Crysis 2: Facial Textures Comparison with Crysis 1

PC Games released some brand new screenshots and wallpapers of Crysis 2 and one comparison shot between Crysis 1 and Crysis 2. On the top: Facial Textures.

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
sid4gamerfreak3501d ago

Wow, this is gonna be one hell of a game...

Bubbles_Kitty_Cat3501d ago

Yeah, I just bought a 5870 Vapor-X yesterday (yay me) and now I'm super-psyched to play this game.

champ213501d ago

Congrats on the purchase bubbles, thats an awesome GPU.

Bubbles_Kitty_Cat3501d ago

Thanks. :)

I'm hoping that it will keep up with the new games for the next couple of years, and after that I figure I can get another one and crossfire them.

Gamealot3501d ago

i bet if KILLZONE 2 was released for the PC with the same graphics as the PS3 version. many PC fanboys will say that the game is the best looking game for the pc

t8503501d ago

If Kill Zone 2 was out on PC we would have it running beyond 1080p 4x-8xAA beyond 60fps.

It would be a different game on the PC.

I could list ya dozen multiplats on the PC which look better then what Kill Zone 2 looks like on the PS3.

tmt3453501d ago

its true, the only reason PC games ever look comparable to console games is because when people compare the graphics they only show 720p PC shots! this makes the pc games look like a mess since the pc games weren't created to be played at such a low resolution.

fullmetal2973500d ago (Edited 3500d ago )

If Killzone 2 was released for the PC, I can assure the controls would be MUCH more fluid and less laggy.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3500d ago
arakouftaian3501d ago

I can't belive PC fanboys are talking bs about crysis 2 not looking
that good and if you see the crysis 2 videos they look much better
everything look much better but still the game is far away from having
the next gen details and animation and quality of games
like KZ2 or U2 but the textures on a expencive PC looks great
the best of the best.

Well that from what I have seen so far.

Chris_TC3501d ago

"Far away from having the next gen details"?

Do you people still think of the current console generation as "next gen"? If so, then even Crysis 1 would have to be "next next gen".

chak_3501d ago

What I find funny are console gamers saying they're tired of those brown games, yet they keep talking about KZ2 like jesus's return in every darn thread I read.

same goes with "oh no another FPS"

Bolts3501d ago

Crysis 2 look good, yes. Amazing, no. Not in the PC world.

Letros3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

Just think what the PS3 could do if it didn't have such a pathetic GPU, stuck in 720p with low res textures since day 1. Fortunately, it has a couple good games I enjoyed.

Xfanboy3501d ago

no wonder yo have 2 bubbles!!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3501d ago
3501d ago
Bubbles_Kitty_Cat3501d ago

Oops, posted in the wrong spot.

hiredhelp3501d ago

totally agree .as much as the ps3 is best gen console.and has a cpu that is miles better than any i7 cpu. the graphics cards on a pc will always make consoles differ from pc high standards.
unless they do away with chips and actually have a full on ati or nvida card built into consoles. man be huge console wouldnt it.
sli or crossfir anyone. 16x anti not 4x like console on 360 latest .alan wake

kevnb3501d ago

the cell cant even compete with something like a high end dual core.

champ213501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

I really dont know how we can compare the Cell to Cpus from Intel.

However When it comes to GPUS on PC. A single GPU will out do the Cell + RSX multiple times.

Having alook at the transistor count from a modern day gpu like the 5870 tells us the story.

5870: 2 billion Transistors.

Cell: 234million Transistors

RSX: 250million Transistors.

(Cell + RSX) * 4 = 5870 on a transistor count. That alone tells us how much muscle the current PC GPUS have.

iamgoatman3501d ago

Not this "teh cell is da best" bullsh*t again. As Kevnb states, an i7 would crush the cell.

Please stop buying into Sony's PR nonsense.

thehitman3501d ago

if you think the i7 is better than the cell. i7 is a copy-cat cell made for PCs nothing more nothing less.

iamgoatman3501d ago


That's got to be one of the most moronic things I've read in a while.

