Top
740°

Crytek’s CEO Explains Why Ryse is 30 FPS, Details Using Xbox One’s ESRAM for “Considerable Speed-up”

Many wondered why Ryse: Son of Rome is locked at a framerate of 30 FPS and not 60, like some expected, and Crytek’s CEO Cevat Yerly has no qualms on explaining why, as much as telling how the company used the Xbox One's ESRAM to increase performance.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Newmanator1008d ago

Shame 60fps isn't the new standard like I was thinking it would be.

Abriael1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

As long as a game looks good, I don't really mind. I played Crysis 3 at about 30 FPS on PC before upgrading, and I still was blown away by the visuals so...

I guess PC gamers are much more used to trading off framerate for visuals.

Eamon1008d ago

Not at all. Serious PC gamers have the hardware to support both high fps and ultra visuals.

Abriael1008d ago

@Eamon: you mean "PC Gamers with a lot of disposable income".

When Crysis 3 was launched it took at the very least two 680s in SLI to have fully stable framerate over 60 FPS at fully maxed settings. That's way above what "serious PC gamers" have.

That's definitely not the only case, mind you.

aiBreeze1008d ago

On 30fps is there any noticeable frame issues?

Malphite1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

Actually most PC gamers prefer performance over visual fidelity. That's one of the big aadvantages of PC gaming that you can choose wether you like performance > graphics quality or the other way around. I think 30fps is ok for some games.

@aiBreeze: if it doesn't go under 30fps you wouldn't see any frame rate issues. It just doesn't look as fluid as 60fps. Everything above 24fps is movement for our eyes. If it dips below that we start to see the frames individually. So framerate drops at 60fps aren't nearly as dramatic as framerate drops at 30fps. However a stable 30fps framerate doesn't look bad at all.

black0o1008d ago

@eamon only 1-3% of pc gamers do that .. and frame rate is more on CPU side I guess

when I updated from i3 to i5 the frame rate increased with same VGA card

Eonjay1008d ago

Well, its really weird because he is basically saying that he doesn't have the power to compute at 60FPS but it not clear if he is referring to ESRam size or to the GPU itself.

Earlier today we heard GG confirm that Killzone is not locked at 30. Crytek is vindicated by GG's decision not to lock at 60 and to instead focus on details, textures and effects. However, @900P, the computational savings should and the memory freed in ESRam should be quite substantial. Interesting to say the least...

vulcanproject1008d ago

Crysis has always had top quality motion blur, it was one of the first games that implemented object based motion blur in DX10 in 2007.

This greatly enhances the feel of a game running around 30FPS.

60FPS is a luxury for most Crytek games if you want the higher visual settings. I guess with PC though you can always choose what you want. Gotta love having the options.

loulou1008d ago

eonjay. ryse is already looking amazing for a launch title. i already want to see them use their experience on ryse 2.. things will only get better

surely someone who claims to be a dev should know this right?

Eonjay1008d ago

@loulou
You don't have to be a dev to know that as time passes, people get more familiar with platforms and can push their potentials.

caperjim1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

Like you, I don't mind the 30FPS but a resolution of 900p too? I would think it should run at 1080p at 30fps. I was going to get this game at launch but I think I will wait to see some reviews and a price drop.

4Sh0w1008d ago

You only need 60fps on super fast games, those where the gameplay is such that twitch reactions make a huge difference. Shooters, racers, fighting games and only hack n slash games with fast pace combos like Bayonetta benefit from 60fps. I know KI could have been better with 60fps but Ryse not so much.

Dude4201008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

I just realized what Abriael said, nm.

I don't mind visuals being put down as long as I can get close to 60fps. Sometimes on certain games I don't mind 30fps

Gigaguy7771008d ago

@Eamon
Replace serious with rich.

rdgneoz31008d ago

@Eonjay KZ:SF was known a while ago to be 30 fps for single and 60 for multiplayer. They just basically said today that it'll be 30 or above for single player. Also, it's running at 1080p..

