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

Forums - Sony - crysis coming to ps3

naznatips on 24 March 2008

Uh, actually kergeten many PC games (including Crysis) are extremely well optimized for GRAPHICS CARDS. RAM is a whole different beast, and a completely uncomparable process as RAM is used for more than running games on PCs.

Not all PC games are well optimized, but Crysis is one that is, and it can't be run on max without at least an 8800GT. The PS3 runs a modified 7800GT. It would run it on medium at 30 FPS and 720p at best. There would most likely be signifficant slowdown too. The PS3 is certainly good at some things. The Cell is great for physics operations. In many ways better than any current CPU, but its graphics card is severely lacking compared to those in modern PCs.

Sorry kergeten, but you really don't know what you're talking about.



Around the Network
naznatips on 24 March 2008
Username2324 said:
shio said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:

It will look like it does on low settings if ported to the ps3. The reason is , because of the gpu. I couldn't run crysis on medium until recently. Now I could run it on high. My old gpu ran it on low-med settings, and it was a 8600gt compared to the ps3s equivalent of a 7600 I think. So they would definitely have to downgrade it alot.

 

Edit: Btw my cpu is a pentium dual core E 2140 clocked at 3.0ghz from 1.6ghz. I have 2gbs of ddr2 ram clocked at 600 mhz. So my pc wasn't too bad.

The PS3 has a modified 7800, designed to work hand in hand with the Cell, please stop commenting on the power of the PS3 since you clearly know nothing about it.

OT The PS3 could easily run Crysis on High settings if optimized, but as said, it would cost more than the game would make.

 


A Crytek dev said that the PS3 could be able to run Crysis in settings between Medium and High, but not more. So PS3 probably couldn't even reach High settings.

Since when has Crytek been spending time working on PS3 games?

 


Since they started making a downgraded versions of Far Cry 2 on the PS3 and 360?



Username2324 on 24 March 2008
sc94597 said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
KBG29 said:
@sc94597

I disagree with that. Crysis is the most physics intense game I have ever played. Without the Cell there is no way any current gen console could immitate what you get on PC.
The physics would run on the 360s cpu fine. The requirements call for the least a pentium 4 2.8ghz. Now the graphics card is what is going to bring the 360 and ps3 down when they try to run crysis. Yes it does have good physics , but people are more wowed by the graphics, and that is what makes it harder to run. I would say the 360 could run crysis low-med and the ps3 without using the cell could run it on low. THe ps3 using the cell could probaly run it on med at most.

 

That's if you want to run it at 640x480 at all low settings.

You make me laugh, "The ps3 without using the cell could run it on low", let me ask you this, why would anyone try to make a game for the PS3 that doesn't use the Cell? And you seem to have this idea that 360 is more powerful than the PS3, again I will ask you to stop commenting on the power consoles, not just the PS3, but any of them since you obviously know nothing about console workings.

 


I was talking about using it for graphics production the way therealmafoo said. If you knew anything about pc games you would know most of them rely on the gpu to produce graphics rather than the cpu. The cpu is for everything else in the game , and operating system. You also forget that consoles have very little ram. Crysis needs about 2gbs ram in total when you add in the vram. Yes the ps3 and 360 may not be running an operating system in the back round , but even if you take away the ram used in the operating system about 512mb you still don't have enough to produce high quality textures that crysis has at above 1080p resolutions.

With absolutely nothing running on my computer I only have 1.3GB of free RAM out of 2GB. And you're wrong, PC games are developed to use the CPU as much as GPU, because most PCs have better CPUs than GPUs, although newer games are becoming GPU heavy. I'd like to see a single core processor run Crysis on maximum settings.

But again, the PC version has nothing to do with how it would run on a console, if you don't understand that consoles are vastly different than PC's in the way they run games, that's not my problem.

Regarding the ram issue, the PS3's ram is faster than any PC Ram you'll find, so not as much is needed.

Just listen to what I said, you don't know enough about the consoles to be claiming how powerful they are, and comparing them with PC's just proves it.

 



CAL4M1TY on 24 March 2008

No it won't be coming to the PS3, but that's not a knock on the PS3 performance capabilities, more that it'd be financial suicide.

You have to think about development costs, PS3 porting is harder than 360 porting, Crytek would do better with selling rights to companies to use the cryengine (i think that's its name) then to waste funds porting a game that wasn't financially successful on the PC. They aren't epic here, who have had huge success with Gears and the Unreal 3 engine that the unsuccessful UT3 can be ported onto the 360 without to much worry about the financial situation.

if it were possible, they are better off porting to the 360 for the larger install base, though I would say that there are more PS3's in the world then there are high end gaming PC's in the general public



shio on 24 March 2008
CAL4M1TY said:
No it won't be coming to the PS3, but that's not a knock on the PS3 performance capabilities, more that it'd be financial suicide.

