Crysis 1 till today ran worse than Crysis 2 on my PC(680 sli) and that's cause Crysis 1 its the pinnacle of bad engine optimization.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reality of console visuals surpassing PC visual fidelity
- Thread starter Resilient
- Start date
Crysis 1 till today ran worse than Crysis 2 on my PC(680 sli) and that's cause Crysis 1 its the pinnacle of bad engine optimization.
Yep, that's how it always was.
The pinnacle of bad engine optimization? What a crock of shit.
It is not super optimized or anything, but that kind of claim makes it sound like a broken piece of shit.
give me more examples of well optimized games that no high end machine could run better than a console.
Backfoggen
Banned
Look at benchmarks of current games. A GTX 680 runs Far Cry 3 at exactly 1080p/60fps. Same for Hitman and AC3. Those are current-gen titles. Add anything substantial to these games graphics-wise and your 60 fps are gone.
Of course you can always make the argument for SLI and six core CPUs or whatever but I'm talking about a standard high-end PC, not the top-end. When it comes to PCs there's always some machine somewhere that will run everything.
All true.
But this OP is about the new consoles and their games looking better on PC or the console. Price is not an issue, as stated in the OP. I don't think anyone except people like Shadow of the BEAST can make an argument that the PC does not have better IQ.
Did you completely forget your original point? I didn't.
I am however, done with this discussion.
Explain to me then why that pile of crap runs ~20fps lower than Crysis 2
1080p isn't a high mark for pc gamers anyone with I5 oced and newer amd nvidia card can go well beyond that and still keep frames. Only thing holding back some pc gamers now is their monitor capabilities be it single or multi setup displays. The point isn't very few can do, it's that we can do it period and do it well a Console can't. That's where a bulk of enthuiast pc gamers go. Also I will sum up one big advantage of a pc over a console my GPU control panel. Fucking consoles need to grow up and give me something like nvidia inspector or the ability to alter my profiles to the same degree. As long as we can supersample and jack the AF, AO, and other features of games up console games will always be mid tier.
Consoles always enjoy a year to about two of a benefit yet it's quickly erased almost each gen. Console devs right now are making those titles and certain pc devs like crytek are already starting to push their stuff with amazing results.
Also crysis 1 is pc exception when takling graphics. You can configure so much and when you push it can still choke high end machines. The fact you can is a testament to why pc gamers at times like the pc whereas on a console the game is stuck as it it gltiches, bugs, and performance issues.
1200 hundred for a high end pc machine is fine but the gaf pc thread has builds starting off at the low 400 that can still perform. Stop saying this bad meme like it has merit, hasn't had any merit basically since crysis 1 when build threads started showing up on the site.
Square have said their tech demo was on a single Geforce 680 and ran at 60fps. I believe Epic have now said the same of Samaritan.
Much of the point of going the PC route is that you are no longer reigned in by what the console developer thought was a reasonable cost. Different people have different incomes. If i think that a new PC is worth £1200, then i can choose to do that. With PC's nowadays, you'll probably find that a £400 one can run the same games, just not as well.
No, but Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 sure did (2004). And countless games before that. Unreal, AVP - i ran them all in HD at 60fps. Crysis was an anomaly. They specifically stated that they were targetting future hardware with it. That you wouldn't be able to run the ultra setting for a couple of years.
And they run those games at 1080p/60fps with performance to spare, usually well below 50-60% usage.
6-core cpus or hyperthreading really has almost no effect on gaming currently. Very few games are multi-threaded.
Are you kidding me? That is how it always was prior to, say, 2007 or so. PC gaming was always about pushing the limits of what hardware could deliver. PC gamers today are fucking spoiled or have a very short memory.
Back in the day you'd bring home the newest Origin game (something like Crusader, System Shock, or a new flight sim) and you'd be lucky to get a smooth framerate on even a high-end rig. Things improved once 3D cards hit but even then 60 fps was far from common.
Anti-aliasing wasn't even really a usable thing until 2003/2004.
This was the first generation in PC history where you could expect to max out a game on day 1 at a perfect framerate with image quality enhancements.
Oh? Which video card did you run Unreal on? Which resolution?
You're remembering wrong.
memecomplex
Member
The reality is that the PC has become the platform for serious gamers. It used to be the other way around. If you want the best games, you go console. Now it would appear that consoles have reached the mainstream; it's plug and play, relatively affordable and there's very little to mess about with, a.k.a. limited.
