Crytek: on PS3 GPU - "Low End"

All arguements for the PS3 hardware fail.

A multiplatform game running on both 360 and PS3 looks FAR superior to anything exclusive on PS3 - and still runs better on 360.

There's no two ways around it folks. PS3 hardware has an inferior design, and it shows.

ElNinjaLoco

I just watched some of the demo, I don't see what the big deal is.

All arguements for the PS3 hardware fail.

A multiplatform game running on both 360 and PS3 looks FAR superior to anything exclusive on PS3 - and still runs better on 360.

There's no two ways around it folks. PS3 hardware has an inferior design, and it shows.

ElNinjaLoco

It's not necessarily "inferior", but it sure is a pain is the ass. Even Sony admitted that they designed the PS3 to puposely be a freaking **** to work with.

[QUOTE="ElNinjaLoco"]

This proves yet again just how much more superior the 360 is to PS3.

Yandere

Sorry, but I don't buy my consoles/games for graphics.

Surperior? IDk about that. I still say same level. Judgeing from exclsives on both side. Im sorry,but one pixel more here or there doesint make it superior.

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] No, actually you did nothing of the sort.ElNinjaLoco

Yes, the PS3 really has only one game that is better looking than the 360's best game as of now.

That's a sad joke really because the best looking games on PS3 are multiplatform games - and they all look better on 360.

Case in point, the game in the video shown is multiplatform, and it utter destroys anything else on PS3.

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] No, actually you did nothing of the sort.ElNinjaLoco

Yes, the PS3 really has only one game that is better looking than the 360's best game as of now.

That's a sad joke really because the best looking games on PS3 are multiplatform games - and they all look better on 360.

Case in point, the game in the video shown is multiplatform, and it utter destroys anything else on PS3.

Wow this proves your a fanboy. Which means anything you say has no merit.

All arguements for the PS3 hardware fail.

A multiplatform game running on both 360 and PS3 looks FAR superior to anything exclusive on PS3 - and still runs better on 360.

There's no two ways around it folks. PS3 hardware has an inferior design, and it shows.

ElNinjaLoco

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Crytek should look at Uncharted 2KingsMessenger

LOL

No he didn't. You're totally twisting what he said. He was speaking specifically about competing engines like Unreal Engine 3.0, and how when using those engines that the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator, and that with their engine that the PS3 is capable of running just as well as 360.

However we know this to be marketing speak in order to get developer to license CryEngine 3.0 instead of UnrealEngine 3.0 - because we have already seen the PS3 and 360 running this demo side by side and the PS3 version is obviously inferior.

Remember its in their best interest to claim that their engine gives you the same results on both 360 and PS3. If you listen carefully all he is actually claiming is that on PS3 with their engine they have not had to make any sacrifices where assets are concerned. Meaning they didn't have to downgrade any of the textures of models. However the 360 version still has a much better frame rate.

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/articles/1014410/gc-2009-cry-engine-3-demo/videos/gcom09act_crytek_demo2_081709.html

See the above video, at the end of the video, the Crytek representative responds to the question of why it's harder to get good results out of the PS3.

He specifically states that the PS3's GPU is low end compared to the other family of GPU's that they support - which includes Xenos from the 360.

This is definitive proof of what I have been saying, and confirm what everyone saw in the previously posted IGN videos of the Crytek 3 engine running side by side with the 360.

He also states that they have tapped CELL in order to allow the PS3 to compete ont he same level as 360. However from the side by side video demonstration that was recently shown it's clear that the 360 version is running much smoother.

This makes it clear that Crytek wants to take Unreal Engine 3's market share by marketing the fact that the Crytek 3.0 engine maximizes the output from the PS3. Which also reconfirms what we already know about the PS3 and how poorly it runs Unreal Engine 3.0 games compared to 360.

This proves yet again just how much more superior the 360 is to PS3. He also clearly states that for most developers, (or specifically for developers without the Crytek 3.0 Engine at their disposal) that the PS3 is the lowest common denominator. This is marketing speak to sell the engine, as it still clearly runs better on 360.

This goes back to what has been the problem for the PS3 from the begining. No matter how much Sony wants to try to make you believe that it's the most powerful console, most everyone is too smart to believe that. Sony has been feeding use horse crap from the start and charging a premium for hardware that actually plays second fiddle to the 360.

ElNinjaLoco

When fanboys lose, they cry in the corner, make silly comments about credibility with no proof and claim trolling. Typical.

ElNinjaLoco

IM guessing you just made this account to be another anoying fanboy. God what a waste.

When fanboys lose, they cry in the corner, make silly comments about credibility with no proof and claim trolling. Typical.