You have to think about development costs, PS3 porting is harder than 360 porting, Crytek would do better with selling rights to companies to use the cryengine (i think that's its name) then to waste funds porting a game that wasn't financially successful on the PC. They aren't epic here, who have had huge success with Gears and the Unreal 3 engine that the unsuccessful UT3 can be ported onto the 360 without to much worry about the financial situation.

if it were possible, they are better off porting to the 360 for the larger install base, though I would say that there are more PS3's in the world then there are high end gaming PC's in the general public

Crysis exceeded all expectations and sold 1 million copies in it's first 45 days, how is it unsuccessful?!

http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
Loud_Hot_White_Box on 24 March 2008
naznatips said:
Uh, actually kergeten many PC games (including Crysis) are extremely well optimized for GRAPHICS CARDS. RAM is a whole different beast, and a completely uncomparable process as RAM is used for more than running games on PCs.

Not all PC games are well optimized, but Crysis is one that is, and it can't be run on max without at least an 8800GT. The PS3 runs a modified 7800GT. It would run it on medium at 30 FPS and 720p at best. There would most likely be signifficant slowdown too. The PS3 is certainly good at some things. The Cell is great for physics operations. In many ways better than any current CPU, but its graphics card is severely lacking compared to those in modern PCs.

Sorry kergeten, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

One thing the Cell is great at, other than doing physics on its own w/o needing the GPU to do it, is figuring out what it doesn't have to send to the GPU at all, thereby sparing the GPU that load as well.  Example: the Cell SPE's absolutely fly when asked to determine which polygons are on the back surfaces of figures, and therefore don't have to be drawn by the GPU.  Cell (all because of the SPEs) blows away Pentiums and the Xenon at this...so while other GPUs are busy drawing polygons, many of which won't be visible to the player in each frame, RSX won't have to be doing that nearly as much IF a game is optimized well for Cell.

Cell, more than Intel/AMD/Xenon processors, can increase the power of the GPU it is paired with, especially considering the insane bandwith between the two when compared to PC setups.

So, your 8800GT vs. 7800GT analysis neglects a lot. 



Squilliam on 24 March 2008
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
KBG29 said:
@sc94597

I disagree with that. Crysis is the most physics intense game I have ever played. Without the Cell there is no way any current gen console could immitate what you get on PC.
The physics would run on the 360s cpu fine. The requirements call for the least a pentium 4 2.8ghz. Now the graphics card is what is going to bring the 360 and ps3 down when they try to run crysis. Yes it does have good physics , but people are more wowed by the graphics, and that is what makes it harder to run. I would say the 360 could run crysis low-med and the ps3 without using the cell could run it on low. THe ps3 using the cell could probaly run it on med at most.

 

That's if you want to run it at 640x480 at all low settings.

You make me laugh, "The ps3 without using the cell could run it on low", let me ask you this, why would anyone try to make a game for the PS3 that doesn't use the Cell? And you seem to have this idea that 360 is more powerful than the PS3, again I will ask you to stop commenting on the power consoles, not just the PS3, but any of them since you obviously know nothing about console workings.

 


I was talking about using it for graphics production the way therealmafoo said. If you knew anything about pc games you would know most of them rely on the gpu to produce graphics rather than the cpu. The cpu is for everything else in the game , and operating system. You also forget that consoles have very little ram. Crysis needs about 2gbs ram in total when you add in the vram. Yes the ps3 and 360 may not be running an operating system in the back round , but even if you take away the ram used in the operating system about 512mb you still don't have enough to produce high quality textures that crysis has at above 1080p resolutions.

With absolutely nothing running on my computer I only have 1.3GB of free RAM out of 2GB. And you're wrong, PC games are developed to use the CPU as much as GPU, because most PCs have better CPUs than GPUs, although newer games are becoming GPU heavy. I'd like to see a single core processor run Crysis on maximum settings.

But again, the PC version has nothing to do with how it would run on a console, if you don't understand that consoles are vastly different than PC's in the way they run games, that's not my problem.

Regarding the ram issue, the PS3's ram is faster than any PC Ram you'll find, so not as much is needed.

Just listen to what I said, you don't know enough about the consoles to be claiming how powerful they are, and comparing them with PC's just proves it.

 


Hmm lets see, PS3 - 1.6ghz g5 processor equivelent and 7 SPE's + 7800gt graphics card. 512 mb ram. Runs games at 720p mostly. Obsoleted before release by the 8800gtx graphics card. Closed system. PC - Core 2 Duo @ 3ghz + 9800gx2 with 512mb*2 vram - 4gb main ram. Runs games at 1080p at higher detail levels. Costs MORE, but you get what you pay for. Open system. Runs Crysis @ 2560*1600 or 4 megapixel @30fps.

Tease.

fazz on 24 March 2008
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
KBG29 said:
@sc94597

I disagree with that. Crysis is the most physics intense game I have ever played. Without the Cell there is no way any current gen console could immitate what you get on PC.
The physics would run on the 360s cpu fine. The requirements call for the least a pentium 4 2.8ghz. Now the graphics card is what is going to bring the 360 and ps3 down when they try to run crysis. Yes it does have good physics , but people are more wowed by the graphics, and that is what makes it harder to run. I would say the 360 could run crysis low-med and the ps3 without using the cell could run it on low. THe ps3 using the cell could probaly run it on med at most.

 

That's if you want to run it at 640x480 at all low settings.

