Why makes Crysis Sooooo Impossible on Consoles?

Textures? Lighting? Geometry?

LAck of Rams? :?

What is it?

It's not impossible to make the game for the PS3 or 360, it just wouldn't be as great as it will be on PC. Then again, only a small percentage will play it at its maximum settings anyway.

IDK really, I'm no programmer. :?

lack of memory is reason #1.cobrax75

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

http://maxygames.no.sapo.pt/Crysis.jpg

/fred

http://maxygames.no.sapo.pt/Crysis.jpg

/fred

Homesrfan

Tech demo's FTL. We've seen them shot hundreds of times ands they don't answer the TC's question.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

360 - 512 (2x 256) PS3 2x 256. Compared to the reccomended 2GB , 3GB to hardcore max? (Vista only takes about 500, before you play the OS card)

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

It's not impossible to make the game for the PS3 or 360, it just wouldn't be as great as it will be on PC. Then again, only a small percentage will play it at its maximum settings anyway.

SgtWhiskeyjack

[QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.cobrax75

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Consoles could do more with less rams.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

They both have 512 MB of combined video and system memory. Some of that is being used by the console's OS. I believe that Crysis uses something like 700MB of memory just for textures.

[QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Bibbidy

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

They both have 512 MB of combined video and system memory. Some of that is being used by the console's OS. I believe that Crysis uses something like 700MB of memory just for textures.

yeah but he said they lack memory altogether...

the quality out of dx9 version could definitely be done on the ps3/360. it's just a matter of work, imo.

making it identical to what you can get out of the pc version is far-fecthed however, especially with the whole dx10 thing going on

http://maxygames.no.sapo.pt/Crysis.jpg

/fred

Homesrfan

I think the jaggies give away which one is fake...lol

[QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.cobrax75

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.SgtWhiskeyjack

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

Err , Doom was hardly anywhere near Crysis in scale/graphics or anything ... it was all very tight corridors ... and Doom 3 Xbox was quite abit worse.

The 8800 GTS has 320 MB of video RAM. The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 (pretty much) each have about 256 MB each of video RAM (assuming you're dividing the unified memory of the 360 up evenly).

I'm just not sure that's the issue. Frankly, I think the issue is in sheer grunt force. PC processors are out-of-order, don't have to worry about compression or hard disc space (or whether there's even one there at all), and modern GPUs are different animals.

You have to remember that the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 use in-order processing, which is noticably less efficient than out-of-order processors. Overclocking isn't an option on consoles, and cheaper components are used. The Xbox 360 uses unified memory, which is slower than dedicated video RAM, though theoretically more flexible (but still inherently limited).

Frankly, I don't really know beyond those little things. Unless PC gaming is on another plane of existence from console games, meaning the GPUs are more powerful, the CPUs are dramatically more powerful and use a better method of computing, and RAM has a serious impact on performance, I don't know.

That is actually the case, and modern consoles definitely could not run Crysis maxed, but Crysis is also so scaleable that it can run on GPUs and processors that are probably at least equivalent to those in the Xbox 360 and PS3.

It's hard to tell why, but I would trust the developers first and foremost, who basically laughed at the suggestion that it was possible on either console.

yeah but he said they lack memory altogether...Trading_Zoner

No he didn't. He just said "lack of memory".

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.SgtWhiskeyjack

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

its not the tech itself thats really stopping it. i think we will see games based on the crysis engine on consoles and they will look very nice.

whats stopping it, i think, is the content. the levels are absolutely massive and there packed to the brim with content to facilitate the open play that the game encourages (based on a PC gamer preview i was reading, the levels can be something like 4 times bigger then those in far cry). trying to squeez all that into 512MB of ram would be very very difficult.

[QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.WhySoCry

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

meaning the GPUs are more powerful, the CPUs are dramatically more powerful and use a better method of computing, and RAM has a serious impact on performance, I don't know.Redfingers

All three, with RAM being the biggest one. Getting a game to run on 512 RAM takes some squeezing, and console optimization has it's limits. Sacrifices would have to be made in order to get Crysis to fit, firt and foremost in the texture department.

its not the tech itself thats really stopping it. i think we will see games based on the crysis engine on consoles and they will look very nice.

whats stopping it, i think, is the content. the levels are absolutely massive and there packed to the brim with content to facilitate the open play that the game encourages (based on a PC gamer preview i was reading, the levels can be something like 4 times bigger then those in far cry). trying to squeez all that into 512MB of ram would be very very difficult.

osan0

That pretty much sums it up, the Graphics on Crysis , will be matched at some point, possible surpassed .... but the scale & graphics it provides all at once is something else.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.SgtWhiskeyjack

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

A 6600GT can max out doom 3. Don't kid yourself.

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like. SgtWhiskeyjack

I was running it on Ultra with those specs.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

SgtWhiskeyjack

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

A 6600 GT is only capable of 640x480 at low settings???

