Can Consoles do Crysis ???

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

If they had the ram, sure they could--At highest settings to boot.

I'm positive the PS3 could do it. Not so sure about the 360.

-wii60-

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

Wow. Way to just totally overlook the Cell's benchmark genius.

Seriously, you are acting like a bitter and defensive fanatic. Might I suggest you take your midol?

_Pedro_

you still believe that a processor is magically going to make more ram? Oh and the Far Cry 2 screens have all been PC only.

Where did I say that Cell would create another 2 gigs of RAM?

I specifically said, "If they had enough RAM--."

You guys are so wired on the 'consoles can't do Crysis' knee-jerks that you forego actually reading posts of opposition and just shout, "It doesn't have the RAM! Shut your mouths!"

Please to note that I am not talking about RAM.

Then why make an asumption about it? We all know how great the Cell is, it's being used in a lot of modern Supercomputers. If the PS3 only had more ram it would definetly look close to the PC on High. I believe the cell can also take a lot of strain off the GPU.

The 360 is completely different. We have very little information about the Processor, but the GPU is said to be on par with the X1950XT. Which means the 360 can't hope to achieve the PC level even if it had enough ram.

btw: There is probably going to be a Crysis port, but it's definetly not going to contain such vast levels as the PC.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]You cant be serious.

The PS3 has 256mb System ram, and 256mb video ram, 360 512mb shared.

That is pathetic.

Even worse the 360s GPU is close to a X1950, and the PS3s is a highly modified 6800.

Neither Systems could run the game - and at highest settings :lol: - A truly rediculous statement.

The 8800 cards, and 3800 series only run the game opimaly, and they are generations ahead of whats in the current consoles - they make console hardware alone obsolete.

Pariah_001

And, once again, a Sony hater displays their ignorance and irrational hatred for consoles.

Of course the RSX all on its own wouldn't be able to do the trick, but that's exactly why they put the Cell in the system.

And I said if the PS3 had more RAM. I already admitted that there isn't enough.

Alan Wake, Project Offset, and Warhound say's Hi! :D

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Problem.

Crysis level sizes, phhysics, and interactibity - combined with increadably complex a.i - its a no go.

Pariah_001

The Cell can number-crunch Crysis' physics, geometry, and pull off branching AI.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]I think they would be able to athigh-some mediumat 640p. The game runs pretty smooth even at 24fps (I ran it at 30fps,demo maxed),majority of gamers on consoles wouldn't notice.killab2oo5

Crysis level sizes, phhysics, and interactibity - combined with increadably complex a.i - its a no go.

Just nope.

The Cell does not compensate for such small memory.

good luck fitting 1.5gb ram that crysis uses into 512mb, no drive can stream fast enough

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]I think they would be able to athigh-some mediumat 640p. The game runs pretty smooth even at 24fps (I ran it at 30fps,demo maxed),majority of gamers on consoles wouldn't notice.killab2oo5

Crysis level sizes, phhysics, and interactibity - combined with increadably complex a.i - its a no go.

Just nope.

The Cell does not compensate for such small memory.

• Windows XP
• 512MB System RAM
• 2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
• 128MB Direct3D compatible video card
• and DirectX 9.0 compatible driver;
• 8x DVD-ROM drive
• 4.6 GB free hard disk space
• DirectX 9.0c (included)
• DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
• Keyboard, Mouse

Now that is 512mb SYSTEM memory. The PS3 has 256mb SYSTEM memory - 360 512 shared so its a different matter.

And Oblivion is KNOWHERE as System intensive as Crysis.

Crysis is system intensive to even the most high end systems.

It simply cannot run on any console. Their hardware doesent allow it - Crysis is a generation ahead

well your console could run it on low - med if you didn't mind it stopping and loading every 30 seconds, like oblivion, crysis loads up like 1.5gb levels with no load in between unlike oblivion which just keeps loading

They can do these

Alan Wake

and

Far Cry 2

Nuff said:)

WuTangG

says who? those games aren't out, used current games if you want and sort of proof

Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.Bazfrag

[QUOTE="Bazfrag"]Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.anshul89

Wow the 8600GT is a low end card and it has a low number of unified shaders, and the x1950 isnt all that much faster.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Nameless-Hero"]

of course console can do Crysis. their specs already exceed the required specs by Crytek albeit for the RAM.

these games look just as good as crysis on good settings and before hermits attack me for posting the far cry screens its already been confirmrd to look great on all platforms, and actually has some physics that crysis can't do. also draw distance is confirmed

Nameless-Hero

You are posting screens of two unrealeased games that look knowhere as good as Crysis, and never will, everyone already knows BF:BC looks like tripe (compared to its initial screens, and 'in engine' trailer'), and has limited destructible objects - and crap draw distance - from proper recent screens, and that KZ2 forcuses on small linear levels.