ElNinjaLoco

Congratulations, you earn this.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Crytek should look at Uncharted 2ElNinjaLoco

LOL

No he didn't. You're totally twisting what he said. He was speaking specifically about competing engines like Unreal Engine 3.0, and how when using those engines that the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator, and that with their engine that the PS3 is capable of running just as well as 360.

However we know this to be marketing speak in order to get developer to license CryEngine 3.0 instead of UnrealEngine 3.0 - because we have already seen the PS3 and 360 running this demo side by side and the PS3 version is obviously inferior.

Remember its in their best interest to claim that their engine gives you the same results on both 360 and PS3. If you listen carefully all he is actually claiming is that on PS3 with their engine they have not had to make any sacrifices where assets are concerned. Meaning they didn't have to downgrade any of the textures of models. However the 360 version still has a much better frame rate.

Here is what he said :

"The ps3 would be the lowest nominated for a lot of people, but now actually the ps3 is running at like at the top level"

When fanboys lose, they cry in the corner, make silly comments about credibility with no proof and claim trolling. Typical.

ElNinjaLoco

All arguements for the PS3 hardware fail.

A multiplatform game running on both 360 and PS3 looks FAR superior to anything exclusive on PS3 - and still runs better on 360.

There's no two ways around it folks. PS3 hardware has an inferior design, and it shows.

ElNinjaLoco

kz2 still says hi!

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"]Everyone knows you must have a weak graphics card and super powerful cpu to max it out OR IS IT A DECENT CPU AND A GOOD GPU? LOL xbox360>ps3 period KingsMessenger

Well, you forgot one thing, if anything the X360 version is going to be better because of EDram(they are using it to free up shader cycles as opposed to AA), I think if the X360 didn't have that they would be much more equal on a multiplat basis, and maybe inferior to the PS3 overall, but I think the Edram gives it a small advantage over the PS3(overall)

Does this matter? All Crytek cares about is graphics anyway. What does matter is that the 360 has a 54% failure rate. That's way to high for me to buy one.

Well, you forgot one thing, if anything the X360 version is going to be better because of EDram(they are using it to free up shader cycles as opposed to AA), I think if the X360 didn't have that they would be much more equal on a multiplat basis, and maybe inferior to the PS3 overall, but I think the Edram gives it a small advantage over the PS3(overall)Threebabycows

Does this matter? All Crytek cares about is graphics anyway. What does matter is that the 360 has a 54% failure rate. That's way to high for me to buy one.

Vari3ty

All arguements for the PS3 hardware fail.

A multiplatform game running on both 360 and PS3 looks FAR superior to anything exclusive on PS3 - and still runs better on 360.

There's no two ways around it folks. PS3 hardware has an inferior design, and it shows.

ElNinjaLoco

The 360 has had more time on the market and M$ certianly has more money then Sony. So what's this BS about PS3 games look better then 360 games because of time and money.

Whether PS3 games look better because Sony actually spends time and money on the games they make or because PS3 is (definately) more powerful then 360 the bottom line is still the same: PS3 exclusives wipe the floor with 360 exclusives.

/thread

[QUOTE="jonnyt61"]I still don't know why people are stating that the 360 is more powerful. I believe Jon Carmack, someone Lemmings repeatedly quoted as being "right" recently stated that the PS3 is more powerful, but the 360 easier to work with. So... What is it? Is he right, or is he wrong? We could just let the games do the talking, and well, from what we've seen so far, the PS3 is the more powerful console, producing the best looking games on consoles at the moment. In the future, we can't yet be sure, as the "best looking games" aren't yet out. Of course, this is all futile in the end, since, if you're -really- that concerned about graphics, you shouldn't be playing on consoles.videogamedead03

Actually, this is subjective. Games like Arma 2 on PC are much more dependent on a fast CPU.

I'll believe it when 360 exclusives/games start to look better than PS3CakeBalls

They have before, resently accually Nov 08, yea I remember:shock:

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"][QUOTE="jonnyt61"]I still don't know why people are stating that the 360 is more powerful. I believe Jon Carmack, someone Lemmings repeatedly quoted as being "right" recently stated that the PS3 is more powerful, but the 360 easier to work with. So... What is it? Is he right, or is he wrong? We could just let the games do the talking, and well, from what we've seen so far, the PS3 is the more powerful console, producing the best looking games on consoles at the moment. In the future, we can't yet be sure, as the "best looking games" aren't yet out. Of course, this is all futile in the end, since, if you're -really- that concerned about graphics, you shouldn't be playing on consoles.psn8214

Actually, this is subjective. Games like Arma 2 on PC are much more dependent on a fast CPU.

