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

Forums - Sony - crysis coming to ps3

Username2324 on 24 March 2008
fazz 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.

 


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.

The PS3's 256MB of ram runs at 3.2GHz please show me a stick of ram I can use in my computer that runs at that speed.... I would love it!

 



Around the Network
Squilliam on 24 March 2008
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
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. 


It is usually assumed that people realize that the 8800gt is powerful enough on its' own to handle the graphics workload. And im sure that the floating point advantage of the PC GPU can more than compensate for the SPE's on the cell if you wanted to battle em or something. Don't forget that a humble Core 2 duo @ 3ghz packs quite the punch in integer operations.

Tease.

sc94597 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.

What operating system are you using? Did you end all useless processes in task manager. I have vista and only use 512mbs of ram being used.

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.

No you are wrong. The graphics processing unit produces the graphics while the central processing unit processes Ai,Physics, and other things non game related such as the Operating system , and backround processes. THe cpu may help with some things, but the overall graphics production is made by the gpu.

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.

The only major difference is PC's have an operating system , and processes running while consoles don't. That is the only major difference.



Regarding the ram issue, the PS3's ram is faster than any PC Ram you'll find, so not as much is needed.
I beleive gddr4 and gddr5 ram is faster. The ps3 only has 256mbs of XDR(the ram you stated) , and 256mbs of Gddr3. Now like fazz said bandwidth also has to be tooken into consideration.

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.

Read what I said earlier about this.


 



sc94597 on 24 March 2008
Username2324 said:
fazz 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.

 


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.

The PS3's 256MB of ram runs at 3.2GHz please show me a stick of ram I can use in my computer that runs at that speed.... I would love it!

 


 Fazz was talking about  bandwidth. Bandwidth is more important in ram  than clock speed. 



Username2324 on 24 March 2008

Very good! Now what is so impressive about Crysis? ITS PHYSICS! Huzzah! Now what does the physics? The CPU, words from your own mouth. How about the AI, people love a good Ai, what does that need? The CPU huzzah!

And there's much more of a difference between a console and a PC besides the operating system, I suggest you read up on the two before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

As I stated, the PS3's ram runs at 3.2GHz the same speed as the Cell for increased performance, there is no PC that has the architecture of the PS3, they are far different.

If the CPU was so useless, why would the 360 have a tri-core CPU? Why would the PS3 have 7 SPE's? Think about it..... Why does Crysis suggest a DUAL-core CPU? THINK ABOUT IT.



Around the Network
fazz on 24 March 2008
Username2324 said:
fazz 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.

 


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.

The PS3's 256MB of ram runs at 3.2GHz please show me a stick of ram I can use in my computer that runs at that speed.... I would love it!


Yeah, 3.2Ghz at 8 bit bandwidth, that puts it at around 20GB/s again.

And sure, with DDR2 you can only get around 16GB/s bandwidth on PC for system RAM, but 5GB/s is a much lesser difference compared to a 100GB/s difference, comparing any RAM on console to video RAM on PC.



sc94597 on 24 March 2008

Username2324 said:
Very good! Now what is so impressive about Crysis? ITS PHYSICS! Huzzah! Now what does the physics? The CPU, words from your own mouth. How about the AI, people love a good Ai, what does that need? The CPU huzzah!

The graphics and physics are both impressive in crysis. The graphics being the more impressive of the two setting itself apart from other games by alot. I wasn't talking about the Ai, or the Physics , because I know the ps3 could do them , the graphics at high is what I was saying it couldn't. 

And there's much more of a difference between a console and a PC besides the operating system, I suggest you read up on the two before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

I said major difference. A console does have different architectures, but then you would have to say all consoles can't compare , because not all consoles have the same architectures. 

As I stated, the PS3's ram runs at 3.2GHz the same speed as the Cell for increased performance, there is no PC that has the architecture of the PS3, they are far different.

And as I state there is ram called GDDR4 , and GDDR5 that is faster. GDDR5 is clocked at 6ghz. Now for the architecture part the 360,or wii  doesn't have architecture close to it. SHould we not compare them the same.The two types of rams are also faster in bandwidth btw.

