Cyrsis on consoles? *pic comparsion on pc*

[bix105]

why did you post crap .gif images, the colors look horrible

edit: my bad, i didnt realize they were animated

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

First of all, Crysis is not a truly multithreaded program. In other words, it doesn't scale properly as more cores are introduced (highly inefficient). Therefore, you won't get anywhere near the performance you would get out of a quad-core processor (PS3 has 7 useable cores [6 SPEs and 1 PPE] for gaming).

Secondly, x86 based processors can NEVER reach anywhere near their theoretical maximum (google it...I can't cut and paste on the PS3). The Cell has the potential to reach 99% of it's theoretical max.

The graphics cards are way more powerful than the RSX (as we should all know). That helps PCs out tremendously. Also, the memory dumps are huge! Of course, I believe the code could be rewritten to optimize for less memory.

Personally, I think Crysis could be adapted to provide the same graphical experience on the PS3, but in 720p.

Also, I like the medium setting better than very high from those pics.

your downright love and obsession for the cell is amazing and disturbing.

a $2k+ pc system can't run crysis at 60fps and all you can talk about is how the cell would be able to handle it.

but i don't see how crysis' multithreaded capabilities being "inefficient" somehow means it'd run better on the cell. and for those who are wondering how bad the engine is at multithreading. here's a single core vs a quad core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltozo8gkfDc

maybe you're thinking back to the demo that wasn't made to support quad core at the time?

like wise, what does the theortical limit of the cell have to do with anything. and i'm curious where you're pulling 99% from and where you're getting the "nowhere near theoretical max" on the x86. i think everyone knows the x86 isn't efficient as it could be, but what maximum could you be talking about?

but anyways..like i already said, this game isn't coming to consoles without big sacrifices. and why on earth would you like medium better than high or very high? the detail continues to get better and better and the amount of background detail increases each time. but if you're saying it'll come at 720p at low or medium detail, i say..why bother.

[Simplayer]

Originally Posted by xtop

and why on earth would you like medium better than high or very high? the detail continues to get better and better and the amount of background detail increases each time.

The lighting effects certainly look a lot better, but I'll have to agree that the, um, vasoline look is something I can do without.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by xtop

your downright love and obsession for the cell is amazing and disturbing.

a $2k+ pc system can't run crysis at 60fps and all you can talk about is how the cell would be able to handle it.

but i don't see how crysis' multithreaded capabilities being "inefficient" somehow means it'd run better on the cell. and for those who are wondering how bad the engine is at multithreading. here's a single core vs a quad core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltozo8gkfDc

maybe you're thinking back to the demo that wasn't made to support quad core at the time?

like wise, what does the theortical limit of the cell have to do with anything. and i'm curious where you're pulling 99% from and where you're getting the "nowhere near theoretical max" on the x86. i think everyone knows the x86 isn't efficient as it could be, but what maximum could you be talking about?

but anyways..like i already said, this game isn't coming to consoles without big sacrifices. and why on earth would you like medium better than high or very high? the detail continues to get better and better and the amount of background detail increases each time. but if you're saying it'll come at 720p at low or medium detail, i say..why bother.

Well, look at Skulltrail and you get an idea of the problem Cell faces as well with these titles. The engine needs to be reworked to better utilize multiple cores.

Although now I feel the fun desire to point out that the 8800 Ultra typically outperforms the 9800 GX2 when referencing Crysis with AA-etc on. Which well again makes sense with Crysis due to the engine being what it is.

Originally Posted by Simplayer

The lighting effects certainly look a lot better, but I'll have to agree that the, um, vasoline look is something I can do without.

As a sidenote, it looks alot better in game as opposed to a still shot [or in this case, a slideshow shot ].

// Add :
As a sidenote, I play Crysis @ 1920x1200 on Very High with a single GTX 8800. It's playable for me, just not a solid minimum frame.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by reiella

Well, look at Skulltrail and you get an idea of the problem Cell faces as well with these titles. The engine needs to be reworked to better utilize multiple cores.

