Crytek: on PS3 GPU - "Low End"

http://pc.ign.com/articles/966/966403p2.html

"Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

[QUOTE="u8muhrice"]

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

MortalDecay

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="u8muhrice"]

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

[QUOTE="AdoringFan_"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I will take the word of a professional, over a SW poster that knows nothing about the subject. It is a fact that they 360 has a better GPU. This has been known for a long time, now. Fanboys have a hard time admitting this, because they don't want to believe that they spent more money on a console that has some weaker hardware than the cheaper console...I'd be upset too.clone01

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

For consoles. Besides, the majority here think KZ2 looks better. But Imo I think RE5 has the best character textures.

[QUOTE="cdecrosta03"]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!MortalDecay

if games like gears2, Mass effect, and halo will be on ps3 as exclusive, im very sure they would look better.. see what i did there?!?

I guess cows will now proceed to add Crytek to their list of lazy devs.

RawDeal_basic

lol that list is getting long

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="u8muhrice"]

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

[QUOTE="videogamedead03"][QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"] 360 doesnt need 120 devs, the hardware pretty much hit the dead end after one year. old and simple hardware = short life in expanding the potential.ZoomZoom2490

[QUOTE="AdoringFan_"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I will take the word of a professional, over a SW poster that knows nothing about the subject. It is a fact that they 360 has a better GPU. This has been known for a long time, now. Fanboys have a hard time admitting this, because they don't want to believe that they spent more money on a console that has some weaker hardware than the cheaper console...I'd be upset too.MortalDecay

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

Well we'll have to see if its going to better on it ;)

Besides, only the blind would say that. So don't take it for word because um....Alan Wake and Halo Reach? :P

[QUOTE="u8muhrice"]

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

MortalDecay

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for.

Then i guess carmack is lying?!? :D

Both consoles GPUs are lower than low end.Brainkiller05

This shouldn't be a surprise. Still, if ownage is your thing then this really is bad news for cows.

Thats an interesting statement, when I see them make a game on consoles that look better than Uncharted or Killzone, I might actually take what they say into account. I'm no game developer, but I doubt its very hard to produce a good looking game that requires a monster PC to run it. If they're true, it just shows how talented Sony's first party developers are.

I mean, producing games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 on a low end GPU?

[QUOTE="AdoringFan_"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I will take the word of a professional, over a SW poster that knows nothing about the subject. It is a fact that they 360 has a better GPU. This has been known for a long time, now. Fanboys have a hard time admitting this, because they don't want to believe that they spent more money on a console that has some weaker hardware than the cheaper console...I'd be upset too.MortalDecay

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

ya the 360 hardware is obviously more powerful but that really does not make the 360 betterTekkenloving

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="AdoringFan_"]

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

shabab12

couldnt say it better myself you win

and since when do we play techdemos.... ? put in some proper A.I and lets see if those graphics can keep up

UNCHARTED 2: GOD AMONGST GAMES. Nuff said

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"][QUOTE="u8muhrice"]

I dont think the 360 is "superior" compared to the PS3.

The fact is that both run the same. Some developers cant handle or dont know how to work the PS3. So for you to say it is superior is a gross exaggeration

___gamemaster__

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for.

Then i guess carmack is lying?!? :D

[QUOTE="___gamemaster__"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I will take the word of a professional, over a SW poster that knows nothing about the subject. It is a fact that they 360 has a better GPU. This has been known for a long time, now. Fanboys have a hard time admitting this, because they don't want to believe that they spent more money on a console that has some weaker hardware than the cheaper console...I'd be upset too.navyguy21

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for.

Then i guess carmack is lying?!? :D

*Sigh*

If the GPU is low end then why is the console producing graphics equivelent to mid range of what you will see from a PC (Waits for PC fanboy to lie and brag.)? What is it with developers talking complete nonsense about things that never add up? Their favourite subject seems to be console capabilities and none of them can actually come to a single supported answer. Can't they just shut up and make the damn game? No one is buying this.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="___gamemaster__"]

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for.

