Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter

This has been a hot topic ever since Crysis was announced. This question has been asked repeatedly to a number of different Crytek employees which all seem to have their own unique, yet similar response. This article provides the facts on the matter while hopefully clearing up most of the confusion that has been generated over the past couple of months.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MicroGamer4386d ago

cross development is easier between 360 and PC. If a console version of Crysis does come, it will likely be on 360 first.

Rooted_Dust4386d ago

I think it's more of a possibility that they will develop a stand-alone game for consoles. In the article is say that CryEngine2 is designed to work across platforms.

Anerythristic264386d ago

Only slightly disagree. THe game would launch at the same time on both consoles. Though I agree the 360 would be easier to port a PC game too , see all the PC/360 games if you have any doubt. I am only guessing with the 360's architecture it's easier than with the PS3 which has a very unique CPU .

D3acon4385d ago

That they would have two development teams, one for xbox and the other for PS3. Becasue that would be like a Port of another Port coming to the PS3. And really, and truly that the only way they are going to achieve what they are looking for on the PC.

LuminousAphid4386d ago

They have failed to convince me that I need to play this game for any reason. All they talk about is the graphics, I have yet to hear a single thing about gameplay or anything like that (of course I haven't been looking, but even so I have heard much about the graphics, which means they are pushing that much more). I don't really see any reason to play this over any other fps out there.

Anerythristic264386d ago

At this point I'm tired of hearing about it. They are specifically making a game that would play at it's best on a high end gaming PC that costs thousands of dollars. WEith them only touting the graphics and really no gameplay info coming out it has fallen off my radar.

Rooted_Dust4386d ago

There is plenty of gameplay information about this game out if you care to look. Pc game news is hardly posted here because of a lack of Pc gamers on this site.

DJ4386d ago

The PS3 would have the clear advantage if given a Crysis port. Apparently the big limitation from consoles that the developer sees is the lack of a standard hard drive to work with, since there's a need to access large amounts of data at a very high rate, something that current disc storage doesn't offer.

Since the PS3 does come standard with a hard drive, the devs would be able to use it not just for caching, but also allow user installation (a la the other PS3 titles that have come out).

Anerythristic264386d ago

Give it a rest for a second , please.

shotty4386d ago

Actually the CryEngine2 is scalable and having the harddrive on could boast draw distance or something. I'm sure not every ps3 owner wants to delete something from their harddrive just so they can play a game.

TheMART4386d ago

They can program the game that way that with a HDD it runs the smootest. Even on a 360 core or 360 with a HDD.

Problems for PS3 HDD is that every single game will install GB's on the HDD because the BlueRay loads to slow. So the HDD will be full in no time. The HDD on the PS3 is a must have otherwise you'll be waiting too freaking long.

That's the difference with the 360. Furthermore, the 360 has the unified memory, which will deal better with the enormously texture and detailgraphics in Crysis.

360 also has DX9 as a base, with the possibility for MS to get it's own 360 API control up there which can do all the stuff as DX10 does, and might do even more. It's more flexible then DX10, no fixed rules.

AND the 360 GPU is more complex then the ATI 1900 XTX (with for example the 10 MB embedded extra fast ram/die).

It's just like it's now already. The 360 puts out better graphics, more detail, better colours then the PS3. It's because of the Wii like coverup Sony did with the RSX specs. Which is a standard Nvidia 6800 PC card

Dlacy13g4386d ago

The PS3's hard drive is used as an optional install by some devs to make loading faster. But ZERO devs will make it a mandatory install. Nobody can count on the HDD on the PS3 as a install drive just like they couldn't count on the original Xbox drive as a main install drive. You could install a peice of the game...but they couldn't install the whole game...not like a PC. The PS3 20gb isn't built for that. Sure you will have a number of people that upgrade the HDD or have the 60gb and could handle it better...but they will be the minority, and from a biz stand point you can't use the minority as your base for configuration on a console system.

DJ4386d ago

Saying that DX 9 can not only achieve everything that DX 10 does, but even more, is pretty far-fetched. Now, the unified memory architecture of the 360 would give an advantage for texture storage, but hurts the CPU so...i dunno. It's a bit of a tradeoff.