And Far Cry 2 is still in PC development, and we dont even know any information of how the console ports will be done.

What a poor attempt at trying to prove people wrong - as you are enforcing how right PC gamers actually are

/fail

desperate hermits grasping for straws there is no way you can say the games i posted look like utter crap compared to crysis because they dont. the fact that console games are comparable to the almight Crysis is a laugh and a testament to how well made the 360 and PS3 are. use your eyes for once and not stupid tech numbers

well they barley beat farcry so that's not saying much

Alan Wake, Project Offset, and Warhound say's Hi! :D

PS3_3DO

so crysis looks beter than any of those a year sooner that's not saying much for consoles

[QUOTE="anshul89"][QUOTE="Bazfrag"]Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.darkplayer

Wow the 8600GT is a low end card and it has a low number of unified shaders, and the x1950 isnt all that much faster.

but it beats the radeon 2600 which has way more shadders than the x360. nvidias shaders are much more powerful than ati's

[QUOTE="Bazfrag"]Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.anshul89

[QUOTE="anshul89"][QUOTE="Bazfrag"]Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.darkplayer

Wow the 8600GT is a low end card and it has a low number of unified shaders

[QUOTE="darkplayer"]

[QUOTE="anshul89"][QUOTE="Bazfrag"]Who said that?? The x1950 has nothing on the xbox gpu. My old pc had one. Its a completely different type of gpu, using separate pixel and vertex pipes. The 360 gpu is unified, like the 8800 series or the crummy 2800 radion series.imprezawrx500

Wow the 8600GT is a low end card and it has a low number of unified shaders, and the x1950 isnt all that much faster.

but it beats the radeon 2600 which has way more shadders than the x360. nvidias shaders are much more powerful than ati's

First of all ATI and Nvidia count their unified shaders differently thats why the 2900XT has 3 times the shaders of the 8800GTX but it doesent even come close in performance.

Secondly the Xbox 360 GPU is custom built and it isnt directly based on any PC GPU's.

Finnaly this thread isn't ATI vs Nvidia.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]You cant be serious.

The PS3 has 256mb System ram, and 256mb video ram, 360 512mb shared.

That is pathetic.

Even worse the 360s GPU is close to a X1950, and the PS3s is a highly modified 6800.

Neither Systems could run the game - and at highest settings :lol: - A truly rediculous statement.

The 8800 cards, and 3800 series only run the game opimaly, and they are generations ahead of whats in the current consoles - they make console hardware alone obsolete.

Pariah_001

And, once again, a Sony hater displays their ignorance and irrational hatred for consoles.

Of course the RSX all on its own wouldn't be able to do the trick, but that's exactly why they put the Cell in the system.

And I said if the PS3 had more RAM. I already admitted that there isn't enough.

You fufil the role of an ignorant person thats for sure.

The Cell is not a magical processor that will allow miracles, and even with more memory the PS3 would not be able to run it at the highest settings.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Problem.

Crysis level sizes, phhysics, and interactibity - combined with increadably complex a.i - its a no go.

Pariah_001

The Cell can number-crunch Crysis' physics, geometry, and pull off branching AI.

I say again the Cell cannot pull magical feats

BOth consoles this gen are leagues behind current PC hardware, and the tech in Crysis.

That is reality

Wow. Way to just totally overlook the Cell's benchmark genius.

Seriously, you are acting like a bitter and defensive fanatic. Might I suggest you take your midol?

I speak of the reality of things, you are simply aiming at attacking me in order to undermine my post.

Pathetic really.

/fail

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

Crysis could run on consoles at 720p withall of the effects turned down. It'd be bad. That game scales horribly even on the PC.

astor47

You obviously don't know what scaling means, if the game weren't optimised, it wouldn't run on any hardware right now. The reason for Crysis' performance are the physical limitations of hardware, the game is extremely optimised, and scales fairly well, i get very good frame rates with everything on high and medium for shaders and shadows, in my CRAPPY 8500gt (20-35 FPS)

I know exactly what scaling means. It means the game would be able to run on even older cards had it been scaled correctly. Older, as in over a year old. Put a high end 7 series card in your rig and watch it choke on Crysis.