All he said was that the PS3 has complex architechure and its difficult to tap its capabilities (we already knew that), which he claims they did. And, with the Crytek engine, the PS3 is now "actually the ps3 is running at the top level".

I understand that last quote to mean--not that the Ps3 is the best--but that it is on par with the others.

Ya i dont know anything kids i just started gaming yesterday lolz, and ps3 is more powerful and fire isnt hot.videogamedead03

Everybody, even cows, know that the RSX is weaker than the Xenos. The Cell is able to assist the RSX which brings the PS3's power up to the level of the 360. The PS3 and 360 have been out for years. I don't see one being able to do something the other can't, as shown by these Crytek vids. It seems to be easier to get code up and running at a good framerate on the 360.

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"]Ya i dont know anything kids i just started gaming yesterday lolz, and ps3 is more powerful and fire isnt hot.KingsMessenger

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="videogamedead03"]Ya i dont know anything kids i just started gaming yesterday lolz, and ps3 is more powerful and fire isnt hot.videogamedead03

The thing is with the CPU helping the GPU, the CPUs left over power is limited, which is why the PS3 version of Red faction doesn't perform(framerate wise) better.

For the record I can actually prove that multiplatform titles on PS3 are technically superior to PS3 exclusives.

And I can do that easily.

Why? Because the most technically impressive games are sandbox games. Not shooters with faked 2D lights from the 32-bit era (KZ2) and not Tomb Raider games with a dude, poorly executed cover system and waggle gimmicks. (Uncharted)

I offer up any PS3 3rd party PS3 sandbox game as technically superior to PS3 titles like KZ2 and Uncharted, which are compute, resource, memory and logic inferior to open world games like:

Oblivion PS3

FarCry 2 PS3

Just Cause 2 PS3

GTAIV PS3

Assasins Creed PS3

Assassins Creed 2 PS3

Saints Row 2 PS3

All those games requires FAR performance from a console and are far greater in terms of technical scope, game logic, game AI, world simulation, real time physics, geometry budget, texture budget, draw distance - so superior, that they require advanced LOD systems for geometry and textures in order to even be feasible.

Why? Because the environments are so damn large, and I'm not talking about faked 2D backgrounds (KZ2) (MGS 4) (Uncharted 1 / 2)

But also because these games actually require both extensive CPU resources in addition to GPU resources. Oh what happens to PS3 graphics when the game requires both CPU and GPU power and CELL isn't there to help RSX?....... It chokes, that's what happens.

I find it laughable that people actually think that having a CPU that's designed to help the GPU is a GOOD thing. Here's a novel idea, use a good GPU instead of out dated junk, and pick a CPU that's actually designed to run game, not to help a gimped GPU. I know it must sound crazy to many of you but there it is.

If I sound like I'm ranting well I think I have a right. I've got people here questioning my credibility when they obviously have NO idea what they are talking about.

ps3 gpu and 360 gpu are the same, rsx is a bit faster cuz it runs 50mhz faster and xenos has edo ram for better textures.

both gpu's are crippled with 128 bit memory bus, people in this thread are acting as if xenos is some top of the line gpu like the nvidia 285 or ati 4890 series.

but i dont blame the lemms for this stupidity, these dumb devs should keep their lying mouths closed.

I honestly couldn't see a difference. After looking really closely, the 360 version's lighting might look a tiny bit better, but that's it. I couldn't tell any difference in framerate with it being recorded offscreen.

Low end? You mean the RSX is so low end that killzone 2 and U2 pales compared to the competition? If you guys say so. :roll:

For the record I can actually prove that multiplatform titles on PS3 are technically superior to PS3 exclusives.

And I can do that easily.

Why? Because the most technically impressive games are sandbox games. Not shooters with faked 2D lights from the 32-bit era (KZ2) and not Tomb Raider games with a dude, poorly executed cover system and waggle gimmicks. (Uncharted)

I offer up any PS3 3rd party PS3 sandbox game as technically superior to PS3 titles like KZ2 and Uncharted, which are compute, resource, memory and logic inferior to open world games like:

Oblivion PS3

FarCry 2 PS3

Just Cause 2 PS3

GTAIV PS3

Assasins Creed PS3

Assassins Creed 2 PS3

Saints Row 2 PS3

All those games requires FAR performance from a console and are far greater in terms of technical scope, game logic, game AI, world simulation, real time physics, geometry budget, texture budget, draw distance - so superior, that they require advanced LOD systems for geometry and textures in order to even be feasible.

