Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2012, 02:22 AM   #226
supremor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 266
Default

Did anyone notice the new 310.70 drivers? the notes seem identical to 310.64 but who knows maybe its an improvement, guess I'll find out soon.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundmanred View Post
Watercooled and OC'ed = not warrantied.
Don't be a Tweakboy, have some integrity.
supremor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:13 AM   #227
Super8
Junior Member
 
Super8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 12
Default

You're analyzing IQ using screenshots from a game. Discussion is about saturation and color temperature and overall image quality judging from 800x600 pics. Get a life people.
Super8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:23 AM   #228
Ibra
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 184
Default

So, HBAO for Nvidia and HDAO for AMD in benchmarks. Q _ Q for Nvidia being faster.
Ibra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:57 AM   #229
toyota
Lifer
 
toyota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: time out
Posts: 12,065
Default

never mind
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | MSI GTX780 Gaming | G.SKILL Ripjaws 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS

Last edited by toyota; 12-06-2012 at 05:00 AM.
toyota is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:23 AM   #230
BenSkywalker
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,955
Default

Quote:
The gamma settings are not going to affect areas that heavily without doing the same to the entire image.
The gamma is *extremely* high on the AMD shot- slightly to the left of the fence where the bush is- almost all color has been completely wiped out on the AMD shot due to the light. Broken bad shot. It's a white blob(in comparison). I'm not saying that AMD is doing anything wrong at all to render it that way- but those screenshots are certainly *not* using the same gamma values somewhere in the pipe(be it driver level, game, somewhere).
BenSkywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 10:46 AM   #231
cmdrdredd
Lifer
 
cmdrdredd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 19,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super8 View Post
You're analyzing IQ using screenshots from a game. Discussion is about saturation and color temperature and overall image quality judging from 800x600 pics. Get a life people.
When someone, even a reputable site says one looks better when there are clear differences beyond simply one being darker in the shadows, yes I will say something. Even if things went the other way I would say that I cannot fully agree with their assessment. Isn't it great to be able to disagree and think for yourself sometimes?
__________________
Asus Maximus V Gene | 3570k @ 4.5 | 8GB Samsung 30nm @ 2133 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW SLI @ 1230/6765
2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD | WD 300GB Velociraptor | Lite-On HBS212 BD-R | Corsair HX1000 PSU
Cooler Master HAF 932 | Yamakasi Catleap Q270 | Windows 8.1 Pro
cmdrdredd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 10:58 AM   #232
AdamK47
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 10,513
Default

I'll be getting the game soon. Hope my rig can play it adequately.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4960X @ 4.5GHz - ASRock X79 Extreme11 @ 36x125MHz - 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z @ 2333 DDR - Four Nvidia GTX Titans in 4-Way SLI - 256GB Vertex 4 SSD (System) - Eight 512GB Vertex 4 SSDs in 4TB RAID-0 (Games) - 4TB Deskstar 7K4000 HDD (Backup) - Pioneer BDR-206 BD-RW - Cooler Master HAF-X case - Corsair H110 cooler - LEPA G1600 power supply - Razer BlackWidow Ultimate keyboard - CST LaserTRAC 2545W trackball - DoubleSight DS-307W monitor - Shure SRH1440 headphones - Windows 8.1 Pro x64
AdamK47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:10 AM   #233
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
 
lavaheadache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod MA
Posts: 6,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamK47 View Post
I'll be getting the game soon. Hope my rig can play it adequately.
Lol
__________________
Video Card Specialist

sell me your 5950 Ultra

Heat 137-0-0 heatware 1 percentile
lavaheadache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:14 AM   #234
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
 
Grooveriding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto, CA
Posts: 5,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenSkywalker View Post
The gamma is *extremely* high on the AMD shot- slightly to the left of the fence where the bush is- almost all color has been completely wiped out on the AMD shot due to the light. Broken bad shot. It's a white blob(in comparison). I'm not saying that AMD is doing anything wrong at all to render it that way- but those screenshots are certainly *not* using the same gamma values somewhere in the pipe(be it driver level, game, somewhere).
Extremely high, hyperbole ? Extremely high gamma would white out your image. FYI that is a cloud in the AMD shot to the left of the fence....