Wrong. I played Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source at 800x600 and 1024x768 with steady performance with a P4 3.0Ghz and a Radeon 9800. This is with high settings. I was also able to run Lost Coast, just without HDR, and the 9800 isn't capable of HDR.

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"]

http://maxygames.no.sapo.pt/Crysis.jpg

/fred

primetime2121

I think the jaggies give away which one is fake...lol

Tell me about it the one on the left has way too many jaggies, no HDR, or parallex mapping, awful.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]meaning the GPUs are more powerful, the CPUs are dramatically more powerful and use a better method of computing, and RAM has a serious impact on performance, I don't know.Bibbidy

All three, with RAM being the biggest one. Getting a game to run on 512 RAM takes some squeezing, and console optimization has it's limits. Sacrifices would have to be made in order to get Crysis to fit, firt and foremost in the texture department.

Crysis can run easily on 256 VRAM, which I believe deals with textures. The 8800 GTS can max Crysis, and that has 320MB of VRAM.

[QUOTE="Bibbidy"]

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]meaning the GPUs are more powerful, the CPUs are dramatically more powerful and use a better method of computing, and RAM has a serious impact on performance, I don't know.Redfingers

All three, with RAM being the biggest one. Getting a game to run on 512 RAM takes some squeezing, and console optimization has it's limits. Sacrifices would have to be made in order to get Crysis to fit, firt and foremost in the texture department.

Crysis can run easily on 256 VRAM, which I believe deals with textures. The 8800 GTS can max Crysis, and that has 320MB of VRAM.

Hmm yea low resolution, you'd need the 640 model for higher ones.

[QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.cobrax75

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

A console uses mermory so much more effectively, the 360 and PS3 are running games that no pc with 512megs of ram would even dream of.

John Carmack's new engine allows for 20 GB of uncompressed textures...I don't think it has too much to do with memory...the compression techniques nowadays allow for large amounts of textures to be used on consolesprimetime2121

Thats what I here but I want to see that engine in action.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Polaris_choice

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

A console uses mermory so much more effectively, the 360 and PS3 are running games that no pc with 512megs of ram would even dream of.

Well, its used better, because it doesnt have to scale, and the quality is limited. also, the PS3's OS only take slike 45 RAM right? where PC RAM need increases with how many processes you have going.

So thats subjective, in anycase the PC RAM is dirt cheap, and its not a big problem for PC gamers to get more if they are lacking.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

not enough

Crysis can run easily on 256 VRAM, which I believe deals with textures. The 8800 GTS can max Crysis, and that has 320MB of VRAM.Redfingers

Textures are stored in main memory as well. It's also a lot faster to move something from main memory to VRAM than it is from a hard drive to VRAM.

[QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

Redfingers

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

A 6600 GT is only capable of 640x480 at low settings???

Wrong. I played Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source at 800x600 and 1024x768 with steady performance with a P4 3.0Ghz and a Radeon 9800. This is with high settings. I was also able to run Lost Coast, just without HDR, and the 9800 isn't capable of HDR.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.Trading_Zoner

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

hahaha, nooo.

360 has more ram than the ps3.

Lighting probably doesn't, but all the rest certainly do.

Unless you want a seriously cutdown port don't root for Crysis to come to consoles.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

smokeydabear076

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

A 6600 GT is only capable of 640x480 at low settings???

Wrong. I played Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source at 800x600 and 1024x768 with steady performance with a P4 3.0Ghz and a Radeon 9800. This is with high settings. I was also able to run Lost Coast, just without HDR, and the 9800 isn't capable of HDR.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Trading_Zoner"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]lack of memory is reason #1.SgtWhiskeyjack

PS3 and 360 both have memory though.

512MB of combined memory total.

a gaming PC should probably have close to 5 times as much.

Minimum for Doom3 on PC 1GB, Total amount of RAM the Xbox had 64MB. I hope I don't need to explain it further.

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

Can i just point out the processor in the original Xbox was 733Mhz, the GPU was at 233Mhz

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

Lie more. Doom 3 required 384 MB. ~200 for XP. So 184 for doom 3. Also consider the fact that the Xbox was running it at 640x480 on low settings.

achilles614

:roll: To run doom3 on a PC to the same quality and steady framerate as the XBox did, you needed at least 1Gig, PIII 3.0MHz and a 6600GT, anything less a it struggled. An Xbox had a 233MHz Processor and 64M of RAM. I'm just saying that you can't compare PC specs to console specs like for like.

A 6600 GT is only capable of 640x480 at low settings???

Wrong. I played Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source at 800x600 and 1024x768 with steady performance with a P4 3.0Ghz and a Radeon 9800. This is with high settings. I was also able to run Lost Coast, just without HDR, and the 9800 isn't capable of HDR.