Far Cry 2 for PC much better looking than console version

PC version of Far Cry 2 confirmed to look better, butthen that was expected with consoles running at medium settings and low framerate.

http://www.farcry2game.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1560

"Visually, there is no comparison between the PC and console versions. That may sound like an obvious statement, of course, but it's worth emphasizing. The magnificent fire propagation effects that Ubisoft has treated us to in early trailers and gameplay videos were on full display in the E3 demo, but on the consoles, the fire animation was extremely bland and lacked the kind of detail and texture of the PC version.
Similarly, the lighting and environmental weather effects were outstanding on the PC but didn't have the same kind of punch on the consoles. In terms of graphics, the PC version of Far Cry 2 looks almost as impressive as Crysis; the game is punctuated with vivid explosions, beautiful jungle environments and rich character renders much like Crysis. Ubisoft's newly constructed Dunia game engine delivered top notch visuals in this demo."

http://blog.ubi.com/farcry2/article.php?content_id=8150

"Minimum requirements

CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better

RAM: 1 GB

Video card: NVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better

Shader Model 3 required

256 Mb of graphic memory

Media reader: DVD-ROM

Hard drive space: ~12 Gig or HD space. (tbd)


Recommended

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better

RAM: 2 GB

Video card: NVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better

512 Mb of graphic memory

Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended


Supported Video cards

NVidia 6800, NVidia 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops. ATI X1650 - 1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series ."

wow the recommended specs arent bad at all.

ok ull probably need an 8800 level GPU or the ati equilevent to really get it stretching its legs (and if uve got a gtx 280 or something like that then 1) i hate u :P and 2) itll probably sing on ure rig)...but not bad at all.

i hope the game is a cracker.

[QUOTE="superjim42"]no sh*t sherlock regorego

lol

This is incredibly surprising.Kez1984

Indeed after UBI said the console and PCversion looked almost the same except higher res textures for PC version. Seems they ditch the idea of limiting the PC version due to the consoles.

[QUOTE="Kez1984"]This is incredibly surprising.IgorVitaly

Indeed after UBI said the console and PCversion looked almost the same except higher res textures for PC version. Seems they ditch the idea of limiting the PC version due to the consoles.

Im sure he was being sarcastic.

Well my PC exceeds the recomended specs by a very good margin, as long as I can run it on high @ 1680x1050 with atleast 4x AF I am gonna be happy. And what was to be expected of the consoles, ofcoarse the game would look worst, after all the low end hardware in the consoles has its limits, only in lemm's and cow's dreams are the consoles still considered powerful, or capable of Crysis or FarCry 2 in its full glory.muscleserge

Your 7900gt will not be able to run at high

You serious :o

Cause I always thought the console version would look better.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]Well my PC exceeds the recomended specs by a very good margin, as long as I can run it on high @ 1680x1050 with atleast 4x AF I am gonna be happy. And what was to be expected of the consoles, ofcoarse the game would look worst, after all the low end hardware in the consoles has its limits, only in lemm's and cow's dreams are the consoles still considered powerful, or capable of Crysis or FarCry 2 in its full glory.millerlight89

Your 7900gt will not be able to run at high

You serious :o

Cause I always thought the console version would look better.

SpinoRaptor

Fo sho, and I cross my fingers and hope GTA4 will be heavily uppgraded to. That means no horrible pop-up or flat lighting and textures, me hoping!

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]Well my PC exceeds the recomended specs by a very good margin, as long as I can run it on high @ 1680x1050 with atleast 4x AF I am gonna be happy. And what was to be expected of the consoles, ofcoarse the game would look worst, after all the low end hardware in the consoles has its limits, only in lemm's and cow's dreams are the consoles still considered powerful, or capable of Crysis or FarCry 2 in its full glory.muscleserge

Your 7900gt will not be able to run at high

A 7900GT and 8600GTS is a toss up, esp. in newer games.

Wow Igor, is this your first ever post without posting 20 pictures?mo0ksi

Nope Moisty, the pictures are just transparent, 40 of them, I promise they are really there, each one 2x2 pixels large!

