Crysis 3 PC obviously looks better then the new Killzone.

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

I'm not sure, I can max the game with 30fps (While I'd like 60 I think the game looks too good on 60FPS).

 However I was still amazed at the scale and just overall polish and crisp look of KZ:SF.

Riadon2

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8387/8493794320_44b0904f9c_o.jpg

Obnoxious blur effects and PS3-level textures.

Those "textures* look like solid colors to me :(

 

 

GD1551

I have to admit, I was pretty bummed about the Killzone trailer (as a gamer, not a fan). I thought this gen was going to be much better than the last, but really the trailer didn't even look much more impressive than the Crysis 3 demo I got on the 360. I definitely won't argue that the PC is superior. However, this is also early gameplay footage and another thing, compare the first PS3 and 360 games to the recent ones:

(Mass Effect 1)

(Mass Effect 3)

(Dead Space 1)

(Dead Space 3)

Consoles get better as the generation goes on. These are the very early trailers, so I wouldn't already be saddened by them. PC is always going to be a little above, but seriously, all of these games are so good that it's hard to complain about graphics anymore.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

 

 

mitu123

Just finished the second mission of Crysis 3 and it was probably one of the best looking levels I've ever seen... and I was playing on a 360.

They both look amazing, comparing them is pointless, it's so close it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Most of all PC owners dont even have 8gb DDR5 ram in their desktop. Can i see some gameplay for Crysis 3?

stayhigh1

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

ok then, you realize that beyond all the stupidity and name calling his point was extremely valid right? Guru 3D says it drops to as low as 40 FPS on a $1000 GPU.... most PC gamers here cannot even hope to play it at the same quality of the pictures/performance they are boasting about, and those that do are paying upwards for $1500 for their PCs... as opposed to a 400-500 dollar console...

I'm sorry, I was reading guru's while looking at another chart that includes min FPS.. here they are....

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_gaming/5.htm

^Can't link that one

Consolites make me laugh, Now they on damage control saying you need $1000 dollar graphic cards for 30 frames per sec. Let me show you this video . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH_F5a_Qbj0.      Watch in 1080p. bear in mind video compression

Tell me if you can truely spot much of a difference on very low graphic settings vs very high graphic settings. Keep dreaming consolites, even if you play on all low for pc it still look better than killzone 4 hahahaahhah

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Tessellation

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

Consolites make me laugh, Now they on damage control saying you need $1000 dollar graphic cards for 30 frames per sec. Let me show you this video . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH_F5a_Qbj0.      Watch in 1080p. bear in mind video compression

Tell me if you can truely spot much of a difference on very low graphic settings vs very high graphic settings. Keep dreaming consolites, even if you play on all low for pc it still look better than killzone 4 hahahaahhah

lunar1122

Yeah but with low-quality internet videos even the 360 version will look very similar to the PC version maxed out. So I don't think you are making the point you think you are.

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

avshaman

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

FashionFreak

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

I think the consoles do run Crysis 3 in the low 20s.

But my GTX 570 can max the game out at 1680x1050 with SMAA x2 and get around 30-40 fps. (have it capped at 40).

Although in larger areas it is easily going to get in the lower 30s.

Here is a screenshot with the FPS counter at the bottom right corner to show my proof.

I have to admit, I was pretty bummed about the Killzone trailer (as a gamer, not a fan). I thought this gen was going to be much better than the last, but really the trailer didn't even look much more impressive than the Crysis 3 demo I got on the 360. I definitely won't argue that the PC is superior. However, this is also early gameplay footage and another thing, compare the first PS3 and 360 games to the recent ones:

(Dead Space 1)

 

(Dead Space 3)

 Consoles get better as the generation goes on. These are the very early trailers, so I wouldn't already be saddened by them. PC is always going to be a little above, but seriously, all of these games are so good that it's hard to complain about graphics anymore.

Oozyrat

I'm sorry but that comparison is total BS.

You took a blurry picture of Dead Space 1 that has a resolution that is way lower than what the console version play at. It's 840 x 462 pixels and it's not because it's downsized from 720p because it looks blurry as sh1t.

On the other hand you got a picture of Dead Space 3 on PC at 1080p (again a resolution the console versions don't play at).

So none of the screenshots you used represent the ACTUAL CONSOLE VERSION :?

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="avshaman"]

 

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

avshaman

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

FashionFreak

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

Yep, Crysis 3 plays nicely at 30 fps, much smoother than when Far Cry 3 runs at anything lower than 60 fps in DX11.

[QUOTE="FashionFreak"]

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

Ben-Buja

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

Yep, Crysis 3 plays nicely at 30 fps, much smoother than when Far Cry 3 runs at anything lower than 60 fps in DX11.

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

[QUOTE="FashionFreak"]

 

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

faizan_faizan

Yep, Crysis 3 plays nicely at 30 fps, much smoother than when Far Cry 3 runs at anything lower than 60 fps in DX11.

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

[QUOTE="FashionFreak"]

 

Actually, Crysis 3 is one of those games that get constant fps. The minimum and max fps will be within 5-10.  You could run Crysis 3 at 20 fps and it'll still be playable.

faizan_faizan

Yep, Crysis 3 plays nicely at 30 fps, much smoother than when Far Cry 3 runs at anything lower than 60 fps in DX11.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

Yep, Crysis 3 plays nicely at 30 fps, much smoother than when Far Cry 3 runs at anything lower than 60 fps in DX11.

