Crytek: on PS3 GPU - "Low End"

The butthurt in this thread over this is wonderful.

[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.

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

[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.

ZoomZoom2490

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

No it can't, it can sustain about half of it's maximum in modern games. However the same applies to the PS3 - which means he's right, the 360 still ends up being able to push about twice the polys.

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

Ok it looks better causetheyare open world games and are bigger? What kind of sense is that.We are talking about looks here and im sorry KZ2 and uncharted are some of the best looking games. This wont go through your fanboy skull so yea. Also ps3 does have infamous(open world)which looks pretty darn good.

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

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

[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.

KingsMessenger

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

Wrong.

It isn't a cure all but it does vastly improve performance for bandwidth intensive rendering tasks.

Good to hear the 360 version is running smooth.aero250

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

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

Wrong.

It isn't a cure all but it does vastly improve performance for bandwidth intensive rendering tasks.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"] a powerful gpu is more important than a powerful cpu. it's a same deal on a console xbox360 is better design unified memory and better gpu.videogamedead03

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

At what res exactly? With view distance all the way up and all effect/textures on very high? I can barely max Arma 2, and look at my specs... I honestly can't believe that is true...

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"] So you are just ducking the point? ElNinjaLoco

Again, that's a really silly thing to say unless you are prepared to argue that there's any PS3 exclusive that looks better than the game in that video.

lmao.....why did you write that in magic marker?

Edit:

LMFAO.......it shows up in the quote box. :lol:

The butthurt in this thread over this is wonderful.

ElNinjaLoco

hypocrite says what?

also, i want to know how i used that term in OT and got banned but here it appears to be ok :P

a million numbers aside, the gpu's are almost identical as many people have said before. x360 isn't superpowered, so far ps3 is graphics champ but surely MS is working on something that looks better than UC2 or KZ2, then ms will be in the lead and it'll go back and forth until the next gen when the same thing happens.

i got my ps3, i enjoy the games on it i don't need to rationalize to a 13 year old why i prefer my system over the failbox360 (i don't refer to the games which are mostly the same, i refer to the horrid failure rate the 360's)

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

[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.

ZoomZoom2490

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

It is true. have you seen the GPU compairson chart, both are theoretical, and as you can see that does not mean everything, EG: the PS3

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Please People, Watch the Video First, because I feel like Crytek is praising the PS3. The last 2 minutes is him praising the PS3Filthybastrd

Indeed, seems like people have no apprehension for what he's trying to get across.

I was just about to post the same exact thing, If you watch the last 2 minutes, he says that the ps3 would be least nominated among most people, BUT they as a company have managed to "make it top level". He also states that the ps3 architecture is extremely challenging, but they have managed to overcome the complexities of the ps3 by writing "intelligent code". Basically the way I interpret this is, the company has managed to go far and beyond what people though possible on the ps3 due to a thorough understanding of the ps3's architecture.

i just watch the side by side vid and they look the same....what are you talking about

Why are lemmings claiming ownage for a game that hasnt come out yet and still a long way to go? Can't they argue for superior game library like they did back in 2007?peacenutman

No it can't, it can sustain about half of it's maximum in modern games. However the same applies to the PS3 - which means he's right, the 360 still ends up being able to push about twice the polys.ElNinjaLoco

My god. Crysis 2 will be amazing! PC, 360 & PS3, it doesn't matter! :o:o:o TES 5 needs to use CryEngine 3 :lol:

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"][QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

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

Threebabycows

It is true. have you seen the GPU compairson chart, both are theoretical, and as you can see that does not mean everything, EG: the PS3

he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!

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.jonnyt61

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

Oh brother:roll:

[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.Sands-0f-Time

[QUOTE="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.

Oh brother:roll:

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.

ZoomZoom2490

IMO both of those GPU's are low end. I just built a PC with a 4890. Who really cares if the Rsx or Xenos is a little better than the other? They are in the same ballpark (which is old tech).

I'm disappointed that crytek is not developing for the PC exclusively, in developing their games multiplatform for consoles as well as the PC its only going hurt the PC version. It would have been interesting to see what Crytek could do with the lates line of video cards.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Crytek should look at Uncharted 2.

RawDeal_basic

Why should they? :|

Because Uncharted 2 looks so much better then what they showed, a lot better.

[QUOTE="RawDeal_basic"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Crytek should look at Uncharted 2.

dream431ca

Why should they? :|

Because Uncharted 2 looks so much better then what they showed, a lot better.

Yeah, bullshots with 24X AA look amazing, don't they.