Then i guess carmack is lying?!? :D

decoppel

-snip

What is it with developers talking complete nonsense about things that never add up? Their favourite subject seems to be console capabilities and none of them can actually come to a single supported answer. Can't they just shut up and make the damn game? No one is buying this.

WasntAvailable

Developers are either being honest or they were paid by Sony/Microsoft to hype up the hardware, the developers during Sony's 2005 conference being a perfect example.

Keep in mind this is Crytek we are talking about at the end of the day, they are used to developing for high end PC setups, as far as they are likely concerned everything about consoles is low end.

*Sigh*

If the GPU is low end then why is the console producing graphics equivelent to mid range of what you will see from a PC (Waits for PC fanboy to lie and brag.)? What is it with developers talking complete nonsense about things that never add up? Their favourite subject seems to be console capabilities and none of them can actually come to a single supported answer. Can't they just shut up and make the damn game? No one is buying this.

WasntAvailable

It's not. Even before I upgraded my mobo and cpu, my 4 year old rig was capable of playing games in higher resolutions then what the consoles can. But honestly, that's to be expected. There's only so far you can push 5 year old tech.

[QUOTE="Tekkenloving"]ya the 360 hardware is obviously more powerful but that really does not make the 360 betterdecoppel

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

*Sigh*

If the GPU is low end then why is the console producing graphics equivelent to mid range of what you will see from a PC (Waits for PC fanboy to lie and brag.)? What is it with developers talking complete nonsense about things that never add up? Their favourite subject seems to be console capabilities and none of them can actually come to a single supported answer. Can't they just shut up and make the damn game? No one is buying this.

myke2010

It's not. Even before I upgraded my mobo and cpu, my 4 year old rig was capable of playing games in higher resolutions then what the consoles can. But honestly, that's to be expected. There's only so far you can push 5 year old tech.

Clearly it is seeing as I have seen what mid range graphics look like. The PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than that. Mid range is not a Radeon 4890. If you consider low endto bethe X500 I have installed in this PC which can play some games, mid range will not be as close tothe high end as you think.

Clearly it is seeing as I have seen what mid range graphics look like. The PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than that. Mid range is not a Radeon 4890. If you consider low endto bethe X500 I have installed in this PC which can play some games, mid range will not be as close tothe high end as you think.

WasntAvailable

What would you consider the price range of a mid range GPU then?

[QUOTE="AdoringFan_"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I will take the word of a professional, over a SW poster that knows nothing about the subject. It is a fact that they 360 has a better GPU. This has been known for a long time, now. Fanboys have a hard time admitting this, because they don't want to believe that they spent more money on a console that has some weaker hardware than the cheaper console...I'd be upset too.MortalDecay

Really? Then why is Killzone 2 still the graphics king? :roll:

It all depends on the time that devs spent for the console.

The point is, lemmings have been saying that the 360 will eventually have a game that looks as good as KZ2. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Cry Engine 3's tech demo looks the same on all 3 platforms. And guess what? It's on all 3 platforms, and its running very well...Arguably just as well as on all 3. This doesn't sit very well with fanboys. Why? Because they couldn't possibly deal with the fact that the game is just as good on all 3 platforms and once again they can't justify having spent their phone bill money on a new xbox...er video game system.

[QUOTE="decoppel"][QUOTE="Tekkenloving"]ya the 360 hardware is obviously more powerful but that really does not make the 360 betterTekkenloving

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

*Sigh*

If the GPU is low end then why is the console producing graphics equivelent to mid range of what you will see from a PC (Waits for PC fanboy to lie and brag.)? What is it with developers talking complete nonsense about things that never add up? Their favourite subject seems to be console capabilities and none of them can actually come to a single supported answer. Can't they just shut up and make the damn game? No one is buying this.

It's not. Even before I upgraded my mobo and cpu, my 4 year old rig was capable of playing games in higher resolutions then what the consoles can. But honestly, that's to be expected. There's only so far you can push 5 year old tech.

Clearly it is seeing as I have seen what mid range graphics look like. The PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than that. Mid range is not a Radeon 4890. If you consider low endto bethe X500 I have installed in this PC which can play some games, mid range will not be as close tothe high end as you think.

