank so don't tell me I don't have a PS3. Crysis is not RAM, it is video card depandant. People see huge gains jumping from the 8800 GTS to a 8800 GT and yet no change when adding more ram. Crysis uses 768 mb of RAM out of my 2 gigs.

[QUOTE="Arsenal325"]if my pentium 4 pc with a geforce 7900gs can run crysis on mdeium.. im sure ps3 can run it the same if not on high3ggman

It's been said many times that the problem isn't really the videocard but the low ram capacity of the consoles.

Thank you, I don't know why people can't get this through their thick skulls. Crytek has stated a few times that the problem is not the power. Both the 360 and ps3 could do crysis with pretty impressive detail. The problem is they don't have the ram to handle the massive world with that kind of detail, it's simply not enough. 512mb even being more efficent in consoles does no good. Crysis struggles even under 1GB of ram, you need at least 1.5-2GB for smooth gameplay (GPU applys here as well)

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]So you include the price of the high end monitor that can actually show those superior resoltions that the pc offers in the price of your pc? Becaus last time I checked I could use my tv on my PS3,360 and my pc. And 5 years from now when newer pc tech and next gen consoles make your pc look like a Nintendo 64 my TV will still be fully useable . Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]Predicted console games that will have just as impressive graphics as CRYSIS:

RESIDENT EVIL 5
FINAL FANTASY XIII
ZONE OF THE ENDERS 3
GEARS OF WAR 2
agentfred

But Crysis is physically incapable on consoles, so the only way those could match Crysis in Graphics would be through art-$tyle which is purely opinion. Therefore, allow me to rebut your opinion with my own opinion, NO.

From a technical standpoint, no console game can look as good as Crysis, and if you say a console game looks better, your basing it off of the art-$tyle meaning you could just as easily say Okami>Crysis. Since that statement cannot be proven, let's stick to the incontrovertible facts, you're wrong.

Technically some games out do Crysis, in terms of size of the maps, the amount of players online. HL2 has great physics, i have yet to play Crysis but does it surpass HL2's?
I could easily say a game looks better than Crysis, without basing it off art$tyle Just because a game is technically more impressive doesn't mean another game can't look better.

Example, GT5 probably has no damage but it still looks better than Forza which technically more impressive because of its physics and damage.

[QUOTE="3ggman"]

[QUOTE="Arsenal325"]if my pentium 4 pc with a geforce 7900gs can run crysis on mdeium.. im sure ps3 can run it the same if not on highInnovazero2000

It's been said many times that the problem isn't really the videocard but the low ram capacity of the consoles.

Thank you, I don't know why people can't get this through their thick skulls. Crytek has stated a few times that the problem is not the power. Both the 360 and ps3 could do crysis with pretty impressive detail. The problem is they don't have the ram to handle the massive world with that kind of detail, it's simply not enough. 512mb even being more efficent in consoles does no good. Crysis struggles even under 1GB of ram, you need at least 1.5-2GB for smooth gameplay (GPU applys here as well)

if you even want to touch the high level graphics you need to have 512MB of VRAM which is PURE TEXTURE RAM. NONE of that RAM is getting touched by OS or anything else. JUST for the level of detail in the textures you need 512 MB of VRAM. That means consoles would have to have lower Res textures or significiantly lower textures. then, you have the additional 1.5GB of RAM minimum for the physics, AI, sheer number of objects, level size and destructibility. It's seriously a stretch to fit maps taht large on a console...

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"] What does that have to do with my post? Im simply saying I dont count the viewing display in the price of any gamign platform as it is used over agian. And I have a 1080p tv most high end game sget raped at 1920x1080 good luck on playin Crysis at taht res and a smooth framerate. Vandalvideo

No you could not build a rig on the same level of the PS3 for 600 or even 700$ im sorry its simply not happening . Even high end DX9 cards are starting to struggle on multipalts and that differnce is going to widen even greater as devs learn to better use the console hardware and neglect cheaper DX9 cards in favor of more expensive DX10 cards.

