The PS3 doesnt use DirectX so it doesnt need to have DirectX 10 .Its graphics libraries are OpenGL and those are continually improving (and not when MS says so ) .The only thing is that to port the game the DX10 effects must be imitated or replicated through OpenGL effects (new or programmed for the ocassion ) and thats all .Crysys wont need a uber-powerful PC ,not one better than the PS3 in any case .

Nice links Tispower, I didn't realize just how advanced the physics is going to be. You can shoot a tree in half, then use the fallen log as cover?

Nice :D

Diomedes1976 said: The PS3 doesnt use DirectX so it doesnt need to have DirectX 10 .Its graphics libraries are OpenGL and those are continually improving (and not when MS says so ) .The only thing is that to port the game the DX10 effects must be imitated or replicated through OpenGL effects (new or programmed for the ocassion ) and thats all .Crysys wont need a uber-powerful PC ,not one better than the PS3 in any case .

The fact is the PS3s GPU is derived from the G70 family, which is old tech at this point. I'm certain that Crysis will be doing things that only the G80 and R600s are capable of - and not just from a brute power.

And to look as good as possible, Crysis will need a PC more powerful than the PS3. Than again, this won't be hard to do by the end of the year when this game releases.

It's already been stated (COD4 interview) that the PS3 can push its graphics beyond the limitations of DX9.

Also besides that factor, Crysis also runs on DX9, there are comparitive videos showing it running on DX9 and DX10 with only moderate differences between the two.

Ergo, I'd say Crysis could run on the PS3.

Also it would make sense to port it to one (or both) of the next-gen consoles to make bigger profits.

DirectX games are hard to port to other systems, this game is meant to show off DirectX 10 and Windows Vista, so I don't expect a PS3 port.

Technically the PS3 should be more than capable of handling far more game compexity due to the cell processor. However this is only true if the game engine takes good advantage of the Cell's SPEs through multi-threading, using just the PPE the average performance is only about on par with a 1.6 Ghz G5 (a tiny percentage of the Cell's peak performance).

Testing indicates SPEs can achieve impressive efficiency rates (much more so than the XBox 360 CPU, at least it should be easier and its [x360 CPU) maximum peak performance is much lower as well) and are potentially very powerful for gaming and multimedia.

sieanr said: Diomedes1976 said: The PS3 doesnt use DirectX so it doesnt need to have DirectX 10 .Its graphics libraries are OpenGL and those are continually improving (and not when MS says so ) .The only thing is that to port the game the DX10 effects must be imitated or replicated through OpenGL effects (new or programmed for the ocassion ) and thats all .Crysys wont need a uber-powerful PC ,not one better than the PS3 in any case . The fact is the PS3s GPU is derived from the G70 family, which is old tech at this point. I'm certain that Crysis will be doing things that only the G80 and R600s are capable of - and not just from a brute power. And to look as good as possible, Crysis will need a PC more powerful than the PS3. Than again, this won't be hard to do by the end of the year when this game releases.

 If you look at my links, then you'll see it'll take 18 months for technology to catch up with the PC. So yes, it's kinda obvious a more powerful PC than the PS3 to run it at full graphics, but even without full detail, it's still gonna look pretty awesome.

@eab Thanks! :D I'm paying attention to this game as I've got my eye on it, as it seems my dad bought a new computer at the right time, and with high enough specs to run the game close to full detail (E6600 Core 2 Duo, 4gb RAM, and nVidia 8600 GT)

eab said: The PS3 doesn't have DirectX 10. Ergo, it can't run the Crytek Engine with the same results.

 your point... OpenGL 2.1 can be way stronger then DX10 let alone an updated version of OpenGL.

MikeB wrote:

Here's an interesting Forbes article citing IBM regarding their CPUs for both the XBox 360 and PS3. They are also making a comparison with the Amiga, as being so much ahead for its time.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0130/076.html

The PS3's CPU's peak performance is multiple times the peak performance of the XBox 360 CPU's or a Pentium 4.

Some quotes:

"A quarter of a century ago Gene Amdahl, the famed architect of the IBM 360 computer family, had an ambitious scheme to pack supercomputer power onto a chip but was too far ahead of his time, and his Trilogy Ltd. went down in flames. In the early 1980s the chip in the Amiga home computer far outraced those in the Intel line, but Intel conquered the market anyway. In the early 1990s Digital Equipment Corp. made the first 64-bit processor. It was an engineering tour de force and a commercial flop. "

"An IBM demo shows the contrast. A terrain rendering program lets you fly over Mount Rainier at 1,300mph. Cell crunches through millions of lines of topographical and photographic data per second to paint topographically accurate, photo-quality pictures at a movie-quality 30 frames per second. On a similar program a Pentium takes more than two minutes to sketch a single frame."

The PS3 is probably capable of running Crysis level graphics, and there shouldn't be anything in the game that's technically impossible. The game was initially designed on the PC, however, so a port would obviously look inferior to the original.

That being said, I don't think they're going to do it. Why? Because it would be extremely expensive to port such a high-caliber game, and the PS3 userbase is so small that it would almost certainly never make a profit. The same reason there won't be many PS3 exclusives after the current batch of titles is released.

I'm sure the amount of people with with powerful enough PCs is going to be pretty small aswell.