Why Consoles Wil never see PC Quality Crysis.

Thing I posted on crysis boards:

Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.

The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.

Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.

As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system (128bit).

Hermit propaganda, yay! No one cares. You're adopted.Not-A-Stalker

ahhhh.. seriously though..I have seen more than my shae of PC games go to Consoles...I'd wait b4 makin sweeping assumptions..

Who gives a rat's ass?Michael85

Me. Gimp Rat. Spanker of rat ass.

Who gives a rat's ass?Michael85

lol, a lot of people overhype the hardware limitations of consoles (aka System Wars). Although based on the amount of ignorance and brainwashed consumers on this forum, most of these FACTS will go unnoticed.

Who gives a rat's ass?Michael85

Upgrading from Xbox 360 to the next xbox will cost us probably 400 or 500 bucks. That is the upgrade costs you PC guys spend in the same time as well. At least.  And next generation we will probably see games superior to Crysis on the next Xbox/PS4 or whatnot. So technically, you're wrong.

Graphical prowess doesn't impress me nearly as much as gameplay mechanics, these days. Gears looks great, but if it played like ass, I would've been pissed. Luckily, it plays rather well.Michael85

Finally, WhySoCry has arrived. How have you been? organic_machine

No idea, lol. I just figured that my GF account is tied with my GS account :P 

Minimum system RAM under WinXP in DX9? 768MB. Approximate running load of WinXP? ~300 MB. That is 468 MB of system RAM minimum. Both the PS3 and 360 have 512 for both RAM and VRAM. That would leave 44 MB for video processing.

Crysis is only coming to PC for a reason... the console hardware is nowhere near powerful enough to handle it.
foxhound_fox

Upgrading from Xbox 360 to the next xbox will cost us probably 400 or 500 bucks. That is the upgrade costs you PC guys spend in the same time as well. At least. And next generation we will probably see games superior to Crysis on the next Xbox/PS4 or whatnot. So technically, you're wrong.

FearlessSpirit

What does this have to do with the topic if I might ask? The topic simply discusses the REAL hardware inside our consoles, and not worthless hype.

Loads virtual tron shotgun with hermit pellets...get...in...the hole YOU! :xNextGenNow

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Minimum system RAM under WinXP in DX9? 768MB. Approximate running load of WinXP? ~300 MB. That is 468 MB of system RAM minimum. Both the PS3 and 360 have 512 for both RAM and VRAM. That would leave 44 MB for video processing.

Crysis is only coming to PC for a reason... the console hardware is nowhere near powerful enough to handle it.
NextGenNow

As shown in your thread:

PS3 has 8 cores.

Upgrading from Xbox 360 to the next xbox will cost us probably 400 or 500 bucks. That is the upgrade costs you PC guys spend in the same time as well. At least. And next generation we will probably see games superior to Crysis on the next Xbox/PS4 or whatnot. So technically, you're wrong.

FearlessSpirit

Graphical prowess doesn't impress me nearly as much as gameplay mechanics, these days.  Gears looks great, but if it played like ass, I would've been pissed.  Luckily, it plays rather well.Michael85

Graphical prowess doesn't impress me nearly as much as gameplay mechanics, these days.  Gears looks great, but if it played like ass, I would've been pissed.  Luckily, it plays rather well.Michael85

I wouldnt have bought it if it sucked ass. The overall design of the game plays like a blockbuster thriller, which is the first game I've seen to look and play like a CG movie..

But yeah, It seems like they went out of their way to make Crysis look good by compiling a bunch of features into the game, or Crysis looking that good is a result of our evolution of technology. Some aspects of Crysis I find very useless, like Volumetric Clouds. They could have used a giant Bitmap Image like Gran Turismo does and would have looked amazing nontheless.

[QUOTE="NextGenNow"]Loads virtual tron shotgun with hermit pellets...get...in...the hole YOU! :xfoxhound_fox

Thing I posted on crysis boards:

Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.

The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.

Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.

As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system (128bit).

WhySoCry

Upgrading from Xbox 360 to the next xbox will cost us probably 400 or 500 bucks. That is the upgrade costs you PC guys spend in the same time as well. At least. And next generation we will probably see games superior to Crysis on the next Xbox/PS4 or whatnot. So technically, you're wrong.

FearlessSpirit

That's the biggest load of crap I've read all day, and I've read a lot so far. An 8600 DX10 card from Nvidia is under 200, not to mention, the X1950 line from ATI is around 200 for AGP, cheaper for PCI-E(Both stellar performing cards that have more horsepower than any console). Whysocry explained the technical specs, and all you have are assumptions? I've spent less than 100 bucks in the  past 3 years upgrading my rig, you sir, fail with a big fat F. Since most people can't be honest, and just shout "this is better than this" with nothing else to add, for once, System wars actually has an intelligent post, but Fanboys don't wanna hear facts, that's Voodoo science to them.....Now, I'm gonna get back to my PC, than later I'm gonna play my 360 and PS3. Silly Fanboy....

They said the same thing about Half Life 2...................

But that ended it up going to Xbox despite on how bad it was........it was playable and the Xbox only had 64 mb of RAM!!:lol:

They said the same thing about Half Life 2...................