All I'm seeing here is the same thing I am experiencing on my system, HDAO results in heavy shadowing and at times the shadowing is smearing out of context.

I'm in agreement with Gamegpu.ru's conslusion that HDAO and image quality is better on AMD. AO is supposed to provide soft shadowing, which is what I am seeing in the screenshots for AMD. I called this myself before even seeing this review with my own experiences, others have noted it on guru3d and the geforce forums. HDAO feels 'heavily' applied on nvidia, it looks similar to HBAO when HDAO is supposed to be an improvement that provides a softer shadowing effect.
__________________
3930K 4.8Ghz | RIVE | 16GB 2133 Dominator Platinum | 780ti SLI | Evo 500GB Raid 0 | Dell U3011 | EVGA 1300W PSU
under custom water
Grooveriding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:27 AM   #235
Lepton87
Golden Member
 
Lepton87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland(EU)
Posts: 1,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavaheadache View Post
Finally? Didn't the game come out just over 24 hours ago?
There were some earlier tests where 6990 almost didn't scale at all. Besides where I live the game is out since 29.11.2012. I wish someone would test 4-way scaling because that's the main criteria for such a graphics intensive game if I buy a game or not and I don't want to download the trial version.
__________________
i5 2600K@4778MHz(47x101.7MHz) 1.45V,Noctua NH-D14, Asus Maximus IV Extreme, 8GB Corsair 1866MHz, Gigabyte GTX Titan, Sandforce 2 120GB + Sandforce 1 60GB 2x2TB WD Caviar, BE Quiet 1200W, dell u2711

Last edited by Lepton87; 12-06-2012 at 11:29 AM.
Lepton87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:45 PM   #236
omeds
Senior Member
 
omeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
You're ignoring what I'm saying. The colors are not identical. That has nothing to do with HDAO. Look at the other shots from that site. They all show Nvidia with a reddish color tone. That could be from many things and could most definitely affect the way the shadows look.

Until this is explained, I can't sit here and claim one is proper and the other is not. For all I know the washed out look of the AMD shot could be incorrect. Especially if you consider that the wood panel has some writing on it that you almost can't see in the AMD screenshot but it clearly visible on Nvidia. There is also a stone like archway on top of the shed toward the top right of the shot. On the AMD side it's clearly lacking some details and some of the cracks aren't as visible.

So claiming one is worse looking without taking into account these details is a little unfair to be sure. It's obvious to me that there's more there than simply darker shadows.
I have asked those with inside connections to AMD and that run AMD marketing events etc at R3D and B3D what the go is a couple years ago, they informed me that Nvidia colours and LOD are more "accurate", but AMD's slight colour difference and slightly sharper LOD (at the expense of shimmering) produce what they consider to be a better image.
omeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:07 PM   #237
cmdrdredd
Lifer
 