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

The consoles are the same, it is all up to the dev as to what they want to do about it.

druggyjoe3000

[QUOTE="druggyjoe3000"]

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

The consoles are the same, it is all up to the dev as to what they want to do about it.

-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

It's not. Even before I upgraded my mobo and cpu, my 4 year old rig was capable of playing games in higher resolutions then what the consoles can. But honestly, that's to be expected. There's only so far you can push 5 year old tech.

floridaskater05

Clearly it is seeing as I have seen what mid range graphics look like. The PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than that. Mid range is not a Radeon 4890. If you consider low endto bethe X500 I have installed in this PC which can play some games, mid range will not be as close tothe high end as you think.

When I say mid range I mean somethin like a 9600 GT, or whatever. I know for a fact that a PS3 can perform better than the PC I have downstairs which uses a 9500GTS (Or something like that.). I don't know what people consider low end, but I do not consider that card anything less than mid range because it is about half way up interms of both price and performance. Not terrible like this X500, not amazing like a4890. Low end is the X500, and the PS3 can perform far better than that. Cryteks comment is flat out wrong.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Clearly it is seeing as I have seen what mid range graphics look like. The PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than that. Mid range is not a Radeon 4890. If you consider low endto bethe X500 I have installed in this PC which can play some games, mid range will not be as close tothe high end as you think.

AnnoyedDragon

What would you consider the price range of a mid range GPU then?

In pounds.

Low: 20-40

Mid: 40-70

High: 70-100+

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="druggyjoe3000"]No they are diffrent, The xbox has more ram and a better cpu but the ps3 has the cell which some how can make up for the lack of ram. Im not an expert but I can tell you both consloes are diffrent when it comes to hardware.decoppel

When I say mid range I mean somethin like a 9600 GT, or whatever. I know for a fact that a PS3 can perform better than the PC I have downstairs which uses a 9500GTS (Or something like that.). I don't know what people consider low end, but I do not consider that card anything less than mid range because it is about half way up interms of both price and performance. Not terrible like this X500, not amazing like a4890. Low end is the X500, and the PS3 can perform far better than that. Cryteks comment is flat out wrong.

WasntAvailable

mid range would be a 9600gt/hd3870 youre right, good thing those cards both outperform either console.

also its not off the gpu is low end. why can it be considered low end?

1. the tech is outdated - seperate vertex and pixel shaders? a 128bit memory bus 256mb of memory? tseverely outdated. and using the system memory can be done but it comes at a cost, thats an extra step in the code and extra process. not efficient in the least no matter how fast it is.

2. power right now its pushing out visuals comparable to a 8800gts 320 or a hd3850 256. and in some cases (when using the cell) closer to a 3850 512 ddr3 or an underclocked 9600gt.

The RSX its self though is low end theres no way around it. without the cell itd really be nothing. or if the cell wasnt so good at parrallel operations.

In pounds.

Low: 20-40

Mid: 40-70

High: 70-100+

WasntAvailable

Then according to you this is a mid range GPU,

Which you think the PS3 can perform better than?

Some benchmark scores for you.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/compare,1468.html?prod%5B2678%5D=on

[QUOTE="decoppel"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]The 360 actually has the same amount of RAM, it's usage is just more flexible. And more of it is available for games. Also, the GPU in the 360, the Xenos, is far more advanced than the RSX. The Cell however is a better CPU than the Xenon, but it's harder to utilize. In the end, it boils down like this.. The 360 has the better GPU and architecture, and features the more efficient design. The PS3 has the better CPU and more raw power, but it's far less efficient, so that extra power can never actually be used. It's just wasted cycles, and causes the PS3 to use more electricity.-GeordiLaForge-

The consoles are the same, it is all up to the dev as to what they want to do about it.

Threebabycows

a console with weak gpu has one of the best looking games....

a console with weak gpu has one of the best looking games....

sikanderahmed

thats because looks have little to do with how good a gpu is. looks and visuals are not representative of power since they rely on art. only graphics are. and if you actually look KZ2 or uncharted graphics are slightly above average but nothing outstanding. that and the cell is also helping to compansate there.