If the CPU was so useless, why would the 360 have a tri-core CPU? Why would the PS3 have 7 SPE's? Think about it..... Why does Crysis suggest a DUAL-core CPU? THINK ABOUT IT.

I never said the cpu was worthless. The cpu does everything other than graphics, and is secondary in graphics( meaning it helps with graphics too. The reason why they made the xbox 360 , and Ps3 have better cpus is because they knew the graphics cards would get dated , and they knew they would need more , and more help from the cpu. 


 



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


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.

The PS3's 256MB of ram runs at 3.2GHz please show me a stick of ram I can use in my computer that runs at that speed.... I would love it!


Yeah, 3.2Ghz at 8 bit bandwidth, that puts it at around 20GB/s again.

And sure, with DDR2 you can only get around 16GB/s bandwidth on PC for system RAM, but 5GB/s is a much lesser difference compared to a 100GB/s difference, comparing any RAM on console to video RAM on PC.

I would like to add that he is wrong about it being the fastest in clock speed too. The fastest ram is GDDR5 clocked at 6GHZ.

 



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 24 March 2008
Squilliam said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
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.


 

It is usually assumed that people realize that the 8800gt is powerful enough on its' own to handle the graphics workload. And im sure that the floating point advantage of the PC GPU can more than compensate for the SPE's on the cell if you wanted to battle em or something. Don't forget that a humble Core 2 duo @ 3ghz packs quite the punch in integer operations
 
Re: 1st bolded statement: But is it recognized that RSX isn't as "weak" as a 7800GT used in a PC for a PC game?Re: 2nd bolded statement: I'm confused about your switch from discussing GPU/floating to discussing Core 2/interger in those 2 sentences, but anyway.  Issue is, how much can certain advantages of Cell, with optimized code, make up for a GPU that is eclipsed by top-end GPUs in PCs -- considering that no PC setup is as uniform or optimized-for, so there is more hardware power wasted in PCs -- as well as Windows eating up tons of resources.  I'm not saying that Cell makes PS3 better than high-end PCs, I'm just stating what I think are some reasons not to say "7800gt < 8800gt, look at 3dMark numbers for those cards in PCs, end of story, PS3 is weak".  Or something similar. Why can't I get rid of this center-justified formatting?  hmm..... 
   
 
 

 



Squilliam on 24 March 2008
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
Squilliam said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
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.


 

It is usually assumed that people realize that the 8800gt is powerful enough on its' own to handle the graphics workload. And im sure that the floating point advantage of the PC GPU can more than compensate for the SPE's on the cell if you wanted to battle em or something. Don't forget that a humble Core 2 duo @ 3ghz packs quite the punch in integer operations
 
Re: 1st bolded statement: But is it recognized that RSX isn't as "weak" as a 7800GT used in a PC for a PC game?Re: 2nd bolded statement: I'm confused about your switch from discussing GPU/floating to discussing Core 2/interger in those 2 sentences, but anyway.  Issue is, how much can certain advantages of Cell, with optimized code, make up for a GPU that is eclipsed by top-end GPUs in PCs -- considering that no PC setup is as uniform or optimized-for, so there is more hardware power wasted in PCs -- as well as Windows eating up tons of resources.  I'm not saying that Cell makes PS3 better than high-end PCs, I'm just stating what I think are some reasons not to say "7800gt    
 
 

 


A more accurate assessment is that the 8800gt is more than twice as powerful as the RSX, partially due to efficiency gains between the generations. :) For this reason, Crysis won't do better than medium-high at 720p. You also have ram constraints and such which make the system less efficient in spite of optimization. Optimizations aren't all at no cost, sometimes you have to tradeoff one feature for another. On consoles this has generally been due to a lack of RAM. The PS3 isn't weak, it's SOLID. Unfortunately it can only fall behind PC's further and further, with the next round of cards coming later this year, One TFLOP won't be uncommon for a mid-high end single GPU card.

Tease.