Magicite1008d ago

to run crysis at stable average 30fps, u need quite and quite decent PC (if u were playing on max possible settings/full hd).
difference is that pc gamers can choose between graphics quality and farmerate while console gamers must accept whatever developers present them.

n4rc1007d ago

Frame rate isn't an issue really..

Fluctuations are what is noticed.. I'd rather have a solid 30fps then a spiky 60fps only in certain scenes..

nukeitall1007d ago

You know, 60fps will never be the standard. Why?

Because, it isn't needed in many games, and people would rather push more quality pixels on screen. Why push frames if it makes minimal if any impact on the experience, while the visual is far more likely to do.

After all, marketing wise a pretty screenshot or even video does more than a game showing 60fps.

Don't really understand the hung up on fps and resolution. It is the art work and experience that makes the game stand out for me. If it was resolution and fps, PC would have been my choice of platform a long time ago.

Sevir1007d ago

See the thing about this all the smoke and mirrors MS has been doing, from Running Games on more powerful graphics cards in their dev kits than the actual hardware, at higher resolutions and frame rates, to downgradings and upclocking CPUs and GPUs to increasing performance or as They've been throwing around "Balanced Performance".

There is No Doubt that Ryse is a Visually arresting game on the Launch of the XBOX One, BUT SERIOUSLY, after all the cuts, concessions, software overclocks in the CPU and GPU and the supposed EDGE of ESRAM's Bandwidth through put, This game Sill can only manage 900p resolution and not 60fps.

Seriously I'm wondering what MS really planned the XBOX One to be because Games simply aren't performing the way they were meant to be performing. The stand out title in their line up is being pegged on Crytek, and they are having issues up on performance, 30fps at 900p for a First party exclusive on a next gen title is surprising, I figured with the resolution cuts to push the graphics they'd have resources to get a frame rate for an action game to be 60fps.

Who designed this system of "Balance" because there seems to be too much work going in to get something balanced.

Killzone: SF has a variable frame rate that doesn't dip below 30fps but runs higher than baseline when the action isn't intense. all this with destructible environments, more open environments, more characters on screen dynamic weather, volumetric fog and ray traced lighting engine with dynamic lights along with particle effects and the Visuals are face melting like Ryse, and it runs at FULL HD.

For all the visual splendor going into Ryse, on a technical level its just not impressing like KZ is.

hiredhelp1007d ago (Edited 1007d ago )

Whats all this assuming PC Gamers that have high end video cards are rich...?
Im low income my magic trick is to and here keyword here "SAVE"..
Even if that means sell on your old video card too Not only that you can also achieve visual fidelity and good famerates with some simple overclocks on CPU and GPU. So not all of us are rich also for thoes new to pc market find certain games hard to hit solid or average of 60fps you may want to change MSAA to eaither FXAA or MSAA 2x. There not huge differnce between the two but can make for better performance with mid range cards.

AndrewLB1007d ago (Edited 1007d ago )

Now you're just making crap up. Crysis 3 ran 60fps @ 1080p on a single GTX 680 on Ultra. It just didn't while enabling TXAA or higher than 4xMSAA while maxing out anisotropic filtering. Even then I was getting a solid 45fps.

Unfortunately, Microsoft and Sony both screwed everyone by not building consoles that at the very least have the ability to play ALL games at native 1080p @ 30fps. If only they had got the memo saying how much long console release cycles and slow, last gen hardware actually has held back game development. Every time in the past when Consoles were close to high end PC's, there were huge leaps in not only game graphics, but when those graphics result in even the fastest PC's struggling, graphics hardware seemed to have more frequent updates and larger performance increases over the previous generation.

It's a shame that these consoles will NEVER be able to match the graphics seen in Crysis 3 maxed out on PC. They simply don't have the physical ability to calculate that amount of data. Here is a screenshot I took a while back while playing Bioshock Infinite @ 1600p maxed out. You gotta admit... that is pretty incredible. (make sure you make it full size)

http://i1248.photobucket.co...