It looks like Crysis is intensive on both areas, but I'm sure 360 and PS3 can handle it. Both consoles have roughly the same data transfer rates, despite using different formats, so your whole "Blu-ray is slow" argument is void.

BTW, what developers have been saying is that RSX is a 7800/7900 hybrid, with features that aren't existent in current nVidia GPUs. In fact, it's 128-bit HDR technology doesn't exist in any ATI cards since it was codeveloped with ILM, and won't be publicly available until the 8 series. There's some other stuff like larger texture cache and vertex processing, but I'm not go into the logistics of it all.

Gears4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

Is more powerful than the 7800/7900 series and the x1900xtx, it is more powerful than the RSX(RSX stands for Really Slow compared to XBOX). Cryengine was designed with PC's in mind not a multimedia processor like Cell. So I bet Crysis would run alot better on the 360. Also the 360 has more available RAM, since the OS doesn't hog it all like with the PS3. By the way DJ I don't know where you get your info from, but unified architecture beats last-gen architecture, nothing you say or facts you spin will change that. Unified architecture results in better lighting and effects and better framerate, that is why the PS3 is struggling while playing games the 360 doesn't even stutter in. LOL PS3 is weak last-gen technology from a GPU viewpoint and the GPU creates the visuals. Not only does unified architecture increase the visual quality it can also do physics, AI, stuff last gen GPU's couldn't. PWNED!

dantesparda4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

"They can program the game that way that with a HDD it runs the smootest. Even on a 360 core or 360 with a HDD. "

Yet, they have yet, to do that on a 360 game yet. Im not saying it not possible. As a matter of fact, i dont know why they havent been done it yet, as it would benefit 360 owners. But i guess that they do not want to alienate the non-HD owning owners. Heck! even the programmer from Saints Row said, that he couldnt program in airplanes because the 360 disc drive would not have been fast enough to stream the boards at the sppeds he would have like to have the jets move around at. They could have done it with the HD though. But i guess they didnt want none HD owing 360 owners to get mad cuz they wouldnt have it. Oh well, our lost.

"Problems for PS3 HDD is that every single game will install GB's on the HDD because the BlueRay loads to slow. So the HDD will be full in no time. The HDD on the PS3 is a must have otherwise you'll be waiting too freaking long. "

Wrong! show me where it says that all PS3 games have to loaded onto the HD. Its just an option to make it load faster. And i dont know about you, but i would rather have the option than not. And would most certainly welcome it on the 360 also.

"That's the difference with the 360. Furthermore, the 360 has the unified memory, which will deal better with the enormously texture and detailgraphics in Crysis."

Oh you mean that much ballyhooed by the fanboys Unified Memory Architecture that is used by all the main components in the system? you do know that the CPU, the GPU and the Northbridge all shared that measely 700mhz 128-bit bus. And yes it measely as my 9800Pro at 350mhz 256bit bus can match that bandwith.

"360 also has DX9 as a base, with the possibility for MS to get it's own 360 API control up there which can do all the stuff as DX10 does, and might do even more. It's more flexible then DX10, no fixed rules."

No fixed rules eh? Hm that tells me, you really know your stuff. Do you even know how these APIs work? Obviously not!

"AND the 360 GPU is more complex then the ATI 1900 XTX (with for example the 10 MB embedded extra fast ram/die). "

Hm, ok, lets look at this. x1900xtx 650mhz core/Xenos 500mhz core. x1900xtx memory clock is 775mhz 256-bit bus GDDR3 (non-shared)/Xenos 700mhz 128-bit bus GDDR3 (shared with the CPU, the GPU and the Northbridge and the Southbridge, so much for your much ballyhooed unified memory architecture) which by the way has been used in laptop computers for how many years now? x1900xtx 48 shader units/Xenos 48 shader units. 10Mb eDRAM on Xenos? just helps to bring up the bandwith, but still not on par with x1900xtx. And the thing cant really support 4xAA over 640by 480 anyways. And i can see proof of that the many games. I up the res to 720p, AA gets shut off, oops so much for free AA. I knew it was bull from the monet i heard it.
That's why every game that is on both platforms (the 360 & the PC) runs better on the PC than on the 360, while running at higher framerates and higher texture resolutions and detail and a higher screen resolution than on the 360!? and also with anti-aliasing times 4 and anisotropic filtering times 8 or 16 and true trilinear filtering and not that bi/brilinear crap they are using on the 360. And also at a higher refresh rate, so it doesnt have to tear so much as it does on alot of the 360 games.