Although now I feel the fun desire to point out that the 8800 Ultra typically outperforms the 9800 GX2 when referencing Crysis with AA-etc on. Which well again makes sense with Crysis due to the engine being what it is.

never heard of it..i'll have to look that up when i'm not so tired

the 8800 ultra does better? haha thats kinda funny actually

[reiella]

Originally Posted by xtop

never heard of it..i'll have to look that up when i'm not so tired

the 8800 ultra does better? haha thats kinda funny actually

Ya, it makes sense when you realize where Crysis's 'stress' comes from. And well the 8800 Ultra is still the strongest single core GPU solution out there. The 9800 GX2 launched because of well, ATi pushing their multi-core solution. NVidia much perfers the single core GPU [they can milk the enthusiasts more ].

Skulltrail is Intel's dual-socket CoreDuo platform. With two QuadCore 9750s and quad-SLI [or even quad-Crossfire]. It's a beast, but, well doesn't perform that well, in fact, it often performs worse than a single-socket solution with lower clock speeds.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by xtop

your downright love and obsession for the cell is amazing and disturbing.

You ignorance of the differences between the two architectures is "amazing and disturbing."

a $2k+ pc system can't run crysis at 60fps and all you can talk about is how the cell would be able to handle it.

Why do you seem to be hung up on how much it cost? I guess you are still hung up of the old way of thinking.

but i don't see how crysis' multithreaded capabilities being "inefficient" somehow means it'd run better on the cell. and for those who are wondering how bad the engine is at multithreading. here's a single core vs a quad core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltozo8gkfDc

maybe you're thinking back to the demo that wasn't made to support quad core at the time?

No. Your youtube video link is only showing 1 core vs. 4 cores. To touch on what I was saying, you would need to show the difference between 2 cores and 4 cores. Of course, then you would see what I was talking about.

like wise, what does the theortical limit of the cell have to do with anything. and i'm curious where you're pulling 99% from and where you're getting the "nowhere near theoretical max" on the x86. i think everyone knows the x86 isn't efficient as it could be, but what maximum could you be talking about?

Let's put it this way (just some fake numbers to show you what I'm talking about), if your quad-core x86 CPU is rated at a theoretical 32 GFLOPS per core (128 GFLOPS total) and 4 SPEs are rated at a theoretical total of 128 GFLOPS, but the quad-core is ACTUALLY only capable of 19 GFLOPs per core vs. 31 GFLOPS per SPE. Which one can do more, the SPEs or the x86 cores?

That's what it means.

but anyways..like i already said, this game isn't coming to consoles without big sacrifices. and why on earth would you like medium better than high or very high? the detail continues to get better and better and the amount of background detail increases each time. but if you're saying it'll come at 720p at low or medium detail, i say..why bother.

In the still shots, the only things I could see that was a MAJOR change were the use of filters of maybe 8xAA. It made the scene less sharp.

I will add some reading material between x86 tests and Cell tests. I will just edit this post and add the links.

EDIT: http://www.mc.com/uploadedFiles/Cell-Perf-Simple.pdf (Pages 16 and 18 about theoretical maximums, but read it all)

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...y/pa-cellperf/ (IBM paper talks about the Cell being able to hit 99% of it's theoretical max.)

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread....cessor+diagram (Go down about half way. Look for "PS3 and PC". It's a pretty accurate article re-enforced by references)

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

You ignorance of the differences between the two architectures is "amazing and disturbing."



I will add some reading material between x86 tests and Cell tests. I will just edit this post and add the links.

save yourself the trouble. i don't care. i don't think the cell is the savior of gaming like you do.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by xtop

save yourself the trouble. i don't care. i don't think the cell is the savior of gaming like you do.

Savior? Do you want to learn or not? If you are close-minded, you will never learn new things. Are you close-minded?

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

Savior? Do you want to learn or not? If you are close-minded, you will never learn new things. Are you close-minded?

i know how the processor works dude i'm mostly just giving you a hard time. my only question is where you were coming up with the theoritical number stuff. but i honestly just don't care lol

we have different views on how powerful the cell will be (like the 99% thing, i don't think a developer will ever take advantage of it that close to max) and i know its a better cpu than an x86 processor, but that doesn't mean the ps3 is going to be able to make crysis look the same as the pc version

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by xtop

i know how the processor works dude i'm mostly just giving you a hard time. my only question is where you were coming up with the theoritical number stuff. but i honestly just don't care lol

we have different views on how powerful the cell will be (like the 99% thing, i don't think a developer will ever take advantage of it that close to max) and i know its a better cpu than an x86 processor, but that doesn't mean the ps3 is going to be able to make crysis look the same as the pc version