My 7900GT no, but my 8800GT superclocked........ h*ll yeah. For some reason my sig won't change no matter what I tries, so I just gave up. A 7900GT however should still run the game med-high @ 720p, seeing as how it is more powerful than the 8600GTSmuscleserge

Yep medium-high for a 8600GTS/7900GT or GTX. Considering those gpus are quite a bit more powerful than either consoles gpus even if the cpu helps them out.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"] My 7900GT no, but my 8800GT superclocked........ h*ll yeah. For some reason my sig won't change no matter what I tries, so I just gave up. A 7900GT however should still run the game med-high @ 720p, seeing as how it is more powerful than the 8600GTSIgorVitaly

Yep medium-high for a 8600GTS/7900GT or GTX. Considering those gpus are quite a bit more powerful than either consoles gpus even if the cpu helps them out.

Honestly their not all that far apart. Xenos is between a 1800 and 1900XTX in overall performance, and RSX is similar to a 7800GTX, which the 7900GT is more powerful...but not by such a large margin. The biggest difference that was cut in the consoles was the memory bandwidth...but at a target of 1280x720...not such a huge deal. Quite honestly (like it was expected of Crysis as some developers have stated) medium detail is plausable outta of such hardware for a mid-late 2008 game. the 360 version is or was said to have some form off AA added too.

I don't think anyone expected high detail, and if they did...they are retarded.

no sh*t sherlock superjim42

What he said ^ :|

Honestly their not all that far apart. Xenos is between a 1800 and 1900XTX in overall performance, and RSX is similar to a 7800GTX, which the 7900GT is more powerful...but not by such a large margin. The biggest difference that was cut in the consoles was the memory bandwidth...but at a target of 1280x720...not such a huge deal. Quite honestly (like it was expected of Crysis as some developers have stated) medium detail is plausable outta of such hardware for a mid-late 2008 game. the 360 version is or was said to have some form off AA added too.

I don't think anyone expected high detail, and if they did...they are retarded.

Innovazero2000

You forget the x1900xt/7900gtx having quite a bit higher pixel and vertex shading capacity (Mhz speed vs shaders) aswell as twice the video ram bandwidth and twice the amount of ROPs. That alone makes for a quite noticable perfomance difference.

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

Honestly their not all that far apart. Xenos is between a 1800 and 1900XTX in overall performance, and RSX is similar to a 7800GTX, which the 7900GT is more powerful...but not by such a large margin. The biggest difference that was cut in the consoles was the memory bandwidth...but at a target of 1280x720...not such a huge deal. Quite honestly (like it was expected of Crysis as some developers have stated) medium detail is plausable outta of such hardware for a mid-late 2008 game. the 360 version is or was said to have some form off AA added too.

I don't think anyone expected high detail, and if they did...they are retarded.

IgorVitaly

You forget the x1900xt/7900gtx having higher pixel and vertex shading capacity aswell as twice the video ram bandwidth and twice the amount of ROPs. That alone makes for a quite noticable perfomance difference.

Wow... WTF are you people talking about....

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

Honestly their not all that far apart. Xenos is between a 1800 and 1900XTX in overall performance, and RSX is similar to a 7800GTX, which the 7900GT is more powerful...but not by such a large margin. The biggest difference that was cut in the consoles was the memory bandwidth...but at a target of 1280x720...not such a huge deal. Quite honestly (like it was expected of Crysis as some developers have stated) medium detail is plausable outta of such hardware for a mid-late 2008 game. the 360 version is or was said to have some form off AA added too.

I don't think anyone expected high detail, and if they did...they are retarded.

IgorVitaly

You forget the x1900xt/7900gtx having quite a bit higher pixel and vertex shading capacity (Mhz speed vs shaders) aswell as twice the video ram bandwidth and twice the amount of ROPs. That alone makes for a quite noticable perfomance difference.

A. Xenos has higher vertex ability then most of the DX9 generation cards.

B. MHz don't mean jack, and the while the 1900 series is more powerful shader wise, the Xenos ALU's aren't exactly lacking and they too are MADD capiable.

C. Yes twice the bandwidth, but I already mentioned that...but I also said at 1280x720...which is where i'd compare the cards...its not such a huge issue, although yes on a level playing ground at much higher resolutions...consoles GPU's would choke.

D. Twice the ROPS...yes, but Xenos are more versitle, and with a hell of a lot more frame buffer bandwidth to play with.

As said, I don't think (they shouldn't of anyhow) anyone expect high detail, but medium detail is pretty good for 3 year old hardware. Esp. if the 360 version is to have some form of AA. (not confirmed until release obviously) So if they can nail that frame rate at a steady 30fps...good for em, but i never expected the high detail of a well oiled PC machine.

