jeez crysis on lowest you can see trees far away. unlike ce3 it is very short. i even noticed crysis 2 pc cause i have it when im 15 feet away it materiallized. im like o_O then i look up this vid
Of course CE2 is superior of CE3 as 2 was developped solely for PC configurations whitout limits basically... What they did with the 3 was to develop a multiplatform targeted version while keeping as much as possible stuff from the 2 so it's kinda a subset lol of the 2. Though I think they did quite a good job and Crysis 2 and Crysis 1 remake look quite good considering videocards for example of those consoles are something like a 7800gt at best ^^
@freeedom22 Actually, in terms of features, CryEngine 3 is a big improvement over CryEngine 2. It supports DirectX 11, deferred lighting and global illumination, to list the few most important. The problem is that consoles can't afford to use those features, so CE3 on consoles is worse than CE2 on PC. Between CE2 and CE3 on PC, the latter is much more advanced.
what dose this guy have against cryengine 3 he was like oh its so bad yet cryengine 2 is better. cryengine has to be better cause it was made after cryengine 3 its common sense.
its the way it is because the xbox and ps3 both have terrible hardware so they have to downgrade all the graphics, textures, and anything that makes the game look good. which means GO BUY A DAMN PC!!!
i really wish if Crytek makes Crysis3 using the cryengine 2 but with more improvements, i don't mean that Cryengine 3 sucks but the original crysis was a thing of beauty.
yeah yeah we get the point that pc stronger in graphics but that doesnt mean it gonna run smoothly on high settings which is what xbox and ps3 do and no one wants to pay a $1000 for gaming
@richy4123 1: it never has to be on high settings.
2: if you did what i did which was to buy a $400 comp. then improve it processor by graphics card over the months, you hardly notice.
3. pc dominates console in every way but console is still good since it is made for games so lag is almost guaranteed not to happen most of the time, but think about it like this: your paying double the price for over triple the capabilities.
@richy4123 First of all, the consoles do not run games at high settings. Second, they run games at half the framerate PC games usually run on, meaning PC games do run a lot smoother.
Finally, yes, a lot of people are willing to pay $1000 and even more on gaming. It's not like you have to though, as you can get a computer much faster than the consoles for just twice the cost of a console, with the benefit of PC versions of games being generally cheaper than their console counterparts.
NO xbox and ps3 do not run smoothly on high settings, they run smoothly on low settings, and you are paying a premium for low quality hardware. If you look at the cost of building a computer and the uses of a computer vs. consoles there's really no argument.
How is this video even valid? You can't compare the old cry engine on pc against the console versions of cry engine 3. Obviously cry engine 3 would seem obselete to cry engine 2 because of the difference between console and pc. Pc's can alter their settings and change them in any way and so we can see the full potential of the engine. Sure it's for 360 vs ps3 but why try to pin them against pc when console will lose?
Gameplay>Graphics PS3/360/Wii offers that. Console wins clearly. PC is always be the best in performance. But I prefer variety in games. So I'll stick to my PS3 and Wii for now. I already have a decent PC. Can't believe I missed the whole thing.
PC will always be more powerful. But I give Sony and Microsoft credit for making their consoles make games look as good as they do with old as fuck hardware.
Pc is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than xbox and ps3 combined
@zombieapocalypse561 still amazing what crytek managed to do with the consoles... considering most gaming PCS have minimum 4GB (I have 8GB), and consoles are limited to 512mb ram total(including video ram).... arg.
@Nikos21Aekara Yes, it can. In 2006, by the time the PS3 was released, there were already Conroe-based Core 2 Duo processors and GeForce 7950 series GPUs, which is enough to run those games, even a bit better than consoles do. If you were willing to spend more and get a larger performance advantage, there were also Kentsfield-based Core 2 Extreme processors and GeForce 8800 series GPUs, the latter being released just three days before the PS3 was launched in japan.
Lol when I play Crysis 1 on pc, it can handle medium settings. When I play on xbox, the looks are thesame as on my pc. So ofcourse consoles use medium settings for pc. No need for all these little details to point that out, lol. But still thorough work, x)
@Huststyler The GeForce 9 series was released years after the PS3. The console uses a GPU based on the exact same chip used on the 7950GT, but with half the ROPs disabled (consequently, half the memory controllers as well).
i think pc and xboxare both good in both ways xbox: good safe, easy downloads no too expensive pretty reliable good graphics bad expensivefor xtras (headsets £10+, controls £30+) cannot surf internet as freely pc: good LOTS of memory better graphics better gameplay bad hard to get friends unless on steam or similar thing controls can b hard to get used to
@MaxOblivion5 Crysis 2 is powered by CE3 on the PC as well as consoles. Obviously, the CE3 on consoles is capped and looks like medium-low settings of
I think Crysis 2 never should have come out as a multi-platform game, and stayed a PC exclusive. All systems need to keep their exclusives exclusive, because in the end, it yields far better results. Devs can focus on optimizing the game for one single system instead of havin to worry about porting it to different systems. Crysis 2 should have stayed a PC game.
@ZALHERA666 Crysis 2 is still the best on PC and Crysis 2 being on consoles isn't affecting any one playing it on PC.I'm glad it was for consoles I had fun playing Crysis 2 on PS3 it looked awesome sounded awesome and the gameplay was awesome.Let me ask you a question if Crysis 2 on consoles isn't affecting you then whats the problem.If your answer is it's not affecting you but you have an explanation fuck the explanation if its not affecting you don't complain just saying not hating.
@KratosMayhem It IS affecting me. As a consumer, I feel like I didn't get the best, and I believe I would have if they didn't take that route. So yes, it did affect me, and I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree. Just voicing my opinion as well.
@ZALHERA666 I think the reason behind it must be that there are not a lot CE games at all....and crytek is a company that's selling a graphics engine, and if you see the game market Unreal Engine is kicking cryteks ass big time. so making this game multiplataform is the way to say "hey look!!! my product can be used to make any game you want!!! not just ultra-high-definition PC games"
This was expected, but come on, consoles are made for the budget gamer, while PC's are made for those with the coin to make em. To be honest, consoles are a significant level weaker than that of a PC, but it is made for the people with less money...or maybe the fanboy, but in short no one gives a shit about sony, they do enough of ripping people off and supporting the Sopa bill, but back on topic, PC's will always out perform a console, its just the way it is.
@tazss159 thats not the case, i have a 500$ card thats only two years old and it still struggles when maxing out certain games. it is said this card has 9x the power of a ps3
@vnvxvnv It's probably because your cpu and ram are bottle necking it. If you a play a game that is super heavily GPU dependent then it would run smoothly but the problem is that most games are balanced in cpu,gpu and ram.
