Play Mag: Exactly how ‘next-gen’ does Epic’s new engine look next to the best Sony has to offer on PS3?
Can we get an Xbox 360 comparison too? And I want this tested up against Crytec 3. Let us be fair here, comparing PS3 current tech, which looks great, to the top of the line DX11 Unreal PC software? I mean for shame shame... And please turn the brightness of the PS3 shots, they don't look like that in realtime. Why do these sites want to screw with the brightness to prove some point. The PC shots are clearly better looking, why still cheat the competition?
This comparison is like bringing a gun to a knife fight. The demo was run in REAL TIME on 580's in 3-way SLI, so there is absolutely no chance the PS3 could do such raw processing.
how the thing moves before talking will ya? Then you can judge ;)! Edit: At DenyThef*cats: Oh really? Then I wanna see your face when you will see that the thing will move like an "Unreal" "Engine" with blocky faces and NO PHYSICS! Oh I don't have to see your face since it will be like the engine: faceless + moveless ! ;) ! Keep denying the facts then !
The video version of the demo that was privately shown at GDC will be released sometime this month. http://www.develop-online.n... I have no doubt that it'll be silky smooth.
Like I said before, Epic has the best bullshots in the biz; but the in-game gameplay does not match-up with the shots. Or, if you disagree, please show me where Gears 1 bullshots match side-by-side to it's in-game graphics. How about UT III? Gears 2? Gears 3? MmmmThankYouVeryMuch for proving my point by not proving yours.
I didn't disagree, but there's a difference between a tech demo and bullshots for a game. This is legit.
So, they're comparing the graphics of a 5 YEARS OLD Console with graphics of a New Engine running on a high-end PC, wow, that's totally FAIR lol
The fact that PS3 is even in the running is a compliment to the brilliance of the PS3 running! =)
I am a big PC fan, but I gotta say that in the last two shots the Uncharted 3 character model looks better than Epic's character model.
that got to say something about PS3's capabilities. of course it will not win but to be recognized as it is is already an achievement! 5 years old spec vs 3-way SLI GTX580...WOW!
Epic wins, no comparison.
At first, I was like, "This isn't fair..." Then, I looked at the screens. I gotta say, the PS3 holds its own. Of course the PC is going to have an edge in fidelity...so you can't compare them pixel-for-pixel. But screenshot-for-screenshot? PS3 looks damn fine. And though the image of Drake in the last screen is a completely different art style, I think the shaders are better than what we see on the UE face.
@ Thrillhouse I didn't disagree with you either, but remember the UTIII demo with Othello fighting that android? That was a tech demo, too; but when UTIII came out it was weak compared to the PS3 tech demo, even on the pc. http://www.youtube.com/watc... Yep... best bullshotters in the biz. still waiting for "that" version of UTIII for my PC, myself; seeing that 2005 tech demo whips up on what I've seen on GeOWIII so far.
damn i forgot how good heavy rain looked
Very true. Let's see a tech demo actually ON the ps3 and the 360 before we pass judgment on this tech. But it does look great.
KIllzone 3 looks better!! Awesome! I love how they're comparing PC current tech to 5yr old hardware. The PS3 it's still beast as you can see. Where's the 360 in this little comparison? Yeah that's intentional. rotfl! Why not compare UR against Cry engine 3, or Frostbite 2? @Paintsville Awww is someone upset that the PS3 looks damn good compared to the latest and greatest on PC? Give it up yo, the PS3 is hold it it's own.
more like an ak47 to a boxing match. this is a stupid comparison. comparing 3 current strongest gpu to a 4 years old tech is just dumb! how can this kind of article get approved?