Why? Because the environments are so damn large, and I'm not talking about faked 2D backgrounds (KZ2) (MGS 4) (Uncharted 1 / 2)

But also because these games actually require both extensive CPU resources in addition to GPU resources. Oh what happens to PS3 graphics when the game requires both CPU and GPU power and CELL isn't there to help RSX?....... It chokes, that's what happens.

I find it laughable that people actually think that having a CPU that's designed to help the GPU is a GOOD thing. Here's a novel idea, use a good GPU instead of out dated junk, and pick a CPU that's actually designed to run game, not to help a gimped GPU. I know it must sound crazy to many of you but there it is.

If I sound like I'm ranting well I think I have a right. I've got people here questioning my credibility when they obviously have NO idea what they are talking about.

ElNinjaLoco

Funny you say that since Prototype looks better on PS3.

ps3 gpu and 360 gpu are the same, rsx is a bit faster cuz it runs 50mhz faster and xenos has edo ram for better textures.

both gpu's are crippled with 128 bit memory bus, people here are acting like xenos is top of the line gpu like the nvidia 285 or ati 4890 series.

ZoomZoom2490

it got downgraded to 500mhz, the edram mean MUCH more than 50mhz anyway, Xenos doubles the polys as well.

When fanboys lose, they cry in the corner, make silly comments about credibility with no proof and claim trolling. Typical.

ElNinjaLoco

Wow, TC, just wow...

I don't favor one typical platform, and I own multiple consoles.

I will concede that the initial Cryengine 3 demo ran a bit better on 360, but with the new released video, they appear to be more or less equal.

Why do you care? So your platform of choice is a little better than everyone else's in your opinion. Congratulations. Secondly, this isn't even finalized tech. Maybe we should hold our judgements until we see some genuine gameplay, not just these tech demos... Finally, you don't even bring the PC into the equation. I can assure you that Crysis 2 or whatever Cryengine 3 game you are referring to will both look and run better on my PC. Does that mean that I parade around creating threads expressing the 'clear inferiority' of consoles to PC? Absolutely not, and honestly you shouldn't either.

I just think its stupid to insult people based on what console they chose. Who cares? If you enjoy your 360 so much, why aren't you playing it? Why must you post about minor inferiorities? I don't hate you TC, but please be reasonable...

[QUOTE="ElNinjaLoco"]

For the record I can actually prove that multiplatform titles on PS3 are technically superior to PS3 exclusives.

And I can do that easily.

Why? Because the most technically impressive games are sandbox games. Not shooters with faked 2D lights from the 32-bit era (KZ2) and not Tomb Raider games with a dude, poorly executed cover system and waggle gimmicks. (Uncharted)

I offer up any PS3 3rd party PS3 sandbox game as technically superior to PS3 titles like KZ2 and Uncharted, which are compute, resource, memory and logic inferior to open world games like:

Oblivion PS3

FarCry 2 PS3

Just Cause 2 PS3

GTAIV PS3

Assasins Creed PS3

Assassins Creed 2 PS3

Saints Row 2 PS3

All those games requires FAR performance from a console and are far greater in terms of technical scope, game logic, game AI, world simulation, real time physics, geometry budget, texture budget, draw distance - so superior, that they require advanced LOD systems for geometry and textures in order to even be feasible.

Why? Because the environments are so damn large, and I'm not talking about faked 2D backgrounds (KZ2) (MGS 4) (Uncharted 1 / 2)

But also because these games actually require both extensive CPU resources in addition to GPU resources. Oh what happens to PS3 graphics when the game requires both CPU and GPU power and CELL isn't there to help RSX?....... It chokes, that's what happens.

I find it laughable that people actually think that having a CPU that's designed to help the GPU is a GOOD thing. Here's a novel idea, use a good GPU instead of out dated junk, and pick a CPU that's actually designed to run game, not to help a gimped GPU. I know it must sound crazy to many of you but there it is.

If I sound like I'm ranting well I think I have a right. I've got people here questioning my credibility when they obviously have NO idea what they are talking about.

MegajerkNYC

Funny you say that since Prototype looks better on PS3.

It looks better than the PC version as well because of some extra shaowing on some objects or something, it seems coincedental.

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"] it should be 360 has better graphics/average framerates but when physics heavy parts happen in games the ps3 should drop less frames have a better minimum fps because of the faster cpu.KingsMessenger

King are you a cow or a lem, I can't tell?

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

ps3 gpu and 360 gpu are the same, rsx is a bit faster cuz it runs 50mhz faster and xenos has edo ram for better textures.

both gpu's are crippled with 128 bit memory bus, people here are acting like xenos is top of the line gpu like the nvidia 285 or ati 4890 series.

Threebabycows

it got downgraded to 500mhz, the edram mean MUCH more than 50mhz anyway, Xenos doubles the polys as well.