cmdrdredd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 19,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omeds View Post
I have asked those with inside connections to AMD and that run AMD marketing events etc at R3D and B3D what the go is a couple years ago, they informed me that Nvidia colours and LOD are more "accurate", but AMD's slight colour difference and slightly sharper LOD (at the expense of shimmering) produce what they consider to be a better image.
This might be true and in which case it's a matter of personal taste I suppose.
__________________
Asus Maximus V Gene | 3570k @ 4.5 | 8GB Samsung 30nm @ 2133 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW SLI @ 1230/6765
2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD | WD 300GB Velociraptor | Lite-On HBS212 BD-R | Corsair HX1000 PSU
Cooler Master HAF 932 | Yamakasi Catleap Q270 | Windows 8.1 Pro
cmdrdredd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:48 PM   #238
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenSkywalker View Post
The gamma is *extremely* high on the AMD shot- slightly to the left of the fence where the bush is- almost all color has been completely wiped out on the AMD shot due to the light. Broken bad shot. It's a white blob(in comparison). I'm not saying that AMD is doing anything wrong at all to render it that way- but those screenshots are certainly *not* using the same gamma values somewhere in the pipe(be it driver level, game, somewhere).
I'm sure it's not something nearly as sinister as gamma, but just a different TOD in game.
VulgarDisplay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:34 PM   #239
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavaheadache View Post
I'm a dope.... Here I was complaining earlier in this thread how I thought the graphics were just meh...Turns out I played for 2 hours without realizing that "high" wasn't the highest settings. Also turns out that the graphics are pretty darned good.
They are good but I hate to admit it, Crysis 1 is still more advanced overall than Far Cry 3. Ya, it lacks all the latest DX11 effects but does it look more realistic or less? For me Crysis 1 still looks more realistic/closer to real-life graphics, not to mention it has real physics effects on trees, buildings, explosions, something Far Cry 3 completely lacks. Even the bullet ripples in the water, explosions/smoke and vegetation are still superior in Crysis 1. Maybe it's because FC3 looks a lot more cartoonist with such bright colours? I am not buying this as the vegetation is mostly static in it.

Most people never give Crysis the respect it deserves but when you compare FC3 to Crysis side-by-side, you have to wonder which of them is really a 2012 game?

FAR CRY 3 VS CRYSIS - BATTLE

There are also some hideous looking textures in FC3 for a 2012 game.



It's been 5 years since Crysis 1 was released and nothing truly blows it away!! Some games are better here and there and in some areas FC3 is better but overall it just isn't considering we are comparing a 2012 to a 2007 game.

Why isn't there a next generation game that looks like this out of the box?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1165090/y...#post_18308022

Maybe my expectations are too high or consolitis is fully in effect. FC3 looks great compared to other 2012 games but it's because games like Black Ops 2 and Assassin's Creed 3 are so ugly in comparison that it skews the real advancement in PC graphics, or lack thereof.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 12-06-2012 at 05:29 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:57 PM   #240
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And schocking news: Kepler has no problem with DirectCompute.
I am not seeing how DirectCompute is widely used in this game to accelerate soft shadows, post-processing, global illumination, like it is done in Dirt Showdown, Sleeping Dogs and Sniper Elite V2. I actually didn't even find any references to DirectCompute in this technical document related to global illumination. As far as I read, only HDAO is accelerated via DirectCompute, unless you have a link that says the DirectCompute acceleration is used in other areas as in the 3 titles I listed above?

It's like tessellation, you can have a ton of it like Crysis 2 or barely any like Deus Ex:HR. HD5870 performs completely differently depending on the level of tessellation, much in the same way GTX680 performs differently based on the level of compute acceleration featured in the game. It's good to see that FC3 at least runs well on both GTX680 and HD7970Ghz unlike AC3 that looks like it was made in 2007 and on AMD cards runs as it's a next generation game.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 12-06-2012 at 05:01 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:12 PM   #241
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
 
Grooveriding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto, CA
Posts: 5,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
They are good but I hate to admit it, Crysis 1 is still more advanced overall than Far Cry 3. Ya, it lacks all the latest DX11 effects but does it look more realistic or less? For me Crysis 1 still looks more realistic/closer to real-life graphics, not to mention it has real physics effects on trees, buildings, explosions, something Far Cry 3 completely lacks. Even the bullet ripples in the water, explosions/smoke and vegetation are still superior in Crysis 1. Maybe it's because FC3 looks more a lot more cartoonist with such bright colours? I am not buying this as the vegetation is mostly static in it.

Most people never give Crysis the respect it deserves but when you compare FC3 to Crysis side-by-side, you have to wonder which of them is really a 2012 game?

FAR CRY 3 VS CRYSIS - BATTLE

There are also some hideous looking textures in FC3 for a 2012 game.