You make me laugh, "The ps3 without using the cell could run it on low", let me ask you this, why would anyone try to make a game for the PS3 that doesn't use the Cell? And you seem to have this idea that 360 is more powerful than the PS3, again I will ask you to stop commenting on the power consoles, not just the PS3, but any of them since you obviously know nothing about console workings.

 


I was talking about using it for graphics production the way therealmafoo said. If you knew anything about pc games you would know most of them rely on the gpu to produce graphics rather than the cpu. The cpu is for everything else in the game , and operating system. You also forget that consoles have very little ram. Crysis needs about 2gbs ram in total when you add in the vram. Yes the ps3 and 360 may not be running an operating system in the back round , but even if you take away the ram used in the operating system about 512mb you still don't have enough to produce high quality textures that crysis has at above 1080p resolutions.

With absolutely nothing running on my computer I only have 1.3GB of free RAM out of 2GB. And you're wrong, PC games are developed to use the CPU as much as GPU, because most PCs have better CPUs than GPUs, although newer games are becoming GPU heavy. I'd like to see a single core processor run Crysis on maximum settings.

But again, the PC version has nothing to do with how it would run on a console, if you don't understand that consoles are vastly different than PC's in the way they run games, that's not my problem.

Regarding the ram issue, the PS3's ram is faster than any PC Ram you'll find, so not as much is needed.

Just listen to what I said, you don't know enough about the consoles to be claiming how powerful they are, and comparing them with PC's just proves it.

 


Except almost all memory in any middle-andabove-end video card, of course.

Sure, consoles are quite different on certain aspects to PCs, but the most limiting factor on how would Crysis perform on consoles, this is memory bandwidth and size of it, is the easiest thing to compare between PCs and consoles.

Don't forget that Crysis not only asks for 2GB of system memory, it asks for at least 256MB of dedicated video memory. AT LEAST. Not to mention the thing I mentioned about speed. A GeForce 8800GTX has a bandwidth of over 80GB/s. That's almost 400% the bandwidth of the memories of 360/PS3, be them video or main. And even in that case it struggles.

And no, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done on consoles. 



eatrice on 24 March 2008

I am pretty sure either one (PS3/360 could run the game) considering my PC can run it barebones and my PC not so hot anymore. at what rate, and the crispness is another question. that would depend, up to a certain point, on the time they put in it. of course neither system could run it at full capacity. that's just ludicrous. and will they spend the time for the PS3 w/ a 10+ million user base? maybe but i can't imagine that much time.



Username2324 on 24 March 2008
Squilliam said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
KBG29 said:
@sc94597

I disagree with that. Crysis is the most physics intense game I have ever played. Without the Cell there is no way any current gen console could immitate what you get on PC.
The physics would run on the 360s cpu fine. The requirements call for the least a pentium 4 2.8ghz. Now the graphics card is what is going to bring the 360 and ps3 down when they try to run crysis. Yes it does have good physics , but people are more wowed by the graphics, and that is what makes it harder to run. I would say the 360 could run crysis low-med and the ps3 without using the cell could run it on low. THe ps3 using the cell could probaly run it on med at most.

 

That's if you want to run it at 640x480 at all low settings.

You make me laugh, "The ps3 without using the cell could run it on low", let me ask you this, why would anyone try to make a game for the PS3 that doesn't use the Cell? And you seem to have this idea that 360 is more powerful than the PS3, again I will ask you to stop commenting on the power consoles, not just the PS3, but any of them since you obviously know nothing about console workings.

 


I was talking about using it for graphics production the way therealmafoo said. If you knew anything about pc games you would know most of them rely on the gpu to produce graphics rather than the cpu. The cpu is for everything else in the game , and operating system. You also forget that consoles have very little ram. Crysis needs about 2gbs ram in total when you add in the vram. Yes the ps3 and 360 may not be running an operating system in the back round , but even if you take away the ram used in the operating system about 512mb you still don't have enough to produce high quality textures that crysis has at above 1080p resolutions.

With absolutely nothing running on my computer I only have 1.3GB of free RAM out of 2GB. And you're wrong, PC games are developed to use the CPU as much as GPU, because most PCs have better CPUs than GPUs, although newer games are becoming GPU heavy. I'd like to see a single core processor run Crysis on maximum settings.

But again, the PC version has nothing to do with how it would run on a console, if you don't understand that consoles are vastly different than PC's in the way they run games, that's not my problem.

Regarding the ram issue, the PS3's ram is faster than any PC Ram you'll find, so not as much is needed.

Just listen to what I said, you don't know enough about the consoles to be claiming how powerful they are, and comparing them with PC's just proves it.

 


 

Hmm lets see, PS3 - 1.6ghz g5 processor equivelent and 7 SPE's + 7800gt graphics card. 512 mb ram. Runs games at 720p mostly. Obsoleted before release by the 8800gtx graphics card. Closed system. PC - Core 2 Duo @ 3ghz + 9800gx2 with 512mb*2 vram - 4gb main ram. Runs games at 1080p at higher detail levels. Costs MORE, but you get what you pay for. Open system. Runs Crysis @ 2560*1600 or 4 megapixel @30fps.
I'm curious as to where you got that from.....