Gamingcapacity1007d ago

@Andrew. That picture isn't that impressive.

UltimateMaster1007d ago

*Reads Article*

Ok, so let me get this straight.
You're saying that they can only achieve 30fps and that's WITH the ESRAM!?!

That says a lot.

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 1007d ago
MizTv1008d ago

I do like 60 better than 30 but I would rather have no screen tearing

UnHoly_One1008d ago

I was just about to type this exact comment.

I'd much prefer being locked at 30 than have it jumping all over the place between 30 and 60 and having that screen tearing line distracting me from what is going on.

I hated that crap this gen, I am hoping that will be a thing of the past one way or another.

Gamingcapacity1007d ago

On the leaked Ryse single player footage you could see a lot of screen tearing. Will update with link when I find it.

kewlkat0071008d ago

I've seen so many 30fps vs 60fps debates...and usually only hardcore PC gaming fans win them.

Can't we all just enjoy a game for what it is?

Both these consoles will vary in FPS and Resolution depending on game, budget, schedule,techs and architecture.

The initial launch day/schedule games will not be perfect or be a real representation of what these consoles will do in 3-4 years.

fardan851008d ago

Let them do what they think is the best for the game.
30 fps is fine, 60 fps is a plus.
I just hope that there will be depth in the combat and some awesome enemies to fight. Crytek should work on their NPCs, main character looks great but the rest are not.

Bigpappy1007d ago

Best NPC's of any Next gen game.

ape0071008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

it's impossible to have heavu duty nextgen games on nextgen engines running at both 60FPS and 1080p unless consoles cost 800$-900$

cyguration1007d ago

lol five years from now, when they have the next-gen equivalents of Gears of War 3 and Last of Us, you will be saying a different thing.

thejigisup1008d ago

Just because these initial games aren't ruining at 60 doesn't mean it won't happen this gen. Crytek is speaking about the xb1 here and a game initially designed for the 360. Let's look at sony's camp and see what/who sets the standard. Last gen it was bluray.

assdan1008d ago

Well, I've gotta give to crytek, they didn't coat the turd all that much. Which makes me have some respect for them. They explained exactly why it was going to be 30. I was expecting it entirely to be "30 frames feels more cinematic" and there was only a little bit of that. I don't know what people were expecting them to say, it's 30fps because the xbone can't handle those graphics at higher than 30, that's it. I knew it wasn't going to be more than 30fps after seeing the two huge graphical downgrades they did. And yes, 1080p to 900p is pretty big (only 69.4% as big as 1080p). I also liked seeing them finally talk about what ESRAM does. I think the fact that it's running MSAA, and they said they had a hard time to get it to even do that shows that it doesn't quadruple the systems bandwidth.

larrysdirtydrawss1007d ago

they said msaa is not running at its fullest... pretty sad

Killjoy30001007d ago

Crytek gasses up the X1's hardware soooo much, lol.

despair1007d ago

If after a year or so games are not going standard 60 fps then you can make that judgement, not from launch titles. Too early.

Persistantthug1007d ago

@despair,

Why? What is it that takes place a year from now?

I mean, in a year or 2 from now, are games gonna get less and less demanding?

Rhaigun1007d ago

@persistantthug
Not less demanding, per se. But, they will find ways to make things they're doing now easier. Game engines evolve over time. Making certain tasks less demanding.

hiredhelp1007d ago

Exactly its early days devs wait for 6months thingsget better 60fps who knows.
If i remember everyone wasnt complaining at 30fps last gen my recommendation to devs is 720p try rach 60 or close as.

1OddWorld1007d ago

60fps should be the standard for multiplayer games like KZ: Shadowfall, Battlefield 4, COD and Halo. Single player would be nice to have 60fps but 30fps is adequate.

I love reading comments on articles...
The new defense plan from XB-One loyalists is your not a true gamer unless you buy both systems, WTF. I am going to buy two systems one is a PlayStation and one is a PC because I am an informed consumer and not a freaking sheep BAhhhhhh...