It's been 5 years since Crysis 1 was released and nothing truly blows it away!! Some games are better here and there and in some areas FC3 is better but overall it just isn't considering we are comparing a 2012 to a 2007 game.

Why isn't there a next generation game that looks like this out of the box?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1165090/y...#post_18308022

Maybe my expectations are too high or consolitis is fully in effect. FC3 looks great compared to other 2012 games but it's because games like Black Ops 2 and Assassin's Creed 3 are so ugly in comparison that it skews the real advancement in PC graphics, or lack thereof.

Thanks for that Crysis vs Far Cry 3 video link. Watching that Crysis still is untouchable taken as a whole package. BF3 is pretty impressive, I really enjoy the game, but still think it would look and be more impressive if it was running on Cryengine 2 instead of Frostbite 2.

Crysis is the last next generation game designed around the PC. Doubt we will ever see another one.
__________________
3930K 4.8Ghz | RIVE | 16GB 2133 Dominator Platinum | 780ti SLI | Evo 500GB Raid 0 | Dell U3011 | EVGA 1300W PSU
under custom water
Grooveriding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 06:42 PM   #242
Elfear
VC&G Moderator
 
Elfear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
They are good but I hate to admit it, Crysis 1 is still more advanced overall than Far Cry 3. Ya, it lacks all the latest DX11 effects but does it look more realistic or less? For me Crysis 1 still looks more realistic/closer to real-life graphics, not to mention it has real physics effects on trees, buildings, explosions, something Far Cry 3 completely lacks. Even the bullet ripples in the water, explosions/smoke and vegetation are still superior in Crysis 1. Maybe it's because FC3 looks a lot more cartoonist with such bright colours? I am not buying this as the vegetation is mostly static in it.

Most people never give Crysis the respect it deserves but when you compare FC3 to Crysis side-by-side, you have to wonder which of them is really a 2012 game?

FAR CRY 3 VS CRYSIS - BATTLE

There are also some hideous looking textures in FC3 for a 2012 game.



It's been 5 years since Crysis 1 was released and nothing truly blows it away!! Some games are better here and there and in some areas FC3 is better but overall it just isn't considering we are comparing a 2012 to a 2007 game.
I am stunned after watching that video. I had no idea Crysis 1 still looked so good compared to modern games. Some of the Far Cry 3 shots looked a little better, some looked on par, and some were embarrassingly poor quality. Overall Crysis easily looked the best.

Can anyone tell from the comments what settings they were using for each game? It's almost unbelievable how much better Crysis looked in some of those areas.
__________________
4770k@4.7Ghz | Maximus VI Hero | 2x290@1150/1450 | 16GB DDR3 | Custom H20
Elfear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 06:48 PM   #243
toyota
Lifer
 
toyota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: time out
Posts: 12,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfear View Post
I am stunned after watching that video. I had no idea Crysis 1 still looked so good compared to modern games. Some of the Far Cry 3 shots looked a little better, some looked on par, and some were embarrassingly poor quality. Overall Crysis easily looked the best.

Can anyone tell from the comments what settings they were using for each game? It's almost unbelievable how much better Crysis looked in some of those areas.
its looks modded there to me. I have fired up Crysis plenty of times recently and it does not look anywhere near as good as in that video. in fact Crysis is ass ugly in many areas and also looks very outdated in any inside environment. now the outside areas can be modded to look quite stunning though.
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | MSI GTX780 Gaming | G.SKILL Ripjaws 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS
toyota is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 01:43 AM   #244
raghu78
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,452
Default

Crysis was a landmark game for the PC in terms of graphics. No game has come close to pushing graphics cards as much as Crysis did in late 2007. Also in comparison to today's games, even after 5 years Crysis looks better. this is a huge embarrassment. Developers need to really push forward in terms of photo-realism, realistic global illumination, shadowing, physics. Because of consoles being the primary development platform game textures look horrible. BF3, Max Payne 3, Deus Ex HR all looked pretty good on the PC. Tesselation was used to good effect in Deus Ex to give an organic look to human characters in the game. Very few games are using tesselation in a way which significantly impacts the visual quality of the world and characters.