PCs are messy, expensive, requires a lot research and tweaking and then there's the wild, wild, world of modding. PC gaming is strictly in the enthusiast realm; it's definitely not for the average consumer.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Nailed it.
this argument isnt really valid. Gpus are made and sold according to the tech used to make gamea at the moment. Not only that but there's even older games that look and run way better than far cry 3 (wich btw im running at 80+ fps 99 percent of the time at 2040x1152 on a single card)
doniewhalberg
Member
This sounds like a japanese only launch title Sony will want to make sure runs at 1080p/60fps for the home market. Cheers for the reply on the Haswell thing.
Alcoholikaust
Member
as far as a standalone pre-built PC, sure it could happen
whereas if an individual with any minuscule knowledge of PC gaming were to build a computer with literally the best available parts (at the time) there is no way in hell a console will stand a chance.
don't get me wrong-I would love a console to cost 599 have a CPU comparable to a high end i7, GTX 680, 1TB HDD and 32Gigs of ram, that uses blu ray and supports a grandiose variety of surround sound options. but it wont happen.
it's just too expensive for the big 3 to do that. all consoles will release with "last years" tech.
whereas if an individual with any minuscule knowledge of PC gaming were to build a computer with literally the best available parts (at the time) there is no way in hell a console will stand a chance.
don't get me wrong-I would love a console to cost 599 have a CPU comparable to a high end i7, GTX 680, 1TB HDD and 32Gigs of ram, that uses blu ray and supports a grandiose variety of surround sound options. but it wont happen.
it's just too expensive for the big 3 to do that. all consoles will release with "last years" tech.
MickeyKnox
Member
The fact the the biggest Crysis 2 level is a fraction of the size of all but the last Crysis level? all the while being completely static in nature? the (initial) lack of one of Crysis' heavier hitting effects namely POM and greatly reduced amounts of per-object motion blur?
The only reason people carry the misconception that C2 is "way more optimized" (a bullshit buzz phrase) is that C2 was a significantly shallower and less ambitious game than it's predecessor
memecomplex
Member
I maxxed out Quake II at around 100 fps back in 1998 running 3DFX in the OG SLI mode. But yeah, no image quality enhancements; it's a first for me. This PC gen has been a revelation.
How is this responding what im asking? We are comparing pcs to consoles afaik
I seriously wish that consoles would charge that much for launch units. Put some top of the line parts in there so they don't become such a joke at the end of the life cycle.
3dfx cards were great for speed. TNT were about image quality give me that 32bit color and aa plz.
28 Posts Later
Member
You've yet to see a PC game look as good as the promo shots of a game you haven't played? I'm all for comparisons if needs be, but those comparing shots of two unreleased games [including some bullshots no less] aren't adding anything to that kind of discussion except confusion.
SirButterstick
Banned
Lol. You're out of your fucking mind.
C2 in DX9 was more optimized. Once you hit DX11 is when Crysis 2 reverts back to the classic choke point.
I'd almost bet half the people (more?) arguing about PC always playing games easily, or blowing past 60fps, can't even run Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed 3, or Max Payne 3 on Ultra/Max with 16xAA (or even 4-8x AA) and obtain even 30-40fps. I bet many of you can't even get 30fps.
LOL
I have a liquid cooled i7, an overclocked 2GB GTX 660 Ti, 9GB RAM (triple channel) and I JUST...JUST...manage 60 frames per second at 8-16x AA on those games. I see 42fps in the downtown areas when the action really picks up in AC:III.
My best friend, who has a similar setup has a GTX 670 and he hits the 45fps mark in the same area. We both manage close to 60 everywhere else. We both manage 60 plus in Max Payne 3 and Battlefield 3.
Next gen games will look better than the above games....period. Microsoft and Sony should have no problem doing so.
NO I DO NOT THINK...in fact I almost guarantee...my PC with it's new/recent tech will not handle "Next Gen" games at 1080p/60fps. Not on Ultra/Max settings.
Heck...look at Crysis 3. I played it and with EVERYTHING on VERY HIGH (no Ultra setting) it brought my system to it's knees. I can see Cryisis 3 being an example of Next Gen console capability....perhaps.