With the Youtube link, that was a difference between 1 core and 4 cores, right (on code that's not optimized for multiple cores)? Take a look at this performance test .pdf from Berkley. That is a quad-core from Intel (Clovertown) the PS3 is going up against (among other processors). The PS3 is WAY ahead of the game.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

With the Youtube link, that was a difference between 1 core and 4 cores, right (on code that's not optimized for multiple cores)? Take a look at this performance test .pdf from Berkley. That is a quad-core from Intel (Clovertown) the PS3 is going up against (among other processors). The PS3 is WAY ahead of the game.

why isn't the code optimized for multiple cores? if that was true you would see people complaining how people with overclocked single cores are getting better performance than their lower clocked quad cores.

and if peak memory bandwidth is what defines a processor, than yes..the cell is amazing. but your 99% is nowhere close to the 82% the article actually says.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by xtop

why isn't the code optimized for multiple cores? if that was true you would see people complaining how people with overclocked single cores are getting better performance than their lower clocked quad cores.

and if peak memory bandwidth is what defines a processor, than yes..the cell is amazing. but your 99% is nowhere close to the 82% the article actually says.

There are actually quite a few complaints regarding the core utilization for Crysis. That said, I think people get deluded into thinking multiple cores are additive performance instead of symmetric performance. Launch, it only utilized two cores effectively [you can get some more use by forcing CPU preferences so you can keep the OS and the gameplay running on seperate cores, but there ya go].

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2209093,00.asp is a fun item there, the quad-core performing worse than it's dual-core counterpart. That said, I honestly don't know if they have improved it since. Just a disclaimer here: that's off the demo, I can personally say I have seen similar in retail [not on my computer, on a friends however], I don't know if it's currently accurate or not though.

It's on the agenda though to be patched in, however.

Memory bandwidth is not the choke-point for Crysis [a large part as to why SLI solutions don't scale as well as in other games].

[xtop]

you're absolutely right about what people thing about core utilization. but i think the whole quad core vs dual core thing was only a problem in the demo. that being said..i'm not saying the quad core greatly outperforms the dual either

[Mouse]

I don't know about you people but the "Low" pictures on the OP look better to me. The "High" ones look all blurry and dark while the "Very High" brings back a little bit of brightness but not much yet the picture is more clear than "High". I'll take the brightness of things up close than better scenery anyday. Also, why is there a sun in "Medium" to "Very High" but not on "Low"? You would think that a sun being out would cause there to be more brightness but it's apparently taking brightness away.

As for the game taking up so much resources... why? Could the programmers really not write better code? Just look at Oblivion. Wonderful game with great graphics. I've got every graphics settings set to High or turned On and it runs smoothly with just a single AMD 64 4000+, 2 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7900. It's like my brother says, "Just because computers have bigger harddrives and faster processors does not mean programmers shouldn't try their best to keep the code simple and elegant."

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by xtop

why isn't the code optimized for multiple cores? if that was true you would see people complaining how people with overclocked single cores are getting better performance than their lower clocked quad cores.

and if peak memory bandwidth is what defines a processor, than yes..the cell is amazing. but your 99% is nowhere close to the 82% the article actually says.

The 99% is from some tests from the IBM document I added to my earlier post. In that case, it was 99.6%.

The software just isn't designed to take full advantage of a quad-core x86 processor. Check out this short article.

Better yet, look at these game results.

See what I mean? It totally supports Reiella's link as well.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

The 99% is from some tests from the IBM document I added to my earlier post. In that case, it was 99.6%.

The software just isn't designed to take full advantage of a quad-core x86 processor. Check out this short article.

Better yet, look at these game results.

See what I mean? It totally supports Reiella's link as well.

i've already commented on the dual vs quad, why are you showing me what i already know?

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by xtop

i've already commented on the dual vs quad, why are you showing me what i already know?

I, also, listed the links to x86 performance vs. Cell performance (post #27). Those are the one I would really like for you to go through thoroughly.

[hardcore_canadian]

I have a computer that can barely handle connecting to this website.

'nuff said

[JESSE-INTERACTIVE]

sweet comparison!!! I have the Palit 9600GT video card myself but wonder if the game Crysis is any good? I normally just wait for PC games to hit the $20 bargain bin before I buy them.