Coolio, I expected it.Brainkiller05

"1,2,3,4 get your ***** on the floor gonna gonna get up gonna gonna get up"

Its great to know that the 8800GT cards will have something to work on instead of being idle.

[QUOTE="IgorVitaly"][QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

Honestly their not all that far apart. Xenos is between a 1800 and 1900XTX in overall performance, and RSX is similar to a 7800GTX, which the 7900GT is more powerful...but not by such a large margin. The biggest difference that was cut in the consoles was the memory bandwidth...but at a target of 1280x720...not such a huge deal. Quite honestly (like it was expected of Crysis as some developers have stated) medium detail is plausable outta of such hardware for a mid-late 2008 game. the 360 version is or was said to have some form off AA added too.

I don't think anyone expected high detail, and if they did...they are retarded.

Innovazero2000

You forget the x1900xt/7900gtx having quite a bit higher pixel and vertex shading capacity (Mhz speed vs shaders) aswell as twice the video ram bandwidth and twice the amount of ROPs. That alone makes for a quite noticable perfomance difference.

A. Xenos has higher vertex ability then most of the DX9 generation cards.

B. MHz don't mean jack, and the while the 1900 series is more powerful shader wise, the Xenos ALU's aren't exactly lacking and they too are MADD capiable.

C. Yes twice the bandwidth, but I already mentioned that...but I also said at 1280x720...which is where i'd compare the cards...its not such a huge issue, although yes on a level playing ground at much higher resolutions...consoles GPU's would choke.

D. Twice the ROPS...yes, but Xenos are more versitle, and with a hell of a lot more frame buffer bandwidth to play with.

A it has to balance the load between vertex and pixel processing.

B Mhz means quite a lot together with amount of shaders available. Why a x1900xtx at 600Mhz is twice as fast as one at 300Mhz in non bandwidth limited situations.

C AA and AF puts additional strain on the bandwidth aswell as deffered rendering due to buffer sizes.

D the EDRAm is not a magic bullet, its limited 10MB size means tilling has to be done to fit a 1280x720p framebuffer, tilling implies penalties in other forms regarding what can be done when rendering. The EDRAm only holds teh framebuffer, textures goes to RAM.

:)

A. Yes it does, but even at half load...it's vertex strength is pretty impressive. Xenos is first and foremost known for it geometry capiablities.

B. Your very right, but it's apples and oranges when comparing two completely different architecture. Kind of like comparing a Core 2 3Ghz to a P4 HT 3Ghz. I'm not saying Xenos ALU's are more powerful then the 1900's, but they aren't far off. (4 vec op + 1 spec and MADD Cap).

C & D. Yes you are very right, it does (AA+AF taking bandwidth)... however the 10MB size (providing the engine or Xenos is up to it) can hold a 720P + 2x AA @ FP10 frame buffer. Which brings another point, because the EDRAM (Which the ROPS's are also on) handles anything frame buffer/and or it;s post processing effects...that frees up a ton of bandwidth for other things (like AA) and/or the CPU. Yes your right, the textures do go to the RAM.

PC version of Far Cry 2 confirmed to look better, butthen that was expected with consoles running at medium settings and low framerate.

http://www.farcry2game.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1560

"Visually, there is no comparison between the PC and console versions. That may sound like an obvious statement, of course, but it's worth emphasizing. The magnificent fire propagation effects that Ubisoft has treated us to in early trailers and gameplay videos were on full display in the E3 demo, but on the consoles, the fire animation was extremely bland and lacked the kind of detail and texture of the PC version.
Similarly, the lighting and environmental weather effects were outstanding on the PC but didn't have the same kind of punch on the consoles. In terms of graphics, the PC version of Far Cry 2 looks almost as impressive as Crysis; the game is punctuated with vivid explosions, beautiful jungle environments and rich character renders much like Crysis. Ubisoft's newly constructed Dunia game engine delivered top notch visuals in this demo."

http://blog.ubi.com/farcry2/article.php?content_id=8150

"Minimum requirements

CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better

RAM: 1 GB

Video card: NVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better

Shader Model 3 required

256 Mb of graphic memory

Media reader: DVD-ROM

Hard drive space: ~12 Gig or HD space. (tbd)


Recommended

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better

RAM: 2 GB

Video card: NVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better

512 Mb of graphic memory

Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended


Supported Video cards

NVidia 6800, NVidia 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops. ATI X1650 - 1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series ."