But that ended it up going to Xbox despite on how bad it was........it was playable and the Xbox only had 64 mb of RAM!!:lol:

theboxmike

HL2 is amazing on PC, not so good on console. But I would also say that Halo is better served on a console, more so than a PC. It depends where it was originally intended. The 360 and PS3 will have no problem with the source engine, as it's an extremely scalable engine that works great with a lot of hardware,  not to mention it just looks good, especially with HDR.

the average PC cant /palaric8

But Gaming PC's can and will. The game will scale nicely, according to the dev's, and with this extra time they spent cleaning up the game, I don't doubt it either. My X1950Pro 512 will run this game no problem, DX9 of course, but it will still look gorgeous. You don't need a DX10 card or Vista to run this bad boy. 

Hermit propaganda, yay! No one cares. You're adopted.Not-A-Stalker

Hahaha "you're adopted", and tc we already knew this. 

[QUOTE="palaric8"]the average PC cant /mismajor99

But Gaming PC's can and will. The game will scale nicely, according to the dev's, and with this extra time they spent cleaning up the game, I don't doubt it either. My X1950Pro 512 will run this game no problem, DX9 of course, but it will still look gorgeous. You don't need a DX10 card or Vista to run this bad boy.

I would preffer buying a DX10 card.. u won't be getting everything from crysis beauty with DX9... 

How about:
"Why the average PC won't even see PC quality cryisis" ?lilrush

How about:
"Why the average PC won't even see PC quality cryisis" ?lilrush

Add Supreme Commander too :) 

Thing I posted on crysis boards:

 

Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.

The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.

Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.

As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system (128bit).

WhySoCry

FACT 1

The graphics we see today of Crysis are DX9 in 90% of the pics, they are AMAZING, and run on any 1900XT card

FACT 2

360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's

FACT 3

The ONLY thing bringing 360 behind is ram, that we all know CAN be less on consoles and still produce games that want 4x the ram, like Oblivion

FACT 4

Crysis can be done on 360, AS IT IS IN THOSE AMAZING PICS, exactly like those in its DX9 form, BUT not having a huge whole island loaded at once, would have to have smaller levels like Far Cry Instincts had, but FAR bigger

FACT 5

Can Crysis be done on 360 ? NO WAY IN HELL

Can we get Crysis graphics in DX9 form in 360 ? DEFINATLY, we can see even better thanm its DX10 form, since if levels are small, all rendering power can go to 3D effects

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

They said the same thing about Half Life 2...................

But that ended it up going to Xbox despite on how bad it was........it was playable and the Xbox only had 64 mb of RAM!!:lol:

theboxmike

Yeah, and it looked like absolute CRAP compared to the PC version maxxed out. They even had to take parts of levels out:lol: 

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="palaric8"]the average PC cant /-KinGz-

But Gaming PC's can and will. The game will scale nicely, according to the dev's, and with this extra time they spent cleaning up the game, I don't doubt it either. My X1950Pro 512 will run this game no problem, DX9 of course, but it will still look gorgeous. You don't need a DX10 card or Vista to run this bad boy.

I would preffer buying a DX10 card.. u won't be getting everything from crysis beauty with DX9...

Most of the vids and pics you have seen are in DX9. It will still be the best looking game even in DX9. 

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

Thing I posted on crysis boards:

 

Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.

The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.

Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.

As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system (128bit).

greg_splicer

FACT 1

The graphics we see today of Crysis are DX9 in 90% of the pics, they are AMAZING, and run on any 1900XT card

FACT 2

360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's

FACT 3

The ONLY thing bringing 360 behind is ram, that we all know CAN be less on consoles and still produce games that want 4x the ram, like Oblivion

FACT 4

Crysis can be done on 360, AS IT IS IN THOSE AMAZING PICS, exactly like those in its DX9 form, BUT not having a huge whole island loaded at once, would have to have smaller levels like Far Cry Instincts had, but FAR bigger

FACT 5

Can Crysis be done on 360 ? NO WAY IN HELL

Can we get Crysis graphics in DX9 form in 360 ? DEFINATLY, we can see even better thanm its DX10 form, since if levels are small, all rendering power can go to 3D effects

:lol: 

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

WhySoCry

Greg is a troll, he just couldn't help himself and had to post on the PC Games forum on the locked thread for the 2007 list of PC Games. He's not only annoying, but I'm starting to think he's ghostshadows' protege. Talking factual numbers with him is like talking to a dog.

My god, ghostshadow... :| Took me and a few other guys a while to finally get rid of him. WhySoCry

lol, where is salor goon and BNOv5 when you need them.. :lol:

[QUOTE="Michael85"]Who gives a rat's ass?harry2k5

[QUOTE="Michael85"]Who gives a rat's ass?harry2k5

BNOv5 wasn't quite as bad as Ghost. In all seriousness, he was the worst troll I've ever seen. WhySoCry

BNOv5 wasnt bad at all. He was hilarious. I could never comprehend what he was saying. Go to his profile and read some of his reviews that he did. They are just as unintelligable as his posts!