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] LMAO, I REST MY CASE he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!KingsMessenger

This is where I raise my question. Would you rather have a console that 'theoretically' is more powerful, or a console that currently HAS the games out there that justifies itself?

[QUOTE="RawDeal_basic"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Crytek should look at Uncharted 2.

dream431ca

Why should they? :|

Because Uncharted 2 looks so much better then what they showed, a lot better.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] LMAO, I REST MY CASE he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!PSdual_wielder

This is where I raise my question. Would you rather have a console that 'theoretically' is more powerful, or a console that currently HAS the games out there that justifies itself?

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] LMAO, I REST MY CASE he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!KingsMessenger

Technically he is correct. The theoretical peak, using all 48 shader pipelines to do vertex operations is 500 million triangles. But in a real world situation, you will NEVER use all 48 shader pipelines for vertex operations. EVER. That is where the figures fall apart.KingsMessenger

This is where I raise my question. Would you rather have a console that 'theoretically' is more powerful, or a console that currently HAS the games out there that justifies itself?

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] LMAO, I REST MY CASE he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!ZoomZoom2490

And the PS3 was supposed to produce dual 1080p, 120FPS, 4D games.

Ya 360 is superior it runs Uncharted,MGS4 and Killzone 2 far superior on the 360 then the ps3. It also runs blu rays wayyy better!cdecrosta03

Well...those are probably the only games 360 doesnt run better..............just because they are not multiplats :P

Seriously, both consoles are very similar. Unfortunatly PS3 fanboys last years to figure that!

I thought he was praising the PS3 for the most part and talking about how it trails just a bit behind the PC while not mentioning the 360.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

This is where I raise my question. Would you rather have a console that 'theoretically' is more powerful, or a console that currently HAS the games out there that justifies itself?

ZoomZoom2490

Wait......so the generation is over?

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"] Technically he is correct. The theoretical peak, using all 48 shader pipelines to do vertex operations is 500 million triangles. But in a real world situation, you will NEVER use all 48 shader pipelines for vertex operations. EVER. That is where the figures fall apart.Hanass

And the PS3 was supposed to produce dual 1080p, 120FPS, 4D games.

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"][QUOTE="Trmpt"] Lets let time be the judge. Trmpt

Wait......so the generation is over?

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] LMAO, I REST MY CASE he's talking about that gpu comparison chart from MS, OMG!KingsMessenger

Actually that's not entirely true. The reason you'd never get it because you'd never run an engine that did all vertex shading first exclusively and then pixel shading.

But if you wanted to you could write one that used all shaders alternating from vertex to pixel.

However modern engines don't work that way and instead do mixes of vertex and pixel ops at the same time. The thing about the Xenos is that it dynamically schedules operations so that shader efficency is maximized. This way all 48 shaders to put to as much work as possible with few cycles wasted.

On the other hand with RSX you lose tons of efficiency on top of having fixed units.

It also means that if you want to write an engine that requires 32 pixel shader and 16 vertex shaders, you're screwed on PS3, because it only has 24 pixel shaders and only 8 vertex shaders. Fail.

ps3 doesnt have the best GPU but the cell makes up for it....even the devs of rage or w.e that lemmeings love said that the ps3 is more powerfull but the 360 is easier to develop for....you cant deny it. TC is just mixing words arounds. and since when does the 360 demo look better then the ps3 demo?:? the only thing that looked better was the lighting system but not by far...

PS3 damage control in this thread is insane.

ps3 doesnt have the best GPU but the cell makes up for it....even the devs of rage or w.e that lemmeings love said that the ps3 is more powerfull but the 360 is easier to develop for....you cant deny it. TC is just mixing words arounds. and since when does the 360 demo look better then the ps3 demo?:? the only thing that looked better was the lighting system but not by far...

Sands-0f-Time

Not by far in your eyes because you just don't want to admit it. Not only was the lighting superior but the so was the frame rate. Be the first to admit it amongst your peers and you'll earn a lot of respect for doing so.

both gpu's are crippled with low shaders and 128bit memory bus.

ps3 is saved by the cell, it can do gpu type of work and kz2 and uncharted2 prove that.

ps3 doesnt have the best GPU but the cell makes up for it....even the devs of rage or w.e that lemmeings love said that the ps3 is more powerfull but the 360 is easier to develop for....you cant deny it. TC is just mixing words arounds. and since when does the 360 demo look better then the ps3 demo?:? the only thing that looked better was the lighting system but not by far...

Sands-0f-Time

PS3 damage control in this thread is insane.

ElNinjaLoco

its not damage control, more like reality check.

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