LOL! They're pinning the theoretical output of an engine running on a PC that 99% of PC gamers don't have half as powerful of a PC as (Nor will any time soon), against a nearly 5 year old console? Rich. Reeeeeeal rich, Play Mag.
calm down guys... its just a tech demo...as many have stated...and like everyone also stated; Epic is 'epic' at tech demo's... they did this all the way back in 2005 for UE3...and then Gears came out...while it was NO WHERE near the tech demo, it was also way ahead of anything released yet...They then showed 'improvements' to UE3 throughout this generation with various GDC demo's (they always do this as they are trying to grab partners to use their middleware), of which have yet to actually make it fully into games (i.e. where is the 'meat' physics?...they showed different approaches to sourced lighting that UE3 has never done yet, etc..)... its a commercial...nothing more...if this is more or less what to expect for UE4...then its very believable, and a fair amount of these processes will make it into next generation games...but no time soon...and not on either current console... but I don't think anyone is trying to downplay the PS3 capabilities either...those games look great...but they WILL be replaced eventually...this isn't Epic coming out and saying they found some way to make this tech appear on current technology...its just what to expect in their next full licensed engine...
3 way sli. fuck so wait they wanna match this 3 seperate GPU chips to a ps3 gpu. witch wont have as much clock speeds even as the single 580 this is a £320-450 price card x3 cards hmm eaither somebody has a big hate for the ps3. or there worried they have another console. thats not a fanboy statement thats someone whos disgusted at these aricles getting threw.
Which reminds me, after looking at the pics... I CAN'T WAIT FOR UNCHARTED 3! :D
The PS3 images are untouched press shots... and it's a PlayStation site hence only PS3 screens
The PS3 still holds up...for now.
yeah it does fine all things considered...I actually forgot how impressive heavy rain looks...but its always too bright in screen shots...when the TV is set up properly the game never looks so soft overall... but people seem to be up in arms as if these games will never get topped visually...they definitely will...
Amazing, they had to use benchmarks to the PS3 so they can properly determine how far the graphics on PC has come by. However, I've got the feeling once the "next-gen" starts, UE4 would get the dead heat again as the worst engine for the next generation. Sooner or later we'd see the likes of Cryengine 4, Frostbite 3.0 utilizing DX12-13 etc etc and the whole cycle of graphics will resume once again. But in all seriousness, if that was the "standard" for next gen, there should really be no qualms for graphical comparisons. I mean, how far can one go before graphical limits are reached? -End statement
It is interesting that people want to talk-down PS3 graphics all of the time; but whenever a game, or in this case, bullshots comes out with half-decent graphics they want to run and compare it to the PS3's lineup. Make up your mind flambaiting press, willya?
I'm sorry, how am I downplaying PS3 graphics, my statement above should indicate the exact opposite! Unless of course, you took it out of context. Although.... "but whenever a game, or in this case, bullshots comes out with half-decent graphics" I'm sorry, but from what I've read, they're using "top-of-the-line" hardware to run the new UE4 engine. A "bullshot" would've been an overkill, don't you think? -End statement
It really is a massive testament to the power of the ps3, not to mention that the ps3 is pushing MSAA/MLAA, and multipass motion blur before its implemented in any pc engine lol. And not forgetting crucial things like animation, things like uncharted 2 for body and heavy rain for facial skeletal stuff are cutting edge full stop.
"It really is a massive testament to the power of the ps3, not to mention that the ps3 is pushing MSAA/MLAA, and multipass motion blur before its implemented in any pc engine lol. " Indeed, I would also like to give credit to the first-party and other 3rd party devs (like Insomniac/Sucker Punch/Kojima Productions) for taking the time to learn and push the console for every IP they make. Once the next generation starts, I can assure the PS4 or PSQuad (if they would like to call it that) would be beyond UE4 is capable of. -End statement
"It really is a massive testament to the power of the ps3, not to mention that the ps3 is pushing MSAA/MLAA, and multipass motion blur before its implemented in any pc engine lol" Don't kid yourself. PC used multisample anti aliasing years before PS3, and Direct X 10 object based motion blur seen in several PC games since 2007 is more advanced than anything PS3 can, does or will ever do. Pc leads, console follows. This is a fact of life.