LOL
I have a liquid cooled i7, an overclocked 2GB GTX 660 Ti, 9GB RAM (triple channel) and I JUST...JUST...manage 60 frames per second at 8-16x AA on those games. I see 42fps in the downtown areas when the action really picks up in AC:III.
My best friend, who has a similar setup has a GTX 670 and he hits the 45fps mark in the same area. We both manage close to 60 everywhere else. We both manage 60 plus in Max Payne 3 and Battlefield 3.
Next gen games will look better than the above games....period. Microsoft and Sony should have no problem doing so.
NO I DO NOT THINK...in fact I almost guarantee...my PC with it's new/recent tech will not handle "Next Gen" games at 1080p/60fps. Not on Ultra/Max settings.
Heck...look at Crysis 3. I played it and with EVERYTHING on VERY HIGH (no Ultra setting) it brought my system to it's knees. I can see Cryisis 3 being an example of Next Gen console capability....perhaps.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
?
Are you saying what current renderers in games are doing is more system taxing than what CG houses are doing?
Felix Lighter
Member
16x AA, eh?
memecomplex
Member
Yeah I played with the Riva after that, was really amazed by the real time videos playing on the billboards of G-Police, a feature only available on those cards. Good times!
Amazingly, I spent the same amount of money on the dual 3DFX cards as I did with the GTX 690, a decade later, but the power level comparison is just insane. To an old dude like me, it almost seems like a good deal
What enhancements were even there to take advantage of at the time? It ran at 60fps with the best image quality expected for the time on top end hardware.
Yesterday's 1280x1024 (was it even that commonly high?) Is today's 1080p.
Edit: In fact, weren't 3DFX cards limited to 800x600 or 1024x768 when SLI'd?
Sorry, i meant Unreal 2. Not the first one.
Cause owning a pc isn't about maxing it out necessarily nor should it be. The point is most mid range and high end pc gamers can roll whatever console gamers get say 3 years in to a generation. Console can't even enter this debate if you were stick most console games on to higher end settings like your mentioning for the pc they couldn't do a solid 30.
Yeah I played with the Riva after that, was really amazed by the real time videos playing on the billboards of G-Police, a feature only available on those cards. Good times!
Amazingly, I spent the same amount of money on the dual 3DFX cards as I did with the GTX 690, a decade later, but the power level comparison is just insane. To an old dude like me, it almost seems like a good deal
I totally feel that just moved off of the old quad/c2d on to the i5/i7 era and it's good. I'm amazed at how far about 700bucks takes me. If you asked a version of myself in my teens if I was going to be doing this on a console or pc would've lauged and said arcade hardware forever.
Yeah, at 800x600, sure no problem.
Did Crysis 1 had these: Tessellation, Displacement Mapping, Realtime Local Reflections and Tone Mapping, Bokeh Filters, Ambient Occlusion, Hi-res textures?
No
Because the 660ti is mid range at best with a ridiculous 192 bit memory bus and AC3 is well known as a terribly optimized game?
Holy bad post batman
Backfoggen
Banned
Samaritan ran at 30 fps
When they made it run on a single GTX 680 instead of three GTX 580s they bumped down the resolution to 720p too.
The UE 4 editor demo they showed (also running on a single GTX 680) ran at about 40 fps with not much going on at also not full 1080p resolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8&feature=player_detailpage#t=468s
And using Beyond as the example, of all games. Yeah, the faces look good - because they skimp everywhere else. Plus no physics or gameplay to speak of. Anyone that played Heavy Rain know's exactly how this one's going to pan out graphically.
Crysis 2 DX11 runs at 60fps smoth at ultra on a Single 680, on a SLI config inever drops of 90 and reach tops up to 200fps
People need benchmark games to see if their rigs are powerful enough for the latest games.
Games like Crysis were more than just a game, they were also a entry level tool.
Well now it does. At the time of release it wasn't so easy.
memecomplex
Member
There wasn't, hence dark10x's point.
Funnily enough, running games at 1080p was a little disappointing for me; even knowing that 1080p is nearly 4 times the pixel count of 720p, the image is still not sharp nor clear enough for me. Thankfully downsampling fixed that.
So yeah, back on topic, if the next gen consoles only did 1080p, it won't be good enough for me on a visual fidelity level compared to what I can get on the PC.
That looks like crap to be honest, there are jaggies everywhere and the textures looks like poo, just look at those shirt buttons.
People need to take a tour to the PC screenshot thread.