Are you serious? Drake's Fortune doesn't even come close to the detail level in Crysis, not to mention the draw distance.OremLK

it would require some significant downgrades.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"] What does that have to do with my post? Im simply saying I dont count the viewing display in the price of any gamign platform as it is used over agian. And I have a 1080p tv most high end game sget raped at 1920x1080 good luck on playin Crysis at taht res and a smooth framerate. Polaris_choice

No you could not build a rig on the same level of the PS3 for 600 or even 700$ im sorry its simply not happening . Even high end DX9 cards are starting to struggle on multipalts and that differnce is going to widen even greater as devs learn to better use the console hardware and neglect cheaper DX9 cards in favor of more expensive DX10 cards.

[QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Killfox

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"] What does that have to do with my post? Im simply saying I dont count the viewing display in the price of any gamign platform as it is used over agian. And I have a 1080p tv most high end game sget raped at 1920x1080 good luck on playin Crysis at taht res and a smooth framerate. Vandalvideo

No you could not build a rig on the same level of the PS3 for 600 or even 700$ im sorry its simply not happening . Even high end DX9 cards are starting to struggle on multipalts and that differnce is going to widen even greater as devs learn to better use the console hardware and neglect cheaper DX9 cards in favor of more expensive DX10 cards.

But it depends on the games and what platform they were primarly developed for. Are the devs good at pc ports? Do they optimze well? That rig may run some games as well for now but it wont for much longer. And I dont recall Cod4 benchmarks being that high on that card what res are you running it at?

[QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

imapieceofwood

define decent pc in $400 or less

Hmm define a 24 euro game that looks and plays better than a 70 euros game...to save you the trouble its Crysis and Uncharted respectedly...

But it depends on the games and what platform they were primarly developed for. Are the devs good at pc ports? Do they optimze well? That rig may run some games as well for now but it wont for much longer. And I dont recall Cod4 benchmarks being that high on that card what res are you running it at? Polaris_choice

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Mad_Rhetoric

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"] What does that have to do with my post? Im simply saying I dont count the viewing display in the price of any gamign platform as it is used over agian. And I have a 1080p tv most high end game sget raped at 1920x1080 good luck on playin Crysis at taht res and a smooth framerate. Polaris_choice

No you could not build a rig on the same level of the PS3 for 600 or even 700$ im sorry its simply not happening . Even high end DX9 cards are starting to struggle on multipalts and that differnce is going to widen even greater as devs learn to better use the console hardware and neglect cheaper DX9 cards in favor of more expensive DX10 cards.

But it depends on the games and what platform they were primarly developed for. Are the devs good at pc ports? Do they optimze well? That rig may run some games as well for now but it wont for much longer. And I dont recall Cod4 benchmarks being that high on that card what res are you running it at?

Here in Europe a C2D65500 8800GT 2gb RAM/MoBo/DVDRW/MK/Case/PSU/VistaHome PC costs 670-700 euros ...PS3 costs 400 euros and Xbox360 costs 400 euros...PC games cost 25-35 euros while console games cost 60-70 euros...

Technically some games out do Crysis, in terms of size of the maps, the amount of players online. HL2 has great physics, i have yet to play Crysis but does it surpass HL2's?
I could easily say a game looks better than Crysis, without basing it off art$tyle Just because a game is technically more impressive doesn't mean another game can't look better.

Example, GT5 probably has no damage but it still looks better than Forza which technically more impressive because of its physics and damage.

Adrian_Cloud

Would you say that TES Arena is more technically impressive than Oblivion? Oblivion is minuscule compared to Arena, yet it's a stretch to say arena is more impressive. So how do we gauge this? Since this discussion seems to be headed into the realm of opinion, I would gauge it by the sheer demand that a game puts on it's system. While there are numerous aspects to consider, I would contend that each of the aforementioned aspects demands the amount of power from a system that is relative to it's "technical impressiveness", for lack of a better word. As in your examples, the physics or map sizes are only as impressive as they are demanding on a system.