Actually, Ditigal, I was agreeing with you... unless you're one of those flambaiting press guys. :D Also, about Epic bullshoting on hardware, yes: because they did it before with the UTIII demo on the PS3. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
computersaysno...you're doing what every PC fan does...marginalizing 'rendering' tech to say that PC 'games' always do it first... and the short answer is...no they don't...The tech is developed on PC's obviously...What he was getting at was that the tech is not always used in a PC game first... the motion based hit response system in killzone 2...further utilized in killzone 3...is NOT used in any PC game...ever...It uses reversing rag-doll physics overlapped with full motion captured animation...to give an ultra-realistic system where enemies 'absorb' fire and accurately try to recover balance through motion captured animations...its as dynamic as animation can get at this point...no other game to date has done it... that is not to say a PC game couldn't do it...I think his argument was simply that there are things in some console games that have not been done on other platforms yet... and there are plenty more...procedural texturing...calc based texture mapping that can allow texturing to be changed in real time after all ready being loaded on screen...its a subtle effect...but was INTRODUCED to an actual game in Uncharted in 2007 (the biggest example being Drake's pants getting wet dynamically and then drying...not getting wet to a certain cut-off...getting wet exactly to how deep into water drake walks)... We all know how PC's are the strongest...the issue is that PC developers don't push them nearly as hard as some developers pushed fixed hardware...there are a 1000 reasons for that...any current PC is capable of a hell of a lot more than either console...its just developers don't regularly take advantage of it... the fact that the best looking PC game (and overall) is from 2007...is a prime example of that...
Unfortunately kleptic you are putting words in my mouth. Where did i say that some techniques are not used in console games first? Nowhere. I merely exploded a few very specific examples that were used, as false. They are false. Certainly i don't need a lecture to tell me about techniques in console games. Many of these techniques are developed outside of the console realm anyway, and often cannot be attributed solely to console developers. Finally many of the techniques that are apparently pioneered solely on console are pioneered out of necessity, often down to hardware limitations of the machines themselves. For example despite intel looking into MLAA and being used on many PS3 games now, the question you have to ask why it is not appearing on more PC titles? The answer is simple- it is better than the QAA option for PS3 but worse than the MSAA/CSAA PC games liberally use for years which PS3 is often incapable of doing due to bandwidth, ROP performance, memory constraints etc. Superior PC hardware thus does not need to use it, PC games do not need it because they do not share console hardware technology contraints. This can also apply to procedural texturing which exists because of memory constraints on console, disc space, something not shared again with PC hardware. Hit detection physics and such, again, PC has ridiculously more advanced hardware acceleration available to PC developers in Physx. Mostly effects consoles cannot do and won't do this generation. PC still leads, console still follows. If people realise that many console techniques not used on PC are not used because PC does not need them thanks to better hardware there might be less arguments. Its a bit boring hearing people bang on about console techniques and throw them about as if they are the state of the art in the industry when most of the time what they are actually pointing out is that these are created to avoid hardware bottlenecks PC does not have.
@ kleptic I would argue and say metro 2033 is at least as technically accomplished as Crysis, and BF3 looks incredible. More and more developers have games this year looking to exploit modern Pc hardware because of the wide gap that now exists between it and the consoles. There are 7 or 8 high profile games out inside the next couple months alone that will have DX11 support. Lets not forget we are in a topic which sees the most popular multi platform engine being shown with DX11 support. Theres a bunch of other game engines now also incorporating DX11 support. Multiplatform ones which is good news. Microsoft have reaffirmed their stance to increase Pc support after many barren years on format too. I think that the format has grown in attractiveness to several devs cos of the disparity in performance now apparent. Three or four years ago the gap seemed insignificant, now it is a yawning chasm and more devs since are looking at exploiting that. Devs are interested in using the technology especially stuff like physx and 3D vision which seems very popular right now. DX11 this year will just be an extra bit of icing on the cake. Don't underestimate Pc devs.