MickeyKnox
Member
No (neither did C2 at launch and when it got performance fucking tanked) yes, no (neither did C2 at launch) no, yes, yes.
and that's without acknowledging the existence of xZero's (now cry-Steve) shaders, who added all those features to CE2 and was hired on my Crytek as a result
memecomplex
Member
There's definitely a big shift happening. Maybe it's because this console generation dragged out too long, or maybe because gaming has gone mainstream. But right now for the serious gamers (hey this is still GAF!) the PC is the most exciting frontier. Can't wait for the Japanese devs like Platinum Games to jump on board.
Japanese art style/ game design + high res + 60 fps + copious amounts of AA = old school arcade gaming heaven.
Not denying that but don't try to say average consumers use benchmarks or such tools frequently like you or I would. Most using benchmarks are in the enthusiast territory as most of that culture is regardless of how much they have to spend. Average consumers do not care for most of the advanced tools pc offer that makes games better or help them to look or play like they should.
Cause it is I came down to 1080 off of 1200p 16:10 monitor. It's a decent 16:9 based resolution but was made to be standard for tvs which isn't saying all that much considering how monitors are far better in terms of tech progression.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Actually, it did have displacement mapping (parallax occlusion mapping, to be accurate), tone mapping (though not with a filmic S-curve like they're touting for Crysis 2), ambient occlusion, and hi-res textures (in fact the textures Crysis 2 launched with were lower-resolution than Crysis's, hence PC gamer outcry). The only things that are new in Crysis 2 are the DX11 features (tesselation & real time local reflections) and the bokeh (which can easily be done in DX9).
That aside, this topic is incredibly silly. We don't know what kind of silicon the hardware makers are going to be launching with. They could be launching with silicon on par with a 680. That would make them high-end for the first year. Then they'd fall behind again. (Well, they're already behind me with my 2x GTX 670s, but obviously I'm an outlier there.)
Also, the comparison between PC versions and console versions as a way to suggest that one is more optimized than the other is horse shit. PC ports frequently have huge image quality gains as well as graphics options that simply do not appear on the console versions. If you want to make a like:like comparison you actually have to set the graphics settings equal to each platform's respective version.
And don't even bring up console Crysis, that one is clearly running at medium settings. Not high, not very high, medium. That should tell you enough about how big the gulf is between them now.
This was the post that set it all off:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=45279066
While there is SOME truth to the end point (mainly in regards to image quality), its still a false blanket statement that doesn't take into account that PCs aren't limited by fixed hardware. While there are some software exceptions, many launch performance issues could be circumvented with obscenely priced hardware purchases.
I mean, MOST games prior to 2005, running at less than 30fps at launch is a silly thing to say, no?
Crysis 2 had smaller levels, but with more complicated geometry, more varied textures and more demanding lighting conditions. Motion blur was much better in C2 DX 9 than it was in C1, DX 11 just added per-pixel hdr correct one. PoM was out, because You cant have PoM and anisotropic filtering in DX9 mode.
And C2 is much more optimized. What shallower even means? C2 is superior to C1 in every way as a tech goes. Engine is heavily multithreaded on GPU and CPU side and scales back and up. Heck C1 wasnt even deferred rendered and that changes a lot.
Awful examples. They arent optimized properly in terms of multithreading or effects optimization. I'm pretty sure that SSDO, the best ssao implementation to date made by Crytek is 4 or 5 times cheaper than any ssao implementation in Far Cry 3 or Hitman.
And even though they dont utilize CPU and GPU in full, they dont run in console settings either. So that 680, not only renders games in double the framerates, two times higher resolution, but also with not optimized MSAA, higher LOD, higher res textures and effects that every cost half the whole console version gpu budgets.
And lighting
Actually its more closer to high/very high with some medium.
Neither the 670 or 680 can hold 60+ either (on max settings at 1080p).
The 670 drops into the 40s, the 680 and 690 drop into the 50s (turn on TXAA and watch them hit 30s/40s). This is most obvious in Boston.
Next to the 680 the 660 Ti (not overclocked) has a minimum frame-rate average of only 10fps at 43fps vs 53fps in 1080p. At 2560x1600 the 680 drops into the 30s...but that's not really comparable.
Anyway, on subject. I expect the next gen console game to look and run better than what pushes current high end PCs to sub 30. I wouldn't expect more than 4-8x AA or some other form of AA though.