The Cell's architecture is NOTHING like that of the i7, so I have no idea where you got that it was a "copy cat" from.

champ213501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

So why arent all of PS3 titles running in 1080p if the Cell is so powerful?

Even a lil old dualcore with a 3yr old GPU will manage 1080p. Why cant the mighty cell :P

thehitman3501d ago

IBM said it with their own mouths u know the creators that they are the same in power just for different purposes.

@champ there are games running at native 1080p @ 60fps on the ps3 just because all games are not doesnt mean its not possible. Its in the power of the devs to make the games to meet those specs.

champ213501d ago

yea about 5% of them.. and do they even push graphics lol..

But again tell me, why dont 1st party devs from Sony not care to make 1080p native games?

I am sure it would be a great selling point vesus the 360. So why dont they?

Is it just so hard to admit that maybe the PS3 is limited in power?

thehitman3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

its not about caring its about what they are using to make the games(engines) if you looked at the ps2 in its early days to where it ended the games are like night and day thats because developers gradually develop even better and better engines has nothing to do w/ what the ps3 is capable of its what developers are capable of. If the ps3 is strong enough to do 3D doubling res/framerates of 720p/60 frame games then im sure w/ the right coding it can do 1080p @60 in any type of game.

iamgoatman3501d ago


The problem with the PS3 is that it's hardware is incredibly unbalanced. Essentially they took a processor capable of high floating point calculations, typically suited towards number crunching and paired it with a weak ass GPU. Undoubtedly if they had used a more powerful GPU at the time we'd be seeing different results today, but obviously this wasn't possible as manufacturing costs were already sky high even with a dated GPU.

Although a few devs have got to grips with programming for the cells architecture, the console is still severely limited and in no means limitless in terms of power as you rightly stated.

champ213501d ago

@Jimmy Riddle

Thats the point that console gamers dont seem to get. Its always the Gpu that handles majority of the Graphics tasks.

Cell being as strong as it is, doesnt stand a chance at graphics tasks even comparing it up against a 8800gtx.

Though we gotta hand it to Sony to brainwash so many people with all the marketing.


If you think its all about the Engines then you i dunno what to tell ya.

Hardware being able to handle the The higher res textures higher resolutions AA etc plays a large part as well. I dont see a reason why Sony 1st party devs couldnt have bumped all the exclusives to 1080p @ 60fps If the PS3 had the HP.

This generation is a bit different then the PS2 generation. Essentially in this Gen Consoles are more like PC's, there were hardly any PC games on the PS2. Hence developers back then took their sweet time coming up with better looking games. This gen it looks like both the consoles are Maxed out mid way into their life time.

Take the example of a game like BC2 running at 28fps avg on both the consoles, if they had the juice they sure would have been pumping more fps. 28fps is no where near respectable. A whole list of games can be made which arent even running at even 720p.

thehitman3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

then I guess GT5 defies physics then. It does everything you say the ps3 is incapable of.

Also i dont see how u came up with that conclusion about devs taking their time etc when it takes much more time/resources to make a game these days than last gen if anything they are forced to do things within their limits at a time especially devs developing for more than 1 system with 2 different architectures.

champ213501d ago

u should check again its not real 1080p. GT5 is 1280*1080 something like that.

Also its a racing game, which is easy to render at those resolutions. Tell me a FPS or Third person shooter which is 1080 and runs at 60fps... rite there isnt one.

t8503501d ago

Lol Hitman good luck scavenging for that 1 game that runs in 1080. If there is one.

thehitman3501d ago

It is real 1080p if u want stay in denial to make yourself feel better for investing in PC gaming then go ahead and I dont see how a fps takes more juice than a racing game when racing games have to go at a much faster pace and not to mention the detail in GT is photo realistic.

champ213501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

Yea Sony says its 1080p so it must be :P

Eh atleast my investment will be valid 5years from now. Cant say the same for any games bought on a console.