I'm pretty sure those Unreal Engine images were from the PC. TGSI
Acutally PS3 stands strong here. We're comparing 5 years old tech to new engine on some solid SLI behemoth. There's also the thing with darkness on screenies. It's a masking thing. I sure hope to see games looking like that in eight generation.
Soooo what is the point of this again??
PS3 guys want to brag about the graphics of their games so they compare them to the new Epic demo running on crazy PC hardware and then pretend the PS3 stuff is "in the ball park" when it clearly is not anywhere NEAR the ballpark. "look! We can do a neon sign and darkness too. And Nathan Drake looks...a little slightly...as good. Almost.....if you squint. " LOL. This confirms it. The PS3 fans wear some crazy thick goggles tat keep them from seeing what they don't want to see.
palaeomerus: cool story bro.
@ paleo Yeah they must be the same goggles that 360 fans wear when they bring up multiplats as justification that the 360 can graphically hang with the PS3...
Agreed with NukaCola...... I want to see that before I decided if it is the 360 or the ps3 version for me.....
Play-Mag is a Pro playstation magazine in the UK. So, they are using ps3 games
is that there are lighting algorithms that the Cell can breeze through that are simply not possible on a GPU due to the fact that GPU processors are highly optimized to do a massive amount of a few simple computations. To simulate algorithms that can be done on the Cell (or any desktop CPU that's can match it's math computation speed), you require a highly iterative approach using a massive amount of GPU silicon. This is the problem with DirectX's virtual monopoly. It's very limiting. Given the amount of silicon in computer hardware today, the quality of graphics should be vastly superior to what we're seeing in PC games.
A modern GPU can hardware accelerate 128bit, FP32 HDR lighting. PS3, or 360 cannot. Nothing CELL can do in software will be fast enough in practice to surpass this. "or any desktop CPU that's can match it's math computation speed" You mean floating point? CELL in PS3 has good single precision speed, just over 200 gigaflops. However even a GPU like a Radeon 4670 has over 400 gigaflops SP, something like a 6970 has nearly 3 teraflops, or more than 10x CELL. In double precision PS3's CELL is very slow, about 15 gigaflops. A low end core 2 duo (dual core) has 25 Gflops, a core i7 990X (fastest consumer six core CPU) over 100. Something like a Radeon 6970 has over 600Gflops in DP.
@Computersaysno In practice (like [email protected]), the Cell is MUCH faster than almost any desktop CPU or GPU. ...and the only desktop CPUs that top it, have over 3x (~3.2x, actually) the transistors, and the Cells used in [email protected] actually only use 6 of their 8 SPUs as well. If you made a Cell with as many transitors as the high-end i7s that best it, you'd have 3 PPUs and ~27 SPUs, and you'd wipe the floor with any other chip. A Cell destroys any other CPU, transistor for transistor, when it comes to real-world math-intensive calculations. GPUs lack the flexibility to be effective at anything other than what they were designed for.
"In practice (like [email protected]), the Cell is MUCH faster than almost any desktop CPU or GPU" Actually no. GPU points in folding are vastly higher than PS3. Folding client is specifically tailored to CPU/GPU workloads anyway. PS3's CELL is far slower than GPU with the tasks GPU clients recieve. CELL is also less flexible than a conventional x86 CPU, although faster in other tasks. Folding is a poor example to claim performance figures in for PS3, simply because the tasks done are not directly comparable. "A Cell destroys any other CPU, transistor for transistor, when it comes to real-world math-intensive calculations. GPUs lack the flexibility to be effective at anything other than what they were designed for." This argument never works because by its nature, you are comparing ONLY favourable aspects for CELL in isolated cases and ignoring the fact that CELL is not as flexible as an X86 CPU, nor as fast as a modern GPU for floating point/massively parallel with GPGPU. GPGPU has changed the game and rendered CELL mostly obsolete- look at the fastest new supercomputers. GPGPU powered. Though it is more flexible than GPU and faster than X86 in some aspects, the argument always collapses under basic logic. Why? Simple, a modern gaming PC has the BEST OF BOTH. It has better flexibility with a good x86 CPU AND massively higher floating point performance with any halfway decent GPU you care to mention. This is why the fastest computers are now x86/GPGPU hybrids, and not CELL based machines. Best of both. CELL is a jack of all trades, master of none. Because a gaming PC has dedicated hardware, it is far faster against CELL everywhere it counts.