One of the areas where improvements have been vast has been animations. Today's games have much better animations than the ones which are 5 years old. Hopefully other areas also improve in a meaningful and significant way.
raghu78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 02:59 AM   #245
Silverforce11
Diamond Member
 
Silverforce11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,446
Default

It's not a fair comparison and you know it, Crysis only looks good with mods. Heck, you an even mod Fallout 3/NV to make it look good.

I agree with Raghu, games have gotten better but the emphasis is just not on textures, but better lighting, shadows etc. The problem is there's a huge diminishing returns, these features consume a lot of GPU grunt for very little IQ gains. It's not as obvious as low res vs high-res textures or static vs dynamic lights. Just compare SSAO vs HDAO, big difference? HECK NO, yet you lose 20-25% peformance.
__________________

Rig 1: 3570K | Z77 E4 | Crossfire R290 | 840 250GB + 840EVO 250GB | 8GB G.Skill Ares 2133 | OCZ 850W Gold+ | Nanoxia DS1 | Ghetto Water
Hobby: Mobile Game Dev & Cryptocoin day-trader
Silverforce11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:16 AM   #246
toyota
Lifer
 
toyota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: time out
Posts: 12,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post
Crysis was a landmark game for the PC in terms of graphics. No game has come close to pushing graphics cards as much as Crysis did in late 2007. Also in comparison to today's games, even after 5 years Crysis looks better. this is a huge embarrassment. Developers need to really push forward in terms of photo-realism, realistic global illumination, shadowing, physics. Because of consoles being the primary development platform game textures look horrible. BF3, Max Payne 3, Deus Ex HR all looked pretty good on the PC. Tesselation was used to good effect in Deus Ex to give an organic look to human characters in the game. Very few games are using tesselation in a way which significantly impacts the visual quality of the world and characters.

One of the areas where improvements have been vast has been animations. Today's games have much better animations than the ones which are 5 years old. Hopefully other areas also improve in a meaningful and significant way.
Deus Ex HR is not an impressive looking game at all and has some horrible textures and tons of color banding.
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | MSI GTX780 Gaming | G.SKILL Ripjaws 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS
toyota is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:41 AM   #247
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,307
Default

Crysis 1 to me still more impressive, it seems to have a lot more real time stuff going on (like physics), and overall I enjoy more the graphic style of it...

Far Cry 3 is a new game, but the PC version is clearly also limited by being a multiplatform game, made to run on consoles from 2005/2006... on the PC it's better no doubt about it, but still mostly the same game, and that's I think is one of the main reasons why Crysis 1 still look so good compared to this game (and any other new game)
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:04 AM   #248
cmdrdredd
Lifer
 
cmdrdredd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 19,156
Default

Didn't take long for people to say "game looks bad...play crysis 1 instead" lol
__________________
Asus Maximus V Gene | 3570k @ 4.5 | 8GB Samsung 30nm @ 2133 | EVGA GTX 670 FTW SLI @ 1230/6765
2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD | WD 300GB Velociraptor | Lite-On HBS212 BD-R | Corsair HX1000 PSU
Cooler Master HAF 932 | Yamakasi Catleap Q270 | Windows 8.1 Pro
cmdrdredd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:25 AM   #249
MrK6
Diamond Member
 
MrK6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
They are good but I hate to admit it, Crysis 1 is still more advanced overall than Far Cry 3. Ya, it lacks all the latest DX11 effects but does it look more realistic or less? For me Crysis 1 still looks more realistic/closer to real-life graphics, not to mention it has real physics effects on trees, buildings, explosions, something Far Cry 3 completely lacks. Even the bullet ripples in the water, explosions/smoke and vegetation are still superior in Crysis 1. Maybe it's because FC3 looks a lot more cartoonist with such bright colours? I am not buying this as the vegetation is mostly static in it.

Most people never give Crysis the respect