By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Crysis 2 - PS3 vs 360 performance comparison

osamanobama on 23 March 2011
Dr.Grass said:
-Newcloud- said:

how low does the FPS have to be to make a noticeable difference?


For the average person it ranges from 22-25. Unfortunately anything under 30fps is very bothersome to me. If its a fast moving scene then under 35fps can even be a problem.

Because of this I had to go and buy one of those 200HZ Motionflow TV's. The 100Hz Trumotion TV's actually generate a frame and inserts it in between every frame coming from the signal. Pretty amazing eh. Motionflow 1up's this by inserting a black frame before and after each generated frame and thereby eliminates the blur effect that some of you might know.

its not so much the fps as it is the change in fps.

for example movies are all in 24 fps, but they look great because the fps doesnt flucuate (spelling?) and a game in the 25-28 fps can look fine, even if it a bit below 25 fps. but what makes it look bad is when it at say 30, then real quikly drop to 20 or something. if it fairly consitant at of around 25 fps, you should notice



Around the Network
osamanobama on 23 March 2011

hopefully ign gets called out for their lies



osamanobama on 23 March 2011
Dr.Grass said:

So what do you guys prefer: 2.5fps more, or 1.93 less teared frames?

I'm going to say I'd rather lose a few fps. I'm really sensitive to that, but for me frame tearing = super irritation.

I have to say that its still small enough to probably not be very noticible.


torn

and for me i dont think it really matters, they both have their strength and weaknesses, it probably balances out



Dr.Grass on 23 March 2011
osamanobama said:
Dr.Grass said:
-Newcloud- said:

how low does the FPS have to be to make a noticeable difference?


For the average person it ranges from 22-25. Unfortunately anything under 30fps is very bothersome to me. If its a fast moving scene then under 35fps can even be a problem.

Because of this I had to go and buy one of those 200HZ Motionflow TV's. The 100Hz Trumotion TV's actually generate a frame and inserts it in between every frame coming from the signal. Pretty amazing eh. Motionflow 1up's this by inserting a black frame before and after each generated frame and thereby eliminates the blur effect that some of you might know.

its not so much the fps as it is the change in fps.

for example movies are all in 24 fps, but they look great because the fps doesnt flucuate (spelling?) and a game in the 25-28 fps can look fine, even if it a bit below 25 fps. but what makes it look bad is when it at say 30, then real quikly drop to 20 or something. if it fairly consitant at of around 25 fps, you should notice


yeah, duly noted.

EDIT: What I said still applies though, since a lower average fps means you notice the change in fps easier.



NiKKoM on 23 March 2011
red_dragon said:

When will Digital Foundry do their comparison?

tommorow afternoon..

http://twitter.com/digital_foundry

Crysis 2 console Face-Off is currently on target for tomorrow afternoon.  

can't wait!





 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 23 March 2011
osamanobama said:
Dr.Grass said:
-Newcloud- said:

how low does the FPS have to be to make a noticeable difference?


For the average person it ranges from 22-25. Unfortunately anything under 30fps is very bothersome to me. If its a fast moving scene then under 35fps can even be a problem.

Because of this I had to go and buy one of those 200HZ Motionflow TV's. The 100Hz Trumotion TV's actually generate a frame and inserts it in between every frame coming from the signal. Pretty amazing eh. Motionflow 1up's this by inserting a black frame before and after each generated frame and thereby eliminates the blur effect that some of you might know.

its not so much the fps as it is the change in fps.

for example movies are all in 24 fps, but they look great because the fps doesnt flucuate (spelling?) and a game in the 25-28 fps can look fine, even if it a bit below 25 fps. but what makes it look bad is when it at say 30, then real quikly drop to 20 or something. if it fairly consitant at of around 25 fps, you should notice


Dunno why I can't edit twice(?)

Anyways: fluctuate ;)



nightsurge on 23 March 2011

What I don't get is why LensOfTruth stated earlier that the PS3 version has a much higher/more noticeable frame rate drop/slowdown during hectic scenes and areas, but didn't use any of those segments for their tests it seems.



Nsanity on 23 March 2011
nightsurge said:

What I don't get is why LensOfTruth stated earlier that the PS3 version has a much higher/more noticeable frame rate drop/slowdown during hectic scenes and areas, but didn't use any of those segments for their tests it seems.


Lens of Truth are nothing more than bunch of amateurs out to make a name for themselves.



justinian on 23 March 2011
Nsanity said:
nightsurge said:

What I don't get is why LensOfTruth stated earlier that the PS3 version has a much higher/more noticeable frame rate drop/slowdown during hectic scenes and areas, but didn't use any of those segments for their tests it seems.


Lens of Truth are nothing more than bunch of amateurs out to make a name for themselves.


And if they said x360 version was far superior they would be your God.

Just because someone doesn't say what you want to hear doesn't make them amateurs or useless.

I like them because unlike others that just give an (which can be biased) opinion they show results from tests that really can't lie.



Nsanity on 23 March 2011
justinian said:
Nsanity said:
nightsurge said:

What I don't get is why LensOfTruth stated earlier that the PS3 version has a much higher/more noticeable frame rate drop/slowdown during hectic scenes and areas, but didn't use any of those segments for their tests it seems.


Lens of Truth are nothing more than bunch of amateurs out to make a name for themselves.


And if they said x360 version was far superior they would be your God.

Just because someone doesn't say what you want to hear doesn't make them amateurs or useless.

I like them because unlike others that just give an (which can be biased) opinion they show results from tests that really can't lie.

I dont give a rats ass if they said every  game looked or performed better on 360 because to me they are bunch of fucking wannabes trying to get in on Digitalfoundry spotlight.