Back to Crysis, there is no game on the market, or that has been announced that is more demanding on any system than it is. While it is conceivable to claim this is caused by poor optimization, but we all know that Crysis simply requires more calculations and such from a system than any other game available. By my standard, this makes Crysis the most technologically impressive game ever.

[QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

Same goes for PS3...PES2008 runs like s***it on PS3 while running like charm on my 7600GS...And to surprise you even further PS was the home console to all PES series even from the times of ISSPro...

[QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

True_Gamer_

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

Same goes for PS3...PES2008 runs like s***it on PS3 while running like charm on my 7600GS...And to surprise you even further PS was the home console to all PES series even from the times of ISSPro...

The PS3 is a completely differnt then the PS2 . Some devs can make the transistion some cant. Regardless a 7600gs runs very few multiplats as good as the PS3. It cant even come close on Cod4(4xAA, 1080p, 60fps) and PES isnt even a good looking game by anyones standards. But yes the argument can go both ways.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Killfox

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Mad_Rhetoric

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Killfox

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

NO this is the part that I thought was funny and a very stupid thing to say. Yes. I know that a game built from the ground up with cell would probably not run as well on PC since the cell has a completely different architect than a C2D or quad core. In reality though C2D and quad cores are better than the cell for gaming. Cell only does out of order calculations well while C2D and quad cores do in order calculations better which is pretty essential for gaming.

If you are going to regurgitate stuff you here on the internet and then say I dont know what im talking about be sure you know what your saying. Out of order processors are simply harder to program they are not any less powerful and are actually better for graphic renderning. The Cell renders visuals better then any pc processor on the market it is not used like a traditonal cpu . Is it harder to program for thena quad core or duel core? Yes it is but its visual capablites go far beyond both hence the reason why even a decent rig would have trouble running PS3 excluisves. As for my animation comment the reason why a pc would struggle is its done all on the SPU's that means if ported they would have to port that task between the GPU and CPU which would be a pain in the ass.

[QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

If it was a decently coded port a 8800GT would chew and spit the game out...

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

NO this is the part that I thought was funny and a very stupid thing to say. Yes. I know that a game built from the ground up with cell would probably not run as well on PC since the cell has a completely different architect than a C2D or quad core. In reality though C2D and quad cores are better than the cell for gaming. Cell only does out of order calculations well while C2D and quad cores do in order calculations better which is pretty essential for gaming.

If you are going to regurgitate stuff you here on the internet and then say I dont know what im talking about be sure you know what your saying. Out of order processors are simply harder to program they are not any less powerful and are actually better for graphic renderning. The Cell renders visuals better then any pc processor on the market it is not used like a traditonal cpu . Is it harder to program for thena quad core or duel core? Yes it is but its visual capablites go far beyond both hence the reason why even a decent rig would have trouble running PS3 excluisves. As for my animation comment the reason why a pc would struggle is its done all on the SPU's that means if ported they would have to port that task between the GPU and CPU which would be a pain in the ass.

Then how do you explain Crysis running on a 150 euros CPU? WIth all the insane animations and graphics?

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

True_Gamer_

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

NO this is the part that I thought was funny and a very stupid thing to say. Yes. I know that a game built from the ground up with cell would probably not run as well on PC since the cell has a completely different architect than a C2D or quad core. In reality though C2D and quad cores are better than the cell for gaming. Cell only does out of order calculations well while C2D and quad cores do in order calculations better which is pretty essential for gaming.

If you are going to regurgitate stuff you here on the internet and then say I dont know what im talking about be sure you know what your saying. Out of order processors are simply harder to program they are not any less powerful and are actually better for graphic renderning. The Cell renders visuals better then any pc processor on the market it is not used like a traditonal cpu . Is it harder to program for thena quad core or duel core? Yes it is but its visual capablites go far beyond both hence the reason why even a decent rig would have trouble running PS3 excluisves. As for my animation comment the reason why a pc would struggle is its done all on the SPU's that means if ported they would have to port that task between the GPU and CPU which would be a pain in the ass.