BABY-JEDI1007d ago

I personally think 60fps is the way to go. This game especially. As it is an exclusive & a high profiled launch title.

T3MPL3TON 1007d ago

@Abriael

That is incredibly ignorant of you to say. I'm broke as hell. I just spent $500 on a PC that will out perform the PS4/Xbone. $500. Think about that.

buynit1007d ago (Edited 1007d ago )

I've been thinking about building a pc but a 500 pc isn't much to brag about and not that much power, not from my research anyway.. Now a pc with a $1000-$1500 budget would be a sick pc but it still couldn't play ryse unless crytek ports it to pc soo..

buynit1007d ago

Same here.. I guess in another 10yrs, my goodness how much power do these developers need to make it Happen with out compromise?

Shadonic1007d ago

I think that that will change in time.

Perjoss1007d ago

A GTX Titan which is a video card for PC that costs twice as much as the PS4 and XB1 can not run games like Crysis 3, Metro Last Light and Hitman Absolution at 60 frames. The XB1 and PS4 were never going to run the high fidelity titles at 60 frames, unless the developers make sacrifices or start using 'cheaper' tricks to achieve similar graphical effects.

bromtown1007d ago

I don't think you need 60FPS for every game, racing and shooting definitely, but for something like RYSE or Uncharted/ TLOU I think if you ran it at 60FPS it'd lose it's filmic look. I don't have a competent PC though so maybe my eyes aren't open to the brilliance of high frame rates haha

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1007d ago
Goku7811008d ago TrollingShowReplies(2)
Axonometri1008d ago TrollingShowReplies(4)
Eonjay1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

"We put our most accessed render targets like the G-Buffer targets into ESRAM. Writing to ESRAM yields a considerable speed-up. While 32MB may not be enough to use something like MSAA to the fullest, with a smart memory management strategy it is possible to deal with that."

Just as predicted. And of course why not. Microsoft has even implied that the ESRam would be used for this purpose. This also explains why games such as Forza look great at 1080P but are missing AA. If you are using the ESRam as a frame buffer and there is only 32 MBs, (and multiple render targets are stored in ESRam; as it should assuming decent double/triple buffering is used), there is no room for it.

This also explains why 900P is a more desired resolution when working on Xbox.

ambientFLIER1008d ago

Microsoft obviously knew about this before finalizing the console specs. So why didn't they make the ESRAM bigger? It would have cost what, a dime, to double it?

wishingW3L1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

because esRam is really expensive. Those 32mb probably cost more than the whole 8GB of DDR3.

Another thing to account for is the space in the APU. The esRam is very close to the core and the space there is limited.

joeorc1008d ago (Edited 1008d ago )

Because its COST's a freaking lot to put even that much on a console by single system, it is not cheap and the more you put on the the cost goes up by quite a bit because if you want to save costs by reduction die shrinks down the line stacking that ram is going to be quite expensive cost upfront per embedded ram wafer in the PCB stack. Sorry typing on a tablet. But the expense on this is not cheap I'm an engineer and I know first hand on 3D stacked TSV's and the COST's.

As wishingW3L just pointed out it is not only 2 times but if its stacked is could even be as high as 5 times the cost upfront on a per/system basis. Now that's not much but when you need to order in the millions of units upfront its [email protected] site expensive.
Never mind production times on wait to ship components , and time is money.

ambientFLIER1008d ago

I was not aware of that. Thanks for explaining it. I thought esram was cheap.

sandman2241008d ago

60 frames should be standard on next gen. Although 30 frames can look amazing when there is no motion, 60 frames looks stunning in motion. And that's why it should be standard.

PixelNinja1008d ago

It can't be a standard yet and shouldn't.
We haven't got to the point yet where all cheap hardware can run all games +60fps. Sure some games have 60fps now but new games further on down the line will drop frame rates to increase visuals.

Developers like all the previous generations before will have to decided on the fine line between visuals and framerate.