"The reason for Crysis' performance are the physical limitations of hardware" -Yeah,and had they actually scaled it better, this wouldn't have been a limitation.

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

Wow. Way to just totally overlook the Cell's benchmark genius.

Seriously, you are acting like a bitter and defensive fanatic. Might I suggest you take your midol?

Bazfrag

you still believe that a processor is magically going to make more ram? Oh and the Far Cry 2 screens have all been PC only.

Where did I say that Cell would create another 2 gigs of RAM?

I specifically said, "If they had enough RAM--."

You guys are so wired on the 'consoles can't do Crysis' knee-jerks that you forego actually reading posts of opposition and just shout, "It doesn't have the RAM! Shut your mouths!"

Please to note that I am not talking about RAM.

Then why make an asumption about it? We all know how great the Cell is, it's being used in a lot of modern Supercomputers. If the PS3 only had more ram it would definetly look close to the PC on High. I believe the cell can also take a lot of strain off the GPU.

The 360 is completely different. We have very little information about the Processor, but the GPU is said to be on par with the X1950XT. Which means the 360 can't hope to achieve the PC level even if it had enough ram.

btw: There is probably going to be a Crysis port, but it's definetly not going to contain such vast levels as the PC.

It's either on Par or the rest of the 360 is seriously bottlenecking the 360 GPU. As proven by these benchmarks

[QUOTE="Ramadear"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Absolutely. Not on very high settings, but on medium for sure and possibly high (I've only played it on Medium myself). Far Cry 2 is coming to the 360 and PS3 and it seems like it will have much steeper system requirements, so there is no doubt in my mind that Crysis could be ported to consoles.Taalon

Well the difference is that the Far Cry 2 devs are making it for the 360 and PS3 as well, which means they were already designing the game around consoles as well. Crysis however was designed solely around the PC. Put it this way, the Geforce 8800 series struggles to run the game at respectable settings. So imagine a console? Which is essentially a entry level PC. I'm not saying "A Crysis" isn't possible. But the Crysis you see on PC is not. And Crysis is know for its graphics not gameplay. So if a console can't render the graphics then its no point in it coming to consoles.

most people who claim the game struggles on an 8800gt and higher have never played the game and go by what other people say on boards.

i had no trouble running it at 30fps (NTSC framerate) (PAL is 25, so dont tell me you live off of 150fps) with only a mid range 2.6 dual core, a single 8800GTX, and 2GB of ram, very high settings on everything, and running resource hog Vista for DX10.

[QUOTE="Bazfrag"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

Wow. Way to just totally overlook the Cell's benchmark genius.

Seriously, you are acting like a bitter and defensive fanatic. Might I suggest you take your midol?

_Pedro_

you still believe that a processor is magically going to make more ram? Oh and the Far Cry 2 screens have all been PC only.

Where did I say that Cell would create another 2 gigs of RAM?

I specifically said, "If they had enough RAM--."

You guys are so wired on the 'consoles can't do Crysis' knee-jerks that you forego actually reading posts of opposition and just shout, "It doesn't have the RAM! Shut your mouths!"

Please to note that I am not talking about RAM.

Then why make an asumption about it? We all know how great the Cell is, it's being used in a lot of modern Supercomputers. If the PS3 only had more ram it would definetly look close to the PC on High. I believe the cell can also take a lot of strain off the GPU.

The 360 is completely different. We have very little information about the Processor, but the GPU is said to be on par with the X1950XT. Which means the 360 can't hope to achieve the PC level even if it had enough ram.

btw: There is probably going to be a Crysis port, but it's definetly not going to contain such vast levels as the PC.

It's either on Par or the rest of the 360 is seriously bottlenecking the 360 GPU. As proven by these benchmarks

those benchmarks proved that the x1950xt is more powerful than the console hardware, and I knew it. Consolites can scream "optimization" all they want, but it really doesn't seem to hold up very well, well maybe with ram. He really should have tried putting in just a gig.muscleserge

yeah, but it's very hard to imagine how much a certain amount of ram on a console differs to the same amount on the PC. Still you're right, he should've started off at 1GB. It would probably have been a better comparison. Still both Microsoft and Sony are getting slapped in the face for not having enough ram seeing.