Then how do you explain Crysis running on a 150 euros CPU? WIth all the insane animations and graphics?

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

Same goes for PS3...PES2008 runs like s***it on PS3 while running like charm on my 7600GS...And to surprise you even further PS was the home console to all PES series even from the times of ISSPro...

The PS3 is a completely differnt then the PS2 . Some devs can make the transistion some cant. Regardless a 7600gs runs very few multiplats as good as the PS3. It cant even come close on Cod4(4xAA, 1080p, 60fps) and PES isnt even a good looking game by anyones standards. But yes the argument can go both ways.

PES faces and animations are one of the best Ive seen in a footy game...You can easily recognise licensed players they are almost lifelike...The graphics are pretty good...

Bioshock = Higher system specs than crysis...

Xbox 360 = Crysis @ 30 fps.

/THREAD.

[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

True_Gamer_

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

If it was a decently coded port a 8800GT would chew and spit the game out...

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

NO this is the part that I thought was funny and a very stupid thing to say. Yes. I know that a game built from the ground up with cell would probably not run as well on PC since the cell has a completely different architect than a C2D or quad core. In reality though C2D and quad cores are better than the cell for gaming. Cell only does out of order calculations well while C2D and quad cores do in order calculations better which is pretty essential for gaming.

If you are going to regurgitate stuff you here on the internet and then say I dont know what im talking about be sure you know what your saying. Out of order processors are simply harder to program they are not any less powerful and are actually better for graphic renderning. The Cell renders visuals better then any pc processor on the market it is not used like a traditonal cpu . Is it harder to program for thena quad core or duel core? Yes it is but its visual capablites go far beyond both hence the reason why even a decent rig would have trouble running PS3 excluisves. As for my animation comment the reason why a pc would struggle is its done all on the SPU's that means if ported they would have to port that task between the GPU and CPU which would be a pain in the ass.

Then how do you explain Crysis running on a 150 euros CPU? WIth all the insane animations and graphics?

C2D6550 with 1333mhz FSB and 4mb of cache...And please Crysis on Very high has insane animations...

Bioshock = Higher system specs than crysis...

Xbox 360 = Crysis @ 30 fps.

/THREAD.

Hikaru-119

Really? do you live in a backwards world?

Bioshock = Higher system specs than crysis...

Xbox 360 = Crysis @ 30 fps.

/THREAD.

Hikaru-119

Hmm whats the word? Hmm ah yea CRAPPY PORT...

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Mad_Rhetoric"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="KittyKatB"]

PS3 isn't powerful enough for Crysis.

Any decent PC could rape Uncharted.

Polaris_choice

LOL no it couldnt you have no clue what your talking about. Agame built ground up for a completely differnt processor would most likely tax any pc. The sheer amount of animations and physics alone would rape most pc's.

This is one of the best quotes of the day. Which isnt a good thing.

Yet I know exactly what im talking about. Lets bring up an example so maybe some of you hermits can understand a little better. What had more power? A TI4600 512megs of Ram and a 2.1ghz AMD or a PS2? I think we all know the answer to this. That pc setup beat the PS2 in every conceviable way. Yet when they ported MGS2 that rig got its ass beat. Why? Because the architectures were so differnt the pc simply could not run it as well. The same goes for PS3 exclusive titles they are made differntly then your typical pc or 360 title if you think your 700$ rig would run Uncharted anywhere near the PS3 you are simply delusional.

Same goes for PS3...PES2008 runs like s***it on PS3 while running like charm on my 7600GS...And to surprise you even further PS was the home console to all PES series even from the times of ISSPro...

The PS3 is a completely differnt then the PS2 . Some devs can make the transistion some cant. Regardless a 7600gs runs very few multiplats as good as the PS3. It cant even come close on Cod4(4xAA, 1080p, 60fps) and PES isnt even a good looking game by anyones standards. But yes the argument can go both ways.

PES faces and animations are one of the best Ive seen in a footy game...You can easily recognise licensed players they are almost lifelike...The graphics are pretty good...

You know what Dirty Harry said about the opinion?