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

Forums - Gaming - CryEngine 3 showing 360parts vs ps3parts

richardhutnik on 26 March 2009
Gilgamesh said:

Is it normal that I had 2 orgasms while watching this?

No it isn't.  And if it lasts longer than 4 hours, seek medical attention immediately.  They need to see if it might be due to you also taking Cialis.

 



Around the Network
Ascended_Saiyan3 on 26 March 2009
dahuman said:
MikeB said:

IGN: "Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

Hopefully their engine wll end the 360 vs PS3 propaganda wars (engine of probably the most hyped FPS PC game to date). Optimising for the Cell's SPEs consumes a lot of time if they want to use their full potential, so differences may become more obvious (of course a multi-platform game still will have trouble optimising fully for the PS3, as you can't have one version with twice the amount of on screen activity compared to another version, which cannot handle this. This like the devs of Ghostbusters for example explained in the past, being able to achieve twice as much in this regard on the PS3 if there were no 360 version to worry about).

 

well, it's not exactly news that the PS3 has much more potential computation power vs the 360, it just has a lower memory bandwidth but it's able to handle a lot more things at once if the game is exclusively optimized for PS3. most devs would just stick to their multiplat equation though so they can make more money =P. in the end, good games will be good games, doesn't matter what it's on.

Memory bandwidth is much greater on the PS3.  If you're thinking 256Gb/s for eDRAM to GPU, it's actually 32Gb/s.  If you're not thinking about and coming up with "lower memory bandwidth", I don't know how you could come up with that.

 



Ascended_Saiyan3 on 26 March 2009
Baggins said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
I think the PS3 version will outperform the PC version if we compare performance from the perspective of someone who appreciates the power of the cell.

 

na, the amount of memory and the difference in graphic chip performance are quiet big at this point, you don't need a CPU as powerful because your video card is doing a lot of the work, not to mention the new quad cores are pretty beasty by themselves.

 

 

He's being sarcastic mate :)

The PC graphics cards are 2 generations ahead of the PS3, nearly 4 years (long time in PC world) Memory is basically unlimited (I have 12GB in my PC). Most gamers have at least 4GB. The Cell is nowhere near as powerful as even an old Intel Q6600, would wipe the floor with it in all but the most 7 thread optimised applications...which don't actually exisit for normal people.

You aren't basing that on facts and that's why you are completely incorrect.

Example: Intel Core i7 965 XE inter-core bandwidth + cache & memory bandwidth = 106GB/s

Cell inter-core bandwidth ALONE = 197GB/s (observed)

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3782516__5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

"The IBM Systems Performance group has demonstrated SPU-centric data flows achieving 197 GB/s on a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz so this number is a fair reflection on practice as well."

 



xcot on 26 March 2009

Looks good but has frame drops and pop-in



 Twilightman on Gametrailers

darklich13 on 26 March 2009

From looking at the two comparison shots from here

http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?article_id=491444#anchor

I notice way more jaggies on the PS3. Look at picture 1 at original size. Notice the mountain in the distance. Also look at the leaves on the trees to the left. The 360 shots show much greater anti-aliasing.

Now in picture 2 you can really see a difference. First off, the light on the left looks more realistic on the 360. Second, notice on the PS3 as the light comes to an end how there is massive jaggies.

In all honestly, both look really good though. I would say the 360 runs the engine a tad better, but this is to be expected because the original engine was designed for PC and the architecture of the PC and 360 are closer then PC and PS3.



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


Around the Network
BMaker11 on 26 March 2009

It looks good on both, but I think it's a little unfair for it to only show environments on the PS3 version, but have all the action on the 360 version (shooting, engaging enemies *kinda*, etc)



Pete_Beast on 26 March 2009

Is it me or are the urban areas horrible, or atleast look that way, when compared to the woods, jungle and forest areas? These last ones look AMAZING btw. Also, alot of jaggies. Overall looks phenomenal. I guess one is too used to the Crysis on PC graphics so when the same game gets a downgrade in graphics /ported you notice the difference but still looks better than most games on both consoles.



Jo21 on 26 March 2009

both 360 and ps3 are based on the powerpc architecture.

they are WAY ahead intel x86.
32bits systems!.



Ascended_Saiyan3 on 26 March 2009
darklich13 said:
From looking at the two comparison shots from here

http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?article_id=491444#anchor

I notice way more jaggies on the PS3. Look at picture 1 at original size. Notice the mountain in the distance. Also look at the leaves on the trees to the left. The 360 shots show much greater anti-aliasing.

Now in picture 2 you can really see a difference. First off, the light on the left looks more realistic on the 360. Second, notice on the PS3 as the light comes to an end how there is massive jaggies.

In all honestly, both look really good though. I would say the 360 runs the engine a tad better, but this is to be expected because the original engine was designed for PC and the architecture of the PC and 360 are closer then PC and PS3.

Both have been confirmed 720p and no AA.  Lighting is more precise and has shadows from the barrel and boxes in the PS3 version (alley scene with spotlight).   Those things are absent from the X360 version.

The island view scene has better textures and specular reflectivity on the PS3 version.

The cityscape scene has a water feature (water/particle effects) on the PS3 verison.  The X360 version is completely missing the water feature within the cityscape scene.

 



slowmo on 26 March 2009
darklich13 said:
From looking at the two comparison shots from here

http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?article_id=491444#anchor

I notice way more jaggies on the PS3. Look at picture 1 at original size. Notice the mountain in the distance. Also look at the leaves on the trees to the left. The 360 shots show much greater anti-aliasing.

Now in picture 2 you can really see a difference. First off, the light on the left looks more realistic on the 360. Second, notice on the PS3 as the light comes to an end how there is massive jaggies.

In all honestly, both look really good though. I would say the 360 runs the engine a tad better, but this is to be expected because the original engine was designed for PC and the architecture of the PC and 360 are closer then PC and PS3.

I would tend to agree, seems some people are looking at different shots.