DragonfireXZ95

Consolites make me laugh, Now they on damage control saying you need $1000 dollar graphic cards for 30 frames per sec. Let me show you this video . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH_F5a_Qbj0.      Watch in 1080p. bear in mind video compression

Tell me if you can truely spot much of a difference on very low graphic settings vs very high graphic settings. Keep dreaming consolites, even if you play on all low for pc it still look better than killzone 4 hahahaahhah

lunar1122

I think Sleeping Dog's High Res Texture pack is better, But that's just me.faizan_faizan

Sleeping Dogs is the better looking open world game, but it cheats a little because it's not really open world. You can't go everywhere, the game doesn't offer the freedom other open world games do.

There are fences around every high way so you can't go certain place, also there are no planes or helicopters in the game that would enable you to discover everything.

One time, I tried getting over a fence by parking my car close to it and jumping on top of my car and then over the fence. I couldn't because of an invisible wall. 

So to me Far Cry 3 is more impressive, because it really is open world.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

that's just talking out of your ass.

 

ReadingRainbow4

No he doesn't.

He's assuming consoles behave in the same way a pc might, Consoles do not allocate ram in the same way

[QUOTE="clyde46"] You might be right.faizan_faizan

Off Topic: What high rez pack for Sleeping Dogs?
It is an official update or a mod? 

I have to admit, I was pretty bummed about the Killzone trailer (as a gamer, not a fan). I thought this gen was going to be much better than the last, but really the trailer didn't even look much more impressive than the Crysis 3 demo I got on the 360. I definitely won't argue that the PC is superior. However, this is also early gameplay footage and another thing, compare the first PS3 and 360 games to the recent ones:

 

 (Mass Effect 1)

 

 (Mass Effect 3)

 

 (Dead Space 1)

 

 (Dead Space 3)

 

Consoles get better as the generation goes on. These are the very early trailers, so I wouldn't already be saddened by them. PC is always going to be a little above, but seriously, all of these games are so good that it's hard to complain about graphics anymore.

Oozyrat

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Yes.GD1551

ok then, you realize that beyond all the stupidity and name calling his point was extremely valid right? Guru 3D says it drops to as low as 40 FPS on a $1000 GPU.... most PC gamers here cannot even hope to play it at the same quality of the pictures/performance they are boasting about, and those that do are paying upwards for $1500 for their PCs... as opposed to a 400-500 dollar console...

We don't know how much any of the consoles will cost and if the're going to even be running the more demanding games at over 30 FPS at 1920x1080+. Plus we can't even buy them yet. Mentioning cost without factoring into the equation one option is available now, today and the other is not available until at least the end of the year is a bit strange.

So this is what the Hermits have been reduced to. Needing a $1000 GPU to run a 360 port with stable framerates. 

You can keep that Hermits. 

So this is what the Hermits have been reduced to. Needing a $1000 GPU to run a 360 port with stable framerates. 

You can keep that Hermits. 

Pray_to_me

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

hey genius how is that average 60fps when it shows that goes over the 60fps mark? :cool: :lol:Tessellation

I never said the GTX 690 averaged only 60 fps, I only said that those are average frames per second. It looks like it averages about 70 fps, which means that there are almost certainly drops to well below 60 fps (I would bet it drops into the 40s). This means unarguably that there will be judder when playing Crysis 3 maxed out even on the mighty GTX 690.

So this is what I and console fanboys have been reduced to. Acting like I have the IQ of a potato in order to get attention.

Pray_to_me

Ah, the truth comes out

So this is what the Hermits have been reduced to. Needing a $1000 GPU to run a 360 port with stable framerates. 

You can keep that Hermits. 

Pray_to_me

A 360 port that is DX11 only and looks better than the console version even on the lowest possible setting. (And happens to be the best looking game out there)

I still don't get it why Far Cry 3 takes so much on VRAM, It's textures are nothing special even at maxed, I guessing it's an Open World game.faizan_faizan

So this is what the Hermits have been reduced to. Needing a $1000 GPU to run a 360 port with stable framerates. 

You can keep that Hermits. 

Pray_to_me

Explain, exactly, how it's a 360 port... Trust me, we'll wait with bated breath.

Wow is amazing how much pain Crysis 2 and 3 caused to the cows that they still damage controlling :cool: no wonder why they didn't even dare to post Digital Foundry Article about PS4 specs because it says Crysis 2 and 3 LOOK better than KZSF :lol:let the butthurt begin..

Sure it's got better graphics, but better gameplay? Ehhh..Granny_Spanked

It's kinda hard to play the same game, on a different platform, for better gameplay. It boils down to being largely similar, barring control scheme.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="clyde46"] I'm getting about 1.2-1.3GB on my card. clyde46

Killzone 4 is not even finished, once it's finished the graphics will crap on Crysis without a doubt. Not even the 6GB Titan can push out the graphical fidelity and level size of 8GB of GDDR5 from PS48GBGDDR5

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="mitu123"] How much MSAA are you using?mitu123

Killzone 4 is not even finished, once it's finished the graphics will crap on Crysis without a doubt. Not even the 6GB Titan can push out the graphical fidelity and level size of 8GB of GDDR5 from PS48GBGDDR5

The 8GB of GDDR5 doesn't magically make the GPU stronger than it is. It can pull of the max quality of textures  allowed on that graphics card a lot easier, but it won't make that GPU stronger.It may even end up being a bottleneck to the GPU.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Whats that?clyde46

PC dead platform