@tazss159 theres no such thing as a ps3 game with better graphics then any pc game to date, youd have to be really high on crack to believe something like that. im not even trying to be a fanboy its physically impossible for a console to outperform a pc. there is a huge difference between pc and console but you cant really see it on toutube due to video compression. you habe to see it in real life
@vnvxvnv Maybe it's because developers are not harnessing the potential of PC hardware. That trailer that I saw for the upcoming game The last of us, those graphics do look more realistic then anything I've seen on the PC.
@tazss159 What I said is regardless of how they implemented the engines on their games. I haven't personally seen Crysis 2 to know how it is maxed out, but when you look at the feature lists of CryEngine 2 and CryEngine 3 (independent of the Crysis franchise), the latter certainly has more to offer.
@NewLynxS Yeah I know, they didn't take full advantage of CryEngine 3 with Crysis 2. I can understand why you would do something like that on the consoles, but why the PC? The could've taken full advantage of CryEngine 3 with the PC version of Crysis 2. But I guess, if they made the PC version that much better, then they wouldn't make as much from the console players, because the PC version is that much superior, and the PC also wouldn't make them much.
@tazss159 So did I, the second game didn't really feel as sharp as the first game. But the first game was better than the second games was. No doubt about it.
Sry, but this comparison is SOOO fucked up.. That's like comparing an VW Golf II on a desert track vs. a VW Golf III on a highway... You can't have 2 variables when comparing something.. -.-
@qwazorp You can't upgrade consoles. Unlike PCs, which use sockets and expansion slots so components can easily be placed in or removed, consoles have soldered, unchangable parts. Also, even if you managed to insert another GPU on your console, for example, it still doesn't have the driver ecosystem PCs have to support multiple components and the new part still wouldn't work, this time due to software issues.
Also, there is no such thing as a "stock PC". You can pick components at will.
@NewLynxS By "64 MB shared" do they mean that the 64MB can also be contributed to VRAM, or is it a max of 27MB VRAM?
Well, to see if the difference between modern day PC's and consoles is as big as the difference between the last generation and this generation of consoles, or at least as big as the differece between the Wii and the PS3/360.
@tazss159 The 64 MB can be used either as system RAM or VRAM, on top of the other 27 MB as VRAM only. Obviously, part of the 64 MB must be used as system RAM or the games will have no memory to run on.
As for the difference, the PS3 has 5.62 times more memory than the Wii, while today's mainstream computers have 10 times as much memory as the PS3 (considering 4 GB of RAM and 1 GB of VRAM). But you know that says very little about actual processing power.
@NewLynxS Well, yes, but I'm talking about VRAM, since that's one of the main features that contributes to the visuals of the game. So a PS3 has 9.48 times the VRAM of the Wii, while something like a GTX 580 has around 3-4 times the RAM of the Xbox 360 (since Xbox 360's 512 is shared) and 6 times more VRAM then the PS3. But also considering that modern day GPU's use GDDR5 and the PS3/360 use GDDR3. Though I don't know how much of a difference is speed there is between GDDR5 and GDDR3.
@tazss159 Well, the GTX580 has a bandwidth of 192.4 GB/s, the HD6970 has a bandwidth of 176 GB/s, and the Xbox 360 has a bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s. Draw your calculators.
Also keep in mind that cheaper GPUs such as the HD6900 series and the GTX560 Ti have 2 GB versions, as well as the GTX580 itself has 3 GB versions.
@NewLynxS I have the 3 GB version of the GTX 580. Well, I sort of regret investing into my PC, because the difference in games between the PC maxed out, and the PS3/360 seems quite negligible to be honest. But I guess it's because the developers would loose the console sales if they made a game that much better on the PC, or that the difference in hardware really isn't that big.
@tazss159 I've been telling you though, the enthusiast market is very far from being the best value. You should stick with mainstream. That way, you have lower performance, but still higher than the consoles, and for just a fraction of the price. And you won't be frustrated about games not taking advantage of your computer, since they are very adequately made for the mainstream market.
For example, if I were to buy a computer today, I'd go with a Core i3-2100 and a HD6870.
@NewLynxS Yeah, but still though, the difference between the PS3/360, and enthusiast level GPU's like the GTX 580 is not as big as the difference between a PS3/360 and Wii, or the last generation of consoles, correct?
@tazss159 Apparently. But you can't tell just yet. Suppose the next Playstation uses a GTX580, exactly as it is today. There's a difference between a PC game, made with the mainstream market in mind, running like a breeze on a GTX580; and a next-gen Playstation game, where developers try to take the most they can out of that specific GPU (in other words, no inferior markets to worry about), often sacrificing the 60 FPS mark and settling for 30 FPS to increase the visual quality further.
@NewLynxS Yes I know, but what I'm saying is, if you took 100% use of the PS3/360 with a game, and 100% use of a GTX 580 with the same game, would the difference be as big as a generation? In other words, is difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3/360 as big as the difference between the PS2 and PS3, or Wii and PS3/360?
@tazss159 That's the point, we can't know until developers are given a closed platform (such as a console) with the GTX580 to see what they can learn to do with it. But if I had to guess, I'd say yes. That doesn't mean today's PCs are one generation ahead, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. But if used in a console, where that GPU would become the standard and lower-end hardware wouldn't be a concern, I think it has the potential to make that kind of visual quality leap.
@NewLynxS Well, you see, the PS3 performs around 93 times the single precision FLOPS performance of the PS2 (579.6 vs 6.2), a GTX 580 performs around 2.7 times the FLOPS performance of the PS3. Also, the PS3 has around 16 times the VRAM of the PS2, a GTX 580 has 6 times the VRAM of the PS3. So I would say, the diifference wouldn't be anywhere near as big, but with 2.7 times the FLOPS performance, and 6 times the VRAM, I would suppose it would be a noticeable difference.
@tazss159 I think you should focus a bit less on the VRAM. If those 1.5 GB are enough for complex geometry and large textures at high resolutions (1080p) with high levels of anti-aliasing, why would you need more?
As for the FLOPS performace, yes, the leap seems much smaller. But there are other aspects too. General-purpose processing has come a long way since the PowerPC G5 days, when the PS3 was released. Look at Sandy Bridge and POWER7 now...
@NewLynxS Well, then a GTX 580 (the most powerful single GPU card today) has a little more then 3-4 times the VRAM of the Xbox 360, that doesn't seem like a lot, does it? Have you seen the trailer for that new PS3 exclusive The last of us? If that trailer, and those screenshots are from the actual game running on the PS3, then that's better then anything I've ever seen running on the PC to be honest.
FLOPS is a good measure of performance, I'd say the difference is not big at all.
@tazss159 Again, forget how many times more it is. If today's graphics cards have shown that 1.5 GB to 2 GB is enough for high-quality 1080p gaming, using more than that is just a waste. If the VRAM were to be multiplied by 16 again, you'd see the next consoles with 4 GB to 6 GB of VRAM, but still using the 1080p HDTV standard. Games would never use all that memory, and it would increase the price of the consoles, both for production and for the consumer.