I probably will have a new PC by then too.. but all the old games invested in will still work... what happens with your ps3 games? is there any gaurantees that they will work?

Imagine having to buy thousands worth of games all over again.

thehitman3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

your j/k right 5 years from now ur pc will be a piece of scrap and I will be on PS4. Even a PC gamer w/ any sense knows that.

Edit: @ T850

I know like 1/4 the list are upscaled games btw but this just proves my point the ps3 is capable of much more than you care to admit.

And lol i have games for sega saturn that still work I dont see your point... try again.

Edit: rofl @ below

are not serious games?? BTW thats at least 1 for every genre of game and that is a very outdated list. But anyway I still proved my point regardless of how many games can do it now it is still possible for future games to do the same.

t8503501d ago


Dude that list barely has about 35games. PS3 has over 400games released now.

Over 50% of the stuff mentioned on that list is stuff no serious gamer would be touching.

Which leave about 15 games on the list, out of which i dont see 1 title which is true 1080p and worth playing.

Happy Scavenging.

FragMnTagM3501d ago

dude just give it up. I run nearly every single game in 1080p (true 1080p), in nearly every game I play on the PC. The PS3 doesn't come close and neither does the XBOX 360. Everything champ and t850 said was 100% truth. A little bit of research on the internet about video cards as well as the architecture of the i7 would completely invalidate anything you said. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

thehitman3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

So I guess my TV lies to me when I press the info button and it says my game is running in 1920×1080 resolution. Also find 1 article or anything saying the i7 is stronger than the cell from a credited place.

Yes but all ps3 games are programmed to run in native resolutions for best performance thats how you can tell which runs at native and which doesnt. My TV lets me know which games are being upscaled because it blinks when going through different resolutions on game start up. If you dont even own a ps3 I guess you wouldnt know that.

The only difference of upscaling is the method of which is used to output the resolution. You can upscale a picture and it will look perfectly identical to a picture running at native if the upscaling method was done right. The ps3 has proved to be able to do both. GPUs in your computers do the same exact thing and @ AA I dont see how PS3 has any problem with AA after playing GoW3 where jagging are COMPLETELY non-existent.

OpenGL3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

Because CPU performance does not improve your GPU's pixel fill rate.

Core i7 is an extremely fast line of CPUs, but comparing it to the IBM Cell doesn't make a lot of sense as they really aren't very similar. You're comparing an out of order CISC based x86 CPU with 4 physical cores each with hyper-threading to an in-order RISC based PowerPC CPU that has 1 PPE and 7 SPEs.

I wouldn't be that surprised if the Cell could perform better in some scientific applications, but the i7 is capable of running a much wider variety of applications and is completely symmetric. On the Cell code normally ran on the PPE would have to be ported to run on the SPEs, where as on i7 anything can be run on any core without changes.

@ 5.20
Actually, your PS3 is merely upscaling the image to 1080p before your TV receives it. To check the actual native resolution you have to resort to pixel counting on direct frame buffer grabs. The native rendering resolution of most popular PS3 and 360 games is available on Beyond3D.

t8503501d ago

Dude hitman

There is a difference between upscaled and native 1080p, lets not even discuss the AA running on the PC.

Games you mentioned only game i am aware of which is true 1080p is wipe out(it looks like a last gen game), NBA(that doesnt push hardware at all) other then that rest are upscaled games.

GT5 as champ mentioned is not true 1080p.

DJ3501d ago

As well as many other PS3 developers, PPU code runs just fine on the SPUs. The SPUs just have a distinct architectural advantage, namely the extremely fast DMA transfers two main memory, and the fact that they know EXACTLY what's in their local storage at any given moment.

L2 cache is the same speed as Local Storage, but it's unpredictable. A PPU (or any CPU on the market) has to wait hundreds of cycles when it thinks a piece of data is in L2 cache, but then has to look in system RAM instead and transfer that information back into the L2 cache.

This doesn't happen with the Cell's SPUs.

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 3501d ago
Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.