"It's just like it's now already. The 360 puts out better graphics, more detail, better colours then the PS3. It's because of the Wii like coverup Sony did with the RSX specs. Which is a standard Nvidia 6800 PC card"

Hm, so now its a 6800 eh? not a 7800/7900? hm, very interesting. and you would know how?
And also i'd like to add that alot of you's are under the impression that the Xenos which is a R500 is superior to the R580 (the x1900xtx) because it is a generation ahead of the R580. To that i'd just like to say, that if you look at the Geforce 6200. It is a generation ahead of a 9800XT, but does it outperform it? Most certainly not! And the fact that the Xenos uses a 128-bit bus smells of low-end. Sorry folks but you's are going to have to start excepting the facts, as oppsed to what you's wanna believe. The 360 can barely run above 30fps on most games. 30fps is the absolute lowest acceptible framerate on the PC. And half the times the 360 is running with the highest setting that you can get on the PC. So the facts do the talking for me

DJ4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

Dante ripped you guys to shreds. =P What's funny is that Mr Gears is trying to compensate for the 360's weak CPU by stating that the GPU will do all the AI and physics functions for it. Unified GPU architecture is supposed to be more efficient, not more powerful than dedicated pipelines. In fact, ATI states that the RSX is more powerful than their Xenos chip, and since they manufactured the chip I take their word over anyone else's.

Gears4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

When I am talking about unified architecture I am not referring to the RAM. I am talking about the fully programmable pipelines on Xenos, something that the PS3 doesn't have.

Hell the PS3 is getting PWNED by Blazing Angels!!!

"Surprisingly, however, the textures of the buildings in London and other environments seem a little scaled back; they just don't look quite as detailed as the Xbox 360 version, but it's not something I really noticed during the intense dog-fights."

"Having fully programmable shader architecture is the single most important advancement," says McGrath. "It has opened up a world of possibilities that just weren't possible in older hardware. Game visuals are now advancing at a rate that exceeds that of film visuals, so the gap between them is getting smaller and smaller." Hence GEARS OF WAR something that isn't possible on the PS3.

"By using unified shader architecture, DirectX 10 allows developers to devote graphic card resources to whatever they want, depending on what the needs of their game are. This kind of efficiency will help make motion blur look better in racing games, and lighting look better in shooters."

Much like the fact tha Call of Duty 3 runs at 60fps on the 360 vs. 30fps on the PS3. Or the higher framerate in Tony Hawk on the 360? LOL Blinded fanboys. What about FNR3 huh? What about Gears of War huh? So far I haven't seen anything on the PC, PS3 that even comes close to Gears except for Crysis. How much will a rig cost to run Crysis at full settings? $2000? $3000? The PS3 is weak my friend, 550mhz with half the pipelines of the 360 GPU, and the less efficient architecture of the RSX, points to the PS3 GPU being of the low-end. Overclocked 7600? What about the OS that hogs more memory than Windows in the PS3? Did you account for that? That erradicates any advantage with memory the PS3 had if it even had one. The proof is right in front of your face my friends, better lighting in every cross platform game on the 360, can be attributed to the next-gen architecture in the 360. That is one of the benefits, a benefit the PS3 lacks from the looks at the side by side comparisons. That is why the greats are making games for the 360, they want to get used to NEXT-GEN architecture to aid in development of NEXT-GEN ENGINES. UE3 runs better on the 360, is it because the GPU is inferior like you state? No it is because it is superior, far superior. Double the fill-rate of the RSX, double the vertices calculations, and the 360 GPU pushes polys twice as fast as RSX. The CELL is a large bottleneck, hince the framerate troubles in every multiplatform game, it just can't handle game code as well as the triple core G5.