that is some crazy graphics.
The new Epic Engine looks amazing, but yeah, this is not a fair comparison.
Because they think that if you constantly compare the Ps3 to PC, that somehow the Ps3 is keeping up somehow, when in fact its no contest.
just watch in a few years time when ps4 and xbx 720 will be out these comparsion will look dated . and to think its fair to put ps3 exclusive up against a picture like that its not fair ps3 has great graphics and exclusives for this gen . in years to come ps3 will always push the enevlope for consoles and raised the bar for consoles out there im not including pc im talking abot ps3 360 and wii peace out ?
still unmatched to ps3 power
Yeah, keep telling yourself that...
12 people agreed with you? Shows you what direction this site has headed to.
4 disagreed so far with my comment? http://forums.n4g.com/defau... Open your eyes people, there is an imbalance here of system owners which is why we see so much bias in favor of the Playstation 3 here on the forums, and if everyones eyes were open you'd realize that what THE CELL said is laughable. The Playstation 3 system is a very good one but it is also old technology now that just can't keep up due to its proprietary nature.
About the imbalance on this site. You might be right about the imbalance, but consider this:you cannot achieve complete harmony... We could try to pursuit the idea of complete balance, where there were equal amounts of each 'fans'. Then upon registering the N4G should allocate e.g. 300 users to xbox and 300 to ps3 and so on... i don't think it would work. Or you could try to change everyones mind... Either way I think, it would be best to just, voice your own opinion. But that's just my opinion
I have to agree with LevelHead.... I made a comment that I was a little underwhelmed with KZ3's pre-release reviews (I have 2 PS3s) and I got absolutely stomped down..... I bought the game anyway having enjoyed KZ2. The Epic engine looks better, but the PS3 still looks pretty damn good, especially considering its age.
are you kidding me..this smokes anything the ps3 puts out. this is why this thread is needed to show ps3 fanboys that the ps3 hardware will be outdated...they're always thinking nothing else is better.
man, why do people care about graphic comparisons with the current gen consoles and pc. no shit really the pc will always win. ya think?
Why do some people think the PS3's graphics is so unmatched to the ridiculous point that even "next-gen" graphics can't compare? That's the silliest idea I've read in a while. Forget about comparing it to the "next-gen" of graphics, games from current gen on PC are still king.
He's such a PS3 fanboy that he thinks it will be more powerful than the PS4.
Does look insanely good but then what hardware is that running on?
Don't know about CPU, motherboard or RAM, but they said they were using 3 GTX 580's (roughly $500 per card).
This comparison is pretty stupid lmfao. No way the PS3 has a chance of winning this. However I won't lie Heavy Rain looks gorgeous.
I wish it looked gorgeous when PLAYING it.
That right there you just said it's the proof you didn't played it. And of course it looks worse than the Epic demo, fuck, that's a 2011 PC.
Is this a fair or even relevant comparison? The Epic demo is ostensibly running on hardware that nobody owns.
They miss the point. As someone who did PC gaming for a decade before switching over completely to PS3, the key advantage consoles have is ease of use – no install problems, graphics card compatibility issues, etc And also the fact that while PC graphics are still superior, PS3 graphics are “good enough” for immersion. You couldn’t say that 7 years ago for PC versus PS2 for instance, PS2 and even xbox graphics were not just weaker, the