@NewLynxS More VRAM means more realistic and detailed visuals. Yeah sure we can keep gaming at 1.5 to 2 GB of VRAM, but we need more if we are to make a significant leap in visual quality. We need more if we are to get close to imitating the visuals of real life in games.
Doesn't the Radeon 6990 have 4 GB of VRAM? Or is only 2 GB of VRAM usable since it's a dual GPU card?
@tazss159 Eventually we will need more VRAM to approach real life, of course, but it won't happen on the next generation, regardless of how much VRAM you have, because the processing power isn't there yet. Besides, what developers do with 256 MB on consoles today isn't what they did with 256 MB on PC five years ago. It's another case of developers learning to make the best use of specific hardware. That same would happen with, say, 2 GB on the next generation.
@NewLynxS We need more VRAM and GPU processing power if we are to make a significant leap in visual quality with the next generation. Crytek said they can create Avatar (movie) type visuals in games if they get four times the power of a GTX 590. It'll be disappointing if the next generation of consoles don't have visuals like, or close to real life.
I read on a thread that the GTX 590 while having 3 GB VRAM, only has 1.5GB VRAM usable. So I assumed that must be the same for the 6990.
@tazss159 Well, I also hope they use as much VRAM as possible. But remember, the big factor here is cost. They will use just as much memory as their budget allows.
And about the dual-core graphics cards, all the memory they have is usable. But, taking the GTX590 as example, it doesn't have one bus with 3 GB, it have two buses with 1.5 GB each, one for each GPU. Depending on the SLI method they are using, both GPUs have to load the same data on their own memories to render the frames.
Suppose the method is one GPU rendering even frames and the other rendering odd ones. That means both of them need the very same textures and geometric models loaded to their memories to render those frames. So the GPU does use its 3 GB (or 4 GB, in the HD6990's case), but most of it will be the same data loaded twice. Which makes some people oversimplify this as "only half is usable".
@NewLynxS Yes, cost, have you heard the rumour about Microsoft saying that their next console will be cheaper then the Xbox 360? If it's true, then I don't know if they meant the cost of the Xbox 360 at release date, or the cost right now. The economy is pretty bad for majority of the people right now. Well I hope Sony and Microsoft can make a significant leap in visual quality with the next generation.
@tazss159 If they meant the current cost, I don't think that's possible. Within $200 (version without a hard drive), the only room for improvement is taking advantage of the die shrinks to increase the frequency of the components. That would be perfect for the CPU, but they really need a new GPU and more/faster memory.
If they meant the cost at launch, that actually makes sense, though.
@Danuxsy We were not talking about who "wins". We were talking about whether the hardware that exists today is enough to make a generation leap as large as the one from the PS2 to the PS3. PC as a gaming platform has nothing to do with this.
@NewLynxS didnt you learn y now that tazz knows nothing and just keeps saying what he hears from other people... i mean you cant take a guy that says the rsx does 1.8terraflops seriously.....
@henryhenriquez I think we're all past that by now. When we were discussing technical aspects, I presented what I knew, and so did you. Whether he wants to accept what we have said/shown or not is entirely up to him and out of our control. That doesn't matter right now.
We were just talking about the next generation of consoles and what today's hardware can do for it. No arguing whatsoever, it's another topic.
@tazss159 That trailer for The Last of Us has no DX10 or 11 effects, is at 30 fps, and 720p, and weak AA. Wait til you see the actual game on full screen than the common lie of seeing something on a small, tight video. What you like from TLOU is direction rather than true performance.
@Nem33 most trailer are done by high end pc polished up then released as console footage. i remeber killzone 2 doing that..... and a few other ones...
@MultiMcKane No, it isn't. Both the HD6990 and GTX590 are on the exact same price and performance ranges. Due to driver differences, the AMD card is faster on some games, while the NVIDIA one is faser on others. Objectively defiing which one is faster is nearly impossible.
@NewLynxS Go read a website before replying, the GTX 590 is half as powerful as a single HD 6990, as a 6990 is two 6970 ATI chipsets. The 590 is only a 2GB. the 6990 is a 4GB.
@MultiMcKane Are you freaking insane? A GTX590 has two GF110 GPUs, each slightly slower than a GTX570 (which, in turn, is about as fast as a HD6970), and 3 GB of memory on a 768-bit bus. And as you can see on many reviews around the web, both the GTX590 and HD6990 achieve similar average performance. Also, both are priced at $700, which also indicates their performance similarity.
Google "gtx590 review" and "hd6990 review" and see for yourself.
@tazss159 The Last of Us is made by Naughty Dog and they have a particular love for CG Cutscenes. The screens in the trailer are not actual game graphics. And I do believe a modern high end pc is alot more capable than a PS3. The PS3 is locked at max 30fps, this game suffers alot from texture pop up, fps issues, and poor draw distance. The quality on a high end pc is far superior. And performance can scale many times higher than a ps3.
@rampage222555 Actually, Naughty Dog never releases CG cutscenes, and they said many, many times, that they always release actual in-game footage of their games. They've already said the Last of us trailer was running in real time on the PS3. The same thing happnened when Naughty Dog released the desert gameplay footage of Uncharted 3, people didn't thought it was CG, but it was real as stated by Naughty Dog.
@tazss159 That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, I am so tired of people not realizing what they are saying, an Xbox 360 and a PS3 are nothing more than computers, they are not special, they are computers with hardware, they are also OUTDATED as is anything that is 3-4+ years old. That game you saw for the PS3, IS RAN OFF A PC RENDERING. and a GTX 580 has four times the amount of VRAM? Did you forget to mention how it's Video card has 128 cores, while the 580 has over 400 more...
@Godbiggles2301 I'm not saying the PS3 and Xbox 360 are more than computers. But, is the difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3/360 as big as the difference between the PS2 and PS3, or the PS3/360 and the Wii? Is there even a significant different in graphics?
The Last of us was running of the PS3 in real time, those visuals were being rendered by the PS3, not a PC.
@tazss159 Alright, But that isn't because graphics haven't made a huge jump in the last few years, my computer can run any game on max settings, but I can do so much more than that, and if you believe those visuals are being rendered, for that kind of quality, to render each 3D frame can take hours, the PS3 is just playing a video.
@tazss159 your abit prone to marketting folly arnt you, the last of us trailer says "CAPTURED FROM PS3" not "rendered by the PS3" one its cutscenes, 2. the cutscenes could be FMV. 3. the resolution could be 720p or even lower, and a definite only 30fps. its like back of boxes where it says "supports 1080p" and dopes like you think "ooh 1080p!" where in reality it means can be played on a TV. they trick dopes, who would put on the back of a box for a Video Game "can be played on a TV"?