Now walk off crying LOSERS!

DJ show me a link where ATI openly admitted that their product is inferior to the RSX. They never did say that, all they have said that it is more powerful than all the chipsets that nvidia claims the RSX is more powerful than. NVidia said the RSX is more powerful than 2 6800 ultras in SLI, so is Xenos.

The link below is a pic of the PS3 trying to run a 360 games without being dumbed down:

Gears4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

Developers thought on Cell and RSX:

"There are some challenges involving the architecture of the Cell, the cell consists of PPE and SPE cores. A developer states, "It is impossible to extract the full performance of the Cell on launch titles, it will take time get familiar with it". Another developer states that they are having difficulties with the 256KB memory of each SPE core. The actual useable area of the 256KB is closer to 128KB when buffering is considered with accessing external DRAM. "It would have been much different situation if there was 1MB of local memory”<--360 has that

Till now, developers were stingy with programming and memory usage, and this will not change with the PS3, in fact, the Cell will reward developers that put more effort into programming. While that may not be a negative, it is a hurdle that will take larger developer resources and time. For the Cell it has changed from extracting performance from the hardware, but more towards multi-threaded performance and takes a different skill set then the PS2."

-problems with RSX [7600GT bandwidth]

"Developers were using 7800GTX for development, The RSX uses Nvidia’s G70 and performance programmable shader performance is very high. But the memory interface is 128-bit, in addition 8 ROP (Rasterizing Operation). It can be said that the RSX has a shader equivalent of a high-end PC with mid-range memory bandwidth. For that reason, due to the GPU high shader performance there is a bottleneck to the ROP memory and is causing a bottleneck. “For lower resolutions it is a fantastic GPU, but it gets difficult for high end HDTV resolutions”, says a developer." <--LOL Hense framerate issues in a BASKETBALL GAME LOL

PS3 has a 128 bit bus as well NOOBS

You know although an NVidia spokesperson said the RSX is a slightly more powerful than a 7800GTX (so are a few other GPUs on the market NOW)<--LOL Xenos has you PWNED!!!

That means that almost a year before launch, there’s a PC graphics chip that is more powerful than the RSX GPU found in the PlayStation 3<-PWNED. And make no mistake, this is not a crazy, speculative conclusion ; this comes straight from the company that makes both parts: the RSX and GeForce 7800 graphics processing units.<--PWNED

That’s not good news for consoles, being that the typical 4-to-5 year lifecycle a console must survive allows computers to catch up quickly with the technology found on next-generation consoles. PS3<--

Usually, game consoles ship with hardware that is not available on personal computer at the time of launch (Not the PS3), and a few months later, PC hardware manufacturers create hardware parts that surpass console technologies.

But launching with a technology that is already available on PC is not good at all for a “next-generation” console (PS3). By the time the PlayStation 3 launches, there will be already a new GPU from nVIDIA that will be more powerful that their current flagship GPU, the GeForce 7800 GTX.

So, what about the Xbox 360? In the case of the graphics processing unit designed for the Xbox 360, ATI has included technology on the Xenos GPU that won’t be available for PC graphics chip in the next twelve months, including the unified shader architecture and the embedded DRAM daughter die.

With a three-core processor and its state-of-the-art GPU, the Xbox 360 hardware won’t be matched by PC until early 2007, when quad-core processors from AMD and Intel arrive and Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPUs, featuring unified shader architecture, arrive.

Man you guys just got RIPPED TO SHREDS!!!
I never want to hear a word from you guys again!

Gears4386d ago (Edited 4386d ago )

Remember that the RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX. In other words, it needs that additional memory bandwidth from the Cell’s memory controller to be able to handle more texture-bound games. If a good portion of the 15GB/s downstream link from the Cell processor is used for bandwidth between the Cell’s SPEs and the RSX, the GPU will be texture bandwidth limited in some situations, especially at resolutions as high as 1080p. Hense the less detailed textures in the PS3 games such as RR7 vs. RR6 and THP8.