IgorVitaly

what are u talking about? Read this preview for consoles

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6191746&mode=previews

It says that everything that went into PC version will go to Consoles and will be rendered in 720P which is great

No surprise.... at all.

Console hardware is worse then low end gaming hardware.

What do you expect?

I miss the days when PC games looked 2 generations ahead of console games, F.E.A.R is a great example of this because it came out around the PS2 generation and we all know how good that game looked(Crisis doesn't count because the average Joe cant play that on max settings.)trizzle_a

what are u talking about? Read this preview for consoles

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6191746&mode=previews

It says that everything that went into PC version will go to Consoles and will be rendered in 720P which is great

DarkStar4565

Yeah, all the FEATURES are there, but it'll LOOK better on PC.

what are u talking about? Read this preview for consoles

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6191746&mode=previews

It says that everything that went into PC version will go to Consoles and will be rendered in 720P which is great

DarkStar4565

Sure but you still have the same fires in Crysis low as in Crysis very high, its just a mather how good they look....

Will be downloaded illegaly by millions.Ilived

Just like GTA4.

[QUOTE="Ilived"]Will be downloaded illegaly by millions.Lonelynight

Just like GTA4 will be on the PC.

I think thats what you meant.

Barely...Console versions run at 35 FPS and look super good ...if the PC looks better good for it , maybe it will justify your 1000 dollar system.AtrumRegina

Well my PC exceeds the recomended specs by a very good margin, as long as I can run it on high @ 1680x1050 with atleast 4x AF I am gonna be happy.muscleserge

A 7900gt isn't better than a 8600 by a very good margin.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

[QUOTE="Ilived"]Will be downloaded illegaly by millions.AtrumRegina

Just like GTA4 will be on the PC.

I think thats what you meant.

And the half million 360 copies pirated don't count?

Barely...Console versions run at 35 FPS and look super good ...if the PC looks better good for it , maybe it will justify your 1000 dollar system.AtrumRegina

No, every multiplat that looks better justifies our systems, including exclusives such as crysis, stalker, world in conflict etc etc :lol:

I'm actually kinda surprised. The april's dev diary kinda left me with an impression that it would be optimized for consoles more than PC. Here's a short version:

"Today we have a blog-exclusive in-game shot of one of our characters running on PC in the highest quality setting available, the same level of quality preserved in the console versions."

*insert crappy character model*

Which to me suggested that the graphics are capped at console levels.

Anyway, I haven't really followed the game that much recently, good to hear that the PC version isn't dying off consolitis afterall, tho I'll only believe it once I actually see it.

[QUOTE="IgorVitaly"]

PC version of Far Cry 2 confirmed to look better, butthen that was expected with consoles running at medium settings and low framerate.

http://www.farcry2game.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1560

"Visually, there is no comparison between the PC and console versions. That may sound like an obvious statement, of course, but it's worth emphasizing. The magnificent fire propagation effects that Ubisoft has treated us to in early trailers and gameplay videos were on full display in the E3 demo, but on the consoles, the fire animation was extremely bland and lacked the kind of detail and texture of the PC version.
Similarly, the lighting and environmental weather effects were outstanding on the PC but didn't have the same kind of punch on the consoles. In terms of graphics, the PC version of Far Cry 2 looks almost as impressive as Crysis; the game is punctuated with vivid explosions, beautiful jungle environments and rich character renders much like Crysis. Ubisoft's newly constructed Dunia game engine delivered top notch visuals in this demo."

http://blog.ubi.com/farcry2/article.php?content_id=8150

"Minimum requirements

CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better

RAM: 1 GB

Video card: NVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better

Shader Model 3 required

256 Mb of graphic memory

Media reader: DVD-ROM

Hard drive space: ~12 Gig or HD space. (tbd)


Recommended

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better

RAM: 2 GB

Video card: NVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better

512 Mb of graphic memory

Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended


Supported Video cards

NVidia 6800, NVidia 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops. ATI X1650 - 1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series ."

DarkStar4565

what are u talking about? Read this preview for consoles

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6191746&mode=previews

It says that everything that went into PC version will go to Consoles and will be rendered in 720P which is great

It is wrong, Eurogamer have already previewd the game and they say its bland compared to the PC verison ( But not ugly by any means ) , hell it even came from Ubisoft that it "Console verisons are equivilant to PC on medium settings " ..