@mitzibishi For the last time, Naughty Dog never releases pre-rendered cutscenes, or anything CGI. The visuals in Last of us is being rendered of the PS3, Naught Dog even posted that on twitter.
@tazss159 1. your a dum PS3 fanboy so why should i lisen to you. which leads into--2. give me links to any FACTS of the cutscenes being rendered by PS3 and resolution/framerate of that. 3. WAIT TILL IT COMES OUT. NOTHINGS DEFINITE YET, YOU CAN CRY, SHOUT AND SCREAM ALL YOU LIKE. its not out yet, we will see then, still its only just cutscenes, not actual gameplay. IT IS JUST CUTSCENE FOOTAGE!
also on ce3 notice the lag of the shadow as the tree falls unlike ce2
portal23555 29 minutes ago
jeez crysis on lowest you can see trees far away. unlike ce3 it is very short. i even noticed crysis 2 pc cause i have it when im 15 feet away it materiallized. im like o_O then i look up this vid
portal23555 30 minutes ago
FAIL COMPARISON!!!! Comparing CE2 on PC vs. CE3 on XBOX/PS3. Is like comparing a Refrigerator vs. Alligator..... Makes no sense! Stupid video!
alextm86 2 days ago
CryEngine 3 vs Arma 3 , what is better guys ?
filip92belgrade 3 days ago
Of course CE2 is superior of CE3 as 2 was developped solely for PC configurations whitout limits basically... What they did with the 3 was to develop a multiplatform targeted version while keeping as much as possible stuff from the 2 so it's kinda a subset lol of the 2. Though I think they did quite a good job and Crysis 2 and Crysis 1 remake look quite good considering videocards for example of those consoles are something like a 7800gt at best ^^
freeedom22 3 days ago
@freeedom22 Actually, in terms of features, CryEngine 3 is a big improvement over CryEngine 2. It supports DirectX 11, deferred lighting and global illumination, to list the few most important. The problem is that consoles can't afford to use those features, so CE3 on consoles is worse than CE2 on PC. Between CE2 and CE3 on PC, the latter is much more advanced.
NewLynxS 3 days ago
what dose this guy have against cryengine 3 he was like oh its so bad yet cryengine 2 is better. cryengine has to be better cause it was made after cryengine 3 its common sense.
13tetrax 4 days ago
this is stupid cryengine 3 is actually better crysis 2 didn't use it to it fullest
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
What fucking game is this
RayThrushwood 5 days ago
@RayThrushwood Crysis
DIBandage 4 days ago
Though I own a PS3 and had a Xbox for 3 yrs I can tell you they are no match for a PC graphic wise
FadedMagz 5 days ago
its the way it is because the xbox and ps3 both have terrible hardware so they have to downgrade all the graphics, textures, and anything that makes the game look good. which means GO BUY A DAMN PC!!!
cheynon2 5 days ago
what game is cryengine 2 and 3 in .....??
PAPATRICK33 5 days ago
Anyone can tell me what is the cry engine about please?
lifeislifesolive 1 week ago
@lifeislifesolive its about making games with it
club4ghz 5 days ago
@club4ghz Thanks
lifeislifesolive 5 days ago
someone i know thinks xbox is better than pc. he's dumb right
t3h3p1cn1ck 1 week ago
@t3h3p1cn1ck he probabaly thinks its dumb cause he has a crappy comp, or doesn't know much about computers
kriket67 1 week ago
@kriket67 guess what he has a mac :)
t3h3p1cn1ck 1 week ago
fallout + cryengine = indescribably freakin awesome
EverthingCallOfDuty 1 week ago
lol i think this video proves that pc is shitting all over consoles
roman7302o 1 week ago
Guys, the platform you play is only as good as the game you're playing.
Tuxedo030 1 week ago
i really wish if Crytek makes Crysis3 using the cryengine 2 but with more improvements, i don't mean that Cryengine 3 sucks but the original crysis was a thing of beauty.
abdur1996 1 week ago
yeah yeah we get the point that pc stronger in graphics but that doesnt mean it gonna run smoothly on high settings which is what xbox and ps3 do and no one wants to pay a $1000 for gaming
richy4123 1 week ago
@richy4123 1: it never has to be on high settings.
2: if you did what i did which was to buy a $400 comp. then improve it processor by graphics card over the months, you hardly notice.
3. pc dominates console in every way but console is still good since it is made for games so lag is almost guaranteed not to happen most of the time, but think about it like this: your paying double the price for over triple the capabilities.
RAWRxBlueDino1028 1 week ago
@richy4123 First of all, the consoles do not run games at high settings. Second, they run games at half the framerate PC games usually run on, meaning PC games do run a lot smoother.
Finally, yes, a lot of people are willing to pay $1000 and even more on gaming. It's not like you have to though, as you can get a computer much faster than the consoles for just twice the cost of a console, with the benefit of PC versions of games being generally cheaper than their console counterparts.
NewLynxS 1 week ago
@richy4123
NO xbox and ps3 do not run smoothly on high settings, they run smoothly on low settings, and you are paying a premium for low quality hardware. If you look at the cost of building a computer and the uses of a computer vs. consoles there's really no argument.
Smullet90 1 week ago
How is this video even valid? You can't compare the old cry engine on pc against the console versions of cry engine 3. Obviously cry engine 3 would seem obselete to cry engine 2 because of the difference between console and pc. Pc's can alter their settings and change them in any way and so we can see the full potential of the engine. Sure it's for 360 vs ps3 but why try to pin them against pc when console will lose?
Darksiegify 1 week ago
Gameplay>Graphics PS3/360/Wii offers that. Console wins clearly. PC is always be the best in performance. But I prefer variety in games. So I'll stick to my PS3 and Wii for now. I already have a decent PC. Can't believe I missed the whole thing.
Soothsayer42 1 week ago
PC will always be more powerful. But I give Sony and Microsoft credit for making their consoles make games look as good as they do with old as fuck hardware.
Also, Crytek fucking rules!
OriginalPsGamer 1 week ago
There is no comparison between PC and PS3/Xbox. PC is just much more powerful.
creamie123 1 week ago
do someone really pays attention to every detail and shadow when someone in game is trying to woop ur ass?
berzu21 1 week ago
@berzu21 Yes!For PC gamers it's quality over quantity and they tend to look at the details after they secured the area.
MoterCrozz 1 week ago
Pc is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than xbox and ps3 combined
zombieapocalypse561 2 weeks ago 30
@zombieapocalypse561 Yo dawg
I see you like the letter a
Yeah i know
Useless comment is useless
TheTollFace 1 week ago
@zombieapocalypse561 xbox and ps3 are a fraction of the price of a decent gaming computer. consoles work just fine for the other 99% of us.
1776freedomordie 1 week ago
@zombieapocalypse561 and mentally challenged xbox fanboys claim there is a tiny difference between xbox and pc
lhomme38 5 days ago
@zombieapocalypse561 only if you have a good one
jjalepeno55 3 days ago
@zombieapocalypse561 times 10 and PC would STILL win! BECAUSE PC IS WINNING DUH AND CONSOLE IS LOOSING!!!!!!!
michaelpmalin 2 days ago
@zombieapocalypse561 still amazing what crytek managed to do with the consoles... considering most gaming PCS have minimum 4GB (I have 8GB), and consoles are limited to 512mb ram total(including video ram).... arg.
Freelancerk1bbles 1 day ago
@Freelancerk1bbles It took crytek like 3 years to pull that shit off
3 year in witch they could have added better looks to the game on pc
TheTollFace 1 day ago
@zombieapocalypse561 yea bro , i agree with you
DoRaTo96 10 hours ago
@zombieapocalypse561 yeah but the best pc that existed on 2006 can't afford battlefield 3 or crysis 2
Nikos21Aekara 7 hours ago
@Nikos21Aekara Yes, it can. In 2006, by the time the PS3 was released, there were already Conroe-based Core 2 Duo processors and GeForce 7950 series GPUs, which is enough to run those games, even a bit better than consoles do. If you were willing to spend more and get a larger performance advantage, there were also Kentsfield-based Core 2 Extreme processors and GeForce 8800 series GPUs, the latter being released just three days before the PS3 was launched in japan.
NewLynxS 1 hour ago
Lol when I play Crysis 1 on pc, it can handle medium settings. When I play on xbox, the looks are thesame as on my pc. So ofcourse consoles use medium settings for pc. No need for all these little details to point that out, lol. But still thorough work, x)
SpaceRazzer 2 weeks ago
@eduardomyugi No duuuuuuhhhh the PS3 is basically a GT9500
Huststyler 2 weeks ago
@Huststyler The GeForce 9 series was released years after the PS3. The console uses a GPU based on the exact same chip used on the 7950GT, but with half the ROPs disabled (consequently, half the memory controllers as well).
NewLynxS 2 weeks ago
tristan3795 2 weeks ago
Xbox 360 rules
MrSexualFury 2 weeks ago
cry engine is a game?
nimakoulas 2 weeks ago
@nimakoulas It's an Engine. A tool, not just for developing games. As with most other engines as well.
PhysicsTowerTeam 2 weeks ago
@PhysicsTowerTeam and you can use it in any game???
nimakoulas 2 weeks ago
@nimakoulas What? Just think of it as a tool, such as a paint brush. It can be used to paint things like walls, or create paintings.
It's used to create things that usually involve 3-D, such as games, simulators, visualization, movies, etc. :)
PhysicsTowerTeam 2 weeks ago
@PhysicsTowerTeam ok,thanx dude
nimakoulas 4 days ago
@nimakoulas No it´s a graphics or game engine. a Program together with your graphics card make your games come alive
dennisjonkristensen 2 weeks ago
This comparison is really out-dated, they should compare in 2011...
SkyMaker996 2 weeks ago
eu as alege cryengine 2 ca ie mai usor de folosit
madalinea 2 weeks ago
you should have just dont cryengine3 and 2 on pc. xbox 360 and ps3 are shity outputsw of cryengine 3
jshoops1991 2 weeks ago
:D :D Cryengine3 in Max Settings and Cryengine2 in Medium Settings :D :D very fair :D
lustigschauer 3 weeks ago
Isn't the engine called Crytech?
ItsOver9000OrElse 3 weeks ago
@ItsOver9000OrElse Crytech is the company that makes CryEngine. i think.
still, lets note that CR2 was made in 2007....
geover330 3 weeks ago
@ItsOver9000OrElse No, the engine is called CryEngine ("CryENGINE", officially). The company responsible for its development is Crytek, not Crytech.
NewLynxS 2 weeks ago
PC will always win
Exeven92 3 weeks ago
I don't get it... I mean Crysis (1) didn't exist in 2009.
PAXperMortem 3 weeks ago
@PAXperMortem The first Crysis was released in 2007.
In this video, though, it's not Crysis. It's just one of its maps imported into CryEngine 3 to showcase it on the consoles.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
How is this a comparison if the version on PC is lower.. try again nub
ExsplosiveProduction 3 weeks ago
Good comparo!
akilyoung 3 weeks ago
buuuu ps3 and xb360 suck!!! ps2 and pc rulz!
robi4never 3 weeks ago 50
@robi4never u only have ps2 and pc thats why u are saying that lol
xazns0ulx 3 weeks ago
@robi4never Yep, you're obviously a 12 year old fanboy...
PAXperMortem 3 weeks ago
@PAXperMortem and you must be 12 year rich boy...
robi4never 3 weeks ago
@robi4never so I was right....
PAXperMortem 3 weeks ago
@PAXperMortem ....... that you are rich 12 year old kid who has all gaming systems, most wanted pc and more... and its spoiled kid...
robi4never 3 weeks ago
@robi4never good to know im not the only one that thinks that :) and also ps1 rules:D
scorpeyman 2 weeks ago
@robi4never Your saying that because you dont have a PS2/PS3/XBOX. :)
ChannelMinecrafter 1 week ago
@ChannelMinecrafter they're just shitty consoles ... (ps3 , box360 , box) ... new consoles are shit compared to ps2 / ...
robi4never 1 week ago
@robi4never na sega ftw
HELLHamster16 1 week ago
@HELLHamster16 :DDDDD
robi4never 1 week ago
@robi4never No
erick28z 1 week ago
Obviously with mods Crysis looks better on PC but there is hardly any difference between these (apart from colour).
OmnipresentCow 3 weeks ago
PC RULLEZ!
VolTage3062 3 weeks ago
PC can get better graphics the xbox or ps3
General638 4 weeks ago
Is CE3 Based on consoles only, or can be run on PC?
MaxOblivion5 4 weeks ago
@MaxOblivion5 Crysis 2 is powered by CE3 on the PC as well as consoles. Obviously, the CE3 on consoles is capped and looks like medium-low settings of
the pc version.
95928225 4 weeks ago
my pc cant even run crysis on dx9 low settings
4801581090 1 month ago
I think Crysis 2 never should have come out as a multi-platform game, and stayed a PC exclusive. All systems need to keep their exclusives exclusive, because in the end, it yields far better results. Devs can focus on optimizing the game for one single system instead of havin to worry about porting it to different systems. Crysis 2 should have stayed a PC game.
ZALHERA666 1 month ago
@ZALHERA666 Crysis 2 is still the best on PC and Crysis 2 being on consoles isn't affecting any one playing it on PC.I'm glad it was for consoles I had fun playing Crysis 2 on PS3 it looked awesome sounded awesome and the gameplay was awesome.Let me ask you a question if Crysis 2 on consoles isn't affecting you then whats the problem.If your answer is it's not affecting you but you have an explanation fuck the explanation if its not affecting you don't complain just saying not hating.
KratosMayhem 1 month ago
@KratosMayhem It IS affecting me. As a consumer, I feel like I didn't get the best, and I believe I would have if they didn't take that route. So yes, it did affect me, and I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree. Just voicing my opinion as well.
ZALHERA666 1 month ago
@ZALHERA666 I think the reason behind it must be that there are not a lot CE games at all....and crytek is a company that's selling a graphics engine, and if you see the game market Unreal Engine is kicking cryteks ass big time. so making this game multiplataform is the way to say "hey look!!! my product can be used to make any game you want!!! not just ultra-high-definition PC games"
pomodraw 3 weeks ago
@pomodraw I guess you're right. It'd be nice if games ran on a variety of engines.
ZALHERA666 3 weeks ago
This was expected, but come on, consoles are made for the budget gamer, while PC's are made for those with the coin to make em. To be honest, consoles are a significant level weaker than that of a PC, but it is made for the people with less money...or maybe the fanboy, but in short no one gives a shit about sony, they do enough of ripping people off and supporting the Sopa bill, but back on topic, PC's will always out perform a console, its just the way it is.
AroreForLife 1 month ago
This video is nothing but a flame war...
NubsAhoy 1 month ago
@tazss159 lol that game looks like left 4 dead 2 on medium settings. get real kid
vnvxvnv 1 month ago
@tazss159 thats not the case, i have a 500$ card thats only two years old and it still struggles when maxing out certain games. it is said this card has 9x the power of a ps3
vnvxvnv 1 month ago
@vnvxvnv It's probably because your cpu and ram are bottle necking it. If you a play a game that is super heavily GPU dependent then it would run smoothly but the problem is that most games are balanced in cpu,gpu and ram.
sounghungi 1 month ago
@tazss159 theres no such thing as a ps3 game with better graphics then any pc game to date, youd have to be really high on crack to believe something like that. im not even trying to be a fanboy its physically impossible for a console to outperform a pc. there is a huge difference between pc and console but you cant really see it on toutube due to video compression. you habe to see it in real life
vnvxvnv 1 month ago
@vnvxvnv Maybe it's because developers are not harnessing the potential of PC hardware. That trailer that I saw for the upcoming game The last of us, those graphics do look more realistic then anything I've seen on the PC.
tazss159 1 month ago
Quick question: how is crysis 1 running on xbox? I thought it was pc only.
Ussrevenge 1 month ago
so this means that cryengine 2 better is than 3?
61unknow 1 month ago
@61unknow No, it means CryEngine 2 on PC is better than CryEngine 3 on consoles. Comparing both engines on PC, CryEngine 3 is evidently better.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS I did think Crysis 1 from 2007 maxed out on PC is more graphically advanced then Crysis 2 maxed out on PC.
tazss159 1 month ago 31
@tazss159 What I said is regardless of how they implemented the engines on their games. I haven't personally seen Crysis 2 to know how it is maxed out, but when you look at the feature lists of CryEngine 2 and CryEngine 3 (independent of the Crysis franchise), the latter certainly has more to offer.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Yeah I know, they didn't take full advantage of CryEngine 3 with Crysis 2. I can understand why you would do something like that on the consoles, but why the PC? The could've taken full advantage of CryEngine 3 with the PC version of Crysis 2. But I guess, if they made the PC version that much better, then they wouldn't make as much from the console players, because the PC version is that much superior, and the PC also wouldn't make them much.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 hey jackass, that's what happens when you port a game with shitty resolution and upscale it to dx9.
Stop talking about the same shit, the dxc11 textures have been out, and it does look better, let alone advanced
1Adr1an6 1 month ago
@tazss159 So did I, the second game didn't really feel as sharp as the first game did. It wasn't even the same game experience in it.
Strichgana 4 weeks ago
@tazss159 So did I, the second game didn't really feel as sharp as the first game. But the first game was better than the second games was. No doubt about it.
Strichgana 4 weeks ago
@Strichgana Yeah, even the nanosuit was kinda dumbed down... lol :(
tazss159 4 weeks ago
@tazss159
crysis 2 is a conosle game..
Mastermind12358 3 weeks ago
@Mastermind12358 Just about every console game out there is also on pc.
skinlessdanny 3 weeks ago
Sry, but this comparison is SOOO fucked up.. That's like comparing an VW Golf II on a desert track vs. a VW Golf III on a highway... You can't have 2 variables when comparing something.. -.-
MKzer0 1 month ago
If you compare stock consoles against stock PC's the consoles are clearly better.
Yes you can upgrade PC's, but i bet it wouldnt be that hard to upgrade a console aswell, so stop thinking your better than console players.
qwazorp 1 month ago
@qwazorp You can't upgrade consoles. Unlike PCs, which use sockets and expansion slots so components can easily be placed in or removed, consoles have soldered, unchangable parts. Also, even if you managed to insert another GPU on your console, for example, it still doesn't have the driver ecosystem PCs have to support multiple components and the new part still wouldn't work, this time due to software issues.
Also, there is no such thing as a "stock PC". You can pick components at will.
NewLynxS 1 month ago 8
@NewLynxS How much VRAM does the Wii have?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 According to Wikipedia, 27 MB of VRAM plus 64 MB shared.
Why do you ask?
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS By "64 MB shared" do they mean that the 64MB can also be contributed to VRAM, or is it a max of 27MB VRAM?
Well, to see if the difference between modern day PC's and consoles is as big as the difference between the last generation and this generation of consoles, or at least as big as the differece between the Wii and the PS3/360.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 The 64 MB can be used either as system RAM or VRAM, on top of the other 27 MB as VRAM only. Obviously, part of the 64 MB must be used as system RAM or the games will have no memory to run on.
As for the difference, the PS3 has 5.62 times more memory than the Wii, while today's mainstream computers have 10 times as much memory as the PS3 (considering 4 GB of RAM and 1 GB of VRAM). But you know that says very little about actual processing power.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Well, yes, but I'm talking about VRAM, since that's one of the main features that contributes to the visuals of the game. So a PS3 has 9.48 times the VRAM of the Wii, while something like a GTX 580 has around 3-4 times the RAM of the Xbox 360 (since Xbox 360's 512 is shared) and 6 times more VRAM then the PS3. But also considering that modern day GPU's use GDDR5 and the PS3/360 use GDDR3. Though I don't know how much of a difference is speed there is between GDDR5 and GDDR3.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 Well, the GTX580 has a bandwidth of 192.4 GB/s, the HD6970 has a bandwidth of 176 GB/s, and the Xbox 360 has a bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s. Draw your calculators.
Also keep in mind that cheaper GPUs such as the HD6900 series and the GTX560 Ti have 2 GB versions, as well as the GTX580 itself has 3 GB versions.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS I have the 3 GB version of the GTX 580. Well, I sort of regret investing into my PC, because the difference in games between the PC maxed out, and the PS3/360 seems quite negligible to be honest. But I guess it's because the developers would loose the console sales if they made a game that much better on the PC, or that the difference in hardware really isn't that big.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 I've been telling you though, the enthusiast market is very far from being the best value. You should stick with mainstream. That way, you have lower performance, but still higher than the consoles, and for just a fraction of the price. And you won't be frustrated about games not taking advantage of your computer, since they are very adequately made for the mainstream market.
For example, if I were to buy a computer today, I'd go with a Core i3-2100 and a HD6870.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Yeah, but still though, the difference between the PS3/360, and enthusiast level GPU's like the GTX 580 is not as big as the difference between a PS3/360 and Wii, or the last generation of consoles, correct?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 Apparently. But you can't tell just yet. Suppose the next Playstation uses a GTX580, exactly as it is today. There's a difference between a PC game, made with the mainstream market in mind, running like a breeze on a GTX580; and a next-gen Playstation game, where developers try to take the most they can out of that specific GPU (in other words, no inferior markets to worry about), often sacrificing the 60 FPS mark and settling for 30 FPS to increase the visual quality further.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Yes I know, but what I'm saying is, if you took 100% use of the PS3/360 with a game, and 100% use of a GTX 580 with the same game, would the difference be as big as a generation? In other words, is difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3/360 as big as the difference between the PS2 and PS3, or Wii and PS3/360?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 That's the point, we can't know until developers are given a closed platform (such as a console) with the GTX580 to see what they can learn to do with it. But if I had to guess, I'd say yes. That doesn't mean today's PCs are one generation ahead, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. But if used in a console, where that GPU would become the standard and lower-end hardware wouldn't be a concern, I think it has the potential to make that kind of visual quality leap.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Well, you see, the PS3 performs around 93 times the single precision FLOPS performance of the PS2 (579.6 vs 6.2), a GTX 580 performs around 2.7 times the FLOPS performance of the PS3. Also, the PS3 has around 16 times the VRAM of the PS2, a GTX 580 has 6 times the VRAM of the PS3. So I would say, the diifference wouldn't be anywhere near as big, but with 2.7 times the FLOPS performance, and 6 times the VRAM, I would suppose it would be a noticeable difference.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 I think you should focus a bit less on the VRAM. If those 1.5 GB are enough for complex geometry and large textures at high resolutions (1080p) with high levels of anti-aliasing, why would you need more?
As for the FLOPS performace, yes, the leap seems much smaller. But there are other aspects too. General-purpose processing has come a long way since the PowerPC G5 days, when the PS3 was released. Look at Sandy Bridge and POWER7 now...
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Well, then a GTX 580 (the most powerful single GPU card today) has a little more then 3-4 times the VRAM of the Xbox 360, that doesn't seem like a lot, does it? Have you seen the trailer for that new PS3 exclusive The last of us? If that trailer, and those screenshots are from the actual game running on the PS3, then that's better then anything I've ever seen running on the PC to be honest.
FLOPS is a good measure of performance, I'd say the difference is not big at all.
tazss159 1 month ago 10
@tazss159 Again, forget how many times more it is. If today's graphics cards have shown that 1.5 GB to 2 GB is enough for high-quality 1080p gaming, using more than that is just a waste. If the VRAM were to be multiplied by 16 again, you'd see the next consoles with 4 GB to 6 GB of VRAM, but still using the 1080p HDTV standard. Games would never use all that memory, and it would increase the price of the consoles, both for production and for the consumer.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS More VRAM means more realistic and detailed visuals. Yeah sure we can keep gaming at 1.5 to 2 GB of VRAM, but we need more if we are to make a significant leap in visual quality. We need more if we are to get close to imitating the visuals of real life in games.
Doesn't the Radeon 6990 have 4 GB of VRAM? Or is only 2 GB of VRAM usable since it's a dual GPU card?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 Eventually we will need more VRAM to approach real life, of course, but it won't happen on the next generation, regardless of how much VRAM you have, because the processing power isn't there yet. Besides, what developers do with 256 MB on consoles today isn't what they did with 256 MB on PC five years ago. It's another case of developers learning to make the best use of specific hardware. That same would happen with, say, 2 GB on the next generation.
Yes, the HD6990 has and uses 4 GB.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS We need more VRAM and GPU processing power if we are to make a significant leap in visual quality with the next generation. Crytek said they can create Avatar (movie) type visuals in games if they get four times the power of a GTX 590. It'll be disappointing if the next generation of consoles don't have visuals like, or close to real life.
I read on a thread that the GTX 590 while having 3 GB VRAM, only has 1.5GB VRAM usable. So I assumed that must be the same for the 6990.
tazss159 1 month ago 3
@tazss159 Well, I also hope they use as much VRAM as possible. But remember, the big factor here is cost. They will use just as much memory as their budget allows.
And about the dual-core graphics cards, all the memory they have is usable. But, taking the GTX590 as example, it doesn't have one bus with 3 GB, it have two buses with 1.5 GB each, one for each GPU. Depending on the SLI method they are using, both GPUs have to load the same data on their own memories to render the frames.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@tazss159 Continued...
Suppose the method is one GPU rendering even frames and the other rendering odd ones. That means both of them need the very same textures and geometric models loaded to their memories to render those frames. So the GPU does use its 3 GB (or 4 GB, in the HD6990's case), but most of it will be the same data loaded twice. Which makes some people oversimplify this as "only half is usable".
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Yes, cost, have you heard the rumour about Microsoft saying that their next console will be cheaper then the Xbox 360? If it's true, then I don't know if they meant the cost of the Xbox 360 at release date, or the cost right now. The economy is pretty bad for majority of the people right now. Well I hope Sony and Microsoft can make a significant leap in visual quality with the next generation.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 If they meant the current cost, I don't think that's possible. Within $200 (version without a hard drive), the only room for improvement is taking advantage of the die shrinks to increase the frequency of the components. That would be perfect for the CPU, but they really need a new GPU and more/faster memory.
If they meant the cost at launch, that actually makes sense, though.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Yeah, they probably meant cost at release date.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 so ignorant, gaming startled on PC and you want more from consoles ?
Pa-leez, stop complaining, you get what you pay for when you choose simpler route.
1Adr1an6 1 month ago
@tazss159 PC now have dx11, if you think that is not a big different then you are fucking stupid. PC is much bettter than any console.
Danuxsy 1 month ago
@Danuxsy You, my friend, have an excellent ability to miss the point.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Its all about graphics, who wins? PC.
Danuxsy 1 month ago
@Danuxsy We were not talking about who "wins". We were talking about whether the hardware that exists today is enough to make a generation leap as large as the one from the PS2 to the PS3. PC as a gaming platform has nothing to do with this.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS ohh PC FTW
Danuxsy 1 month ago
@NewLynxS didnt you learn y now that tazz knows nothing and just keeps saying what he hears from other people... i mean you cant take a guy that says the rsx does 1.8terraflops seriously.....
henryhenriquez 1 month ago
@henryhenriquez Please, don't you have anything better to do?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 and you do?? trolling youtube?
i already know how retarded you are and how many lies and bs you spew..
rsx1.8terraflops, black ops 1080p on ps3, cell does rendering.. i remember so please kid. dont even try
henryhenriquez 1 month ago
@henryhenriquez I never said any of that. Please, it's just YouTube.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 you did deny it. we all know you did please
henryhenriquez 1 month ago
@henryhenriquez Fine, you win.
tazss159 1 month ago
@henryhenriquez I think we're all past that by now. When we were discussing technical aspects, I presented what I knew, and so did you. Whether he wants to accept what we have said/shown or not is entirely up to him and out of our control. That doesn't matter right now.
We were just talking about the next generation of consoles and what today's hardware can do for it. No arguing whatsoever, it's another topic.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@Danuxsy When did I say PC is not ahead of the consoles?
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 i cant take anymore :(
Danuxsy 1 month ago
@tazss159 what's that? some bullshots look good?
ClifftonBeach 1 month ago
@tazss159 That trailer for The Last of Us has no DX10 or 11 effects, is at 30 fps, and 720p, and weak AA. Wait til you see the actual game on full screen than the common lie of seeing something on a small, tight video. What you like from TLOU is direction rather than true performance.
Nem33 1 month ago
@Nem33 most trailer are done by high end pc polished up then released as console footage. i remeber killzone 2 doing that..... and a few other ones...
henryhenriquez 1 month ago
@Nem33 The game does look very realistic though.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 The most powerful GPU available today is a ATI Radeon HD 6990, 4GB.
MultiMcKane 1 month ago
@MultiMcKane No, it isn't. Both the HD6990 and GTX590 are on the exact same price and performance ranges. Due to driver differences, the AMD card is faster on some games, while the NVIDIA one is faser on others. Objectively defiing which one is faster is nearly impossible.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Defining*
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Go read a website before replying, the GTX 590 is half as powerful as a single HD 6990, as a 6990 is two 6970 ATI chipsets. The 590 is only a 2GB. the 6990 is a 4GB.
MultiMcKane 1 month ago
Comment removed
NewLynxS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MultiMcKane Are you freaking insane? A GTX590 has two GF110 GPUs, each slightly slower than a GTX570 (which, in turn, is about as fast as a HD6970), and 3 GB of memory on a 768-bit bus. And as you can see on many reviews around the web, both the GTX590 and HD6990 achieve similar average performance. Also, both are priced at $700, which also indicates their performance similarity.
Google "gtx590 review" and "hd6990 review" and see for yourself.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
Comment removed
jamesn0va 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MultiMcKane Yes but there dual CPU cards, he specificity said single.
jamesn0va 1 month ago
@MultiMcKane The GTX 590 is just as good as the Radeon HD 6990, the 590 is better in some games, and the 6990 is better in others. I prefer NVIDIA.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 What about a GTX 590? The VERY latest graphics card from Nividia.
dekuscrubbyfan888 1 month ago
@dekuscrubbyfan888 It's basically just two downgraded GTX 580's in one.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 The Last of Us is made by Naughty Dog and they have a particular love for CG Cutscenes. The screens in the trailer are not actual game graphics. And I do believe a modern high end pc is alot more capable than a PS3. The PS3 is locked at max 30fps, this game suffers alot from texture pop up, fps issues, and poor draw distance. The quality on a high end pc is far superior. And performance can scale many times higher than a ps3.
rampage222555 1 month ago
@rampage222555 Actually, Naughty Dog never releases CG cutscenes, and they said many, many times, that they always release actual in-game footage of their games. They've already said the Last of us trailer was running in real time on the PS3. The same thing happnened when Naughty Dog released the desert gameplay footage of Uncharted 3, people didn't thought it was CG, but it was real as stated by Naughty Dog.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, I am so tired of people not realizing what they are saying, an Xbox 360 and a PS3 are nothing more than computers, they are not special, they are computers with hardware, they are also OUTDATED as is anything that is 3-4+ years old. That game you saw for the PS3, IS RAN OFF A PC RENDERING. and a GTX 580 has four times the amount of VRAM? Did you forget to mention how it's Video card has 128 cores, while the 580 has over 400 more...
Godbiggles2301 1 month ago
@Godbiggles2301 I'm not saying the PS3 and Xbox 360 are more than computers. But, is the difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3/360 as big as the difference between the PS2 and PS3, or the PS3/360 and the Wii? Is there even a significant different in graphics?
The Last of us was running of the PS3 in real time, those visuals were being rendered by the PS3, not a PC.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 Alright, But that isn't because graphics haven't made a huge jump in the last few years, my computer can run any game on max settings, but I can do so much more than that, and if you believe those visuals are being rendered, for that kind of quality, to render each 3D frame can take hours, the PS3 is just playing a video.
Godbiggles2301 1 month ago
@Godbiggles2301 The footage that they showed was running on the PS3.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 your abit prone to marketting folly arnt you, the last of us trailer says "CAPTURED FROM PS3" not "rendered by the PS3" one its cutscenes, 2. the cutscenes could be FMV. 3. the resolution could be 720p or even lower, and a definite only 30fps. its like back of boxes where it says "supports 1080p" and dopes like you think "ooh 1080p!" where in reality it means can be played on a TV. they trick dopes, who would put on the back of a box for a Video Game "can be played on a TV"?
mitzibishi 1 month ago
@mitzibishi For the last time, Naughty Dog never releases pre-rendered cutscenes, or anything CGI. The visuals in Last of us is being rendered of the PS3, Naught Dog even posted that on twitter.
tazss159 1 month ago
@tazss159 1. your a dum PS3 fanboy so why should i lisen to you. which leads into--2. give me links to any FACTS of the cutscenes being rendered by PS3 and resolution/framerate of that. 3. WAIT TILL IT COMES OUT. NOTHINGS DEFINITE YET, YOU CAN CRY, SHOUT AND SCREAM ALL YOU LIKE. its not out yet, we will see then, still its only just cutscenes, not actual gameplay. IT IS JUST CUTSCENE FOOTAGE!
mitzibishi 1 month ago