The only reason it is more powerful than the 7800gtx is because it is clocked at 550mhz instead of the 7800gtx's 500mhz. <--LOL


Quote from ATi spokesperson: I’d love to say that Nvidia are going to be stuck when it comes to Vista. But actually I do think they will have a unified shader architecture by the time WGF2 comes around. This time around, they don’t have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isn’t worthwhile. But in the future, they’ll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they’ve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn’t unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful.



dantesparda4385d ago (Edited 4385d ago )

Sorry to break to you Gears, but you're right, a 128-bit bus is weak, its very weak! And thats what I've been trying to say all along about both the 360 and the PS3. They both use a 128-bit bus.
Now that may be fine for CPU to RAM, but from the GPU to RAM? that's weak! very weak! low-end in the PC gfx card world. Also you mention how a programmer stated that he would have preferred "local" memory to what the SPE's have. I agree, see the problem is that the 256KB of memory that SPEs have are not L2 cache or L3 (yuck!) or even worst l4! but its the actual DRAM an that is about as bad as it could get. But dont think for a second that the design of the Xenon is any better. The Xenon uses half-core speed L2 cache (which runs at 1.6ghz), which is just as bad. Itll cause all sort of latencies, wait states, ands asymmetries. Plus 1MB L2 cache for 6 threads is simply not enough! And people with every new generation comes a host of low-end cards that are always lower performance than the last generations mid to high-end cards where. So stop thinking that Xenos/R500/C1 (which btw is the Ati internal core name) being closer in generation to the R600 means that its got R600 performance. I doesnt even have x1800 or 7800 performance. I can almost match 360 performance with my 2002 PC with a Barton and 9800pro with a R360 core. I can definitely beat its visual quality, but sometimes i'll lose on the frames while other times beat it by double! and thats with a 4 yr old machine.
BTW, Nvidia has twice the Makret cap/money of Ati. And Ati got bought out by AMD, so how did Nvidia get owned? And Nvidia got payed very well from MS for the 1st Xbox and from Sony this time around, whereas Ati pratically gave it away to MS.

D3acon4385d ago

I believe the PS3 could access the memory faster because that is how it was designed. I just wonder how much Space that game would take up on your hardrive.

I don't believe they would be able to incorporate everything from the PC to the consoles, they would get a A++ if they do. Some elements of detail would be left out, more likely the less noticable.

ronscrote4384d ago

"I can almost match 360 performance with my 2002 PC with a Barton and 9800pro with a R360 core."

I'm sorry but that is absolute crap. A friend of mine is still using an old Barton 3200+ with a radeon 9800pro and Oblivion looks like total arse compared to the 360 version. To make it look anything like the 360 version reduces the framerate to about 5fps.

And this is game who's development was rushed on the 360 to meet deadlines. As opposed to the PC version, which was in development for about 4 years.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 4384d ago
DixieNormS4386d ago

Since ps3 owners don't buy games, I don't see Crytec wasting time and money on this port.

frostbite064386d ago

Thats the first valid point ive heard

Dlacy13g4386d ago

Crysis in its current form will not come to the consoles. What we will probably see is something similar to what we saw with FarCry. Regardless this pretty much sums up gaming on a whole. PC's will always have higher end potential as the developers wont' be constrained to use a set standard performance level.

However, even though there will always be certain PC games that really outshine the consoles...I will always prefer my console for gaming. I like the fact that I don't have to do any tweaking to my system to make the games run better, I like the fact that my system will auto patch should a download be needed...and that I don't have to go find it and update the game, etc. I like the fact that I really don't have to do anything except play the game. This is the clear upside to console gaming. It's about gaming and not about what you need to do to your system to run the latest and greatest games. Some tech heads love that, and to them I say great, enjoy tinkering. Me, I like the simplicity of quality games, my couch, a beer or two and some chips.

dantesparda4385d ago

I hear your point and i clearly understand what you're saying, but do know this. Little by little we are getting closer and closer to what the PC is. They are just baby stepping you towards it. You speak of auto patch. Most PC game do that now. So like you said, you dont have to go looking for it. Players already know now that the 360 is runnning a OS, whereas i bet many didnt know that the same was true since the nes days

Show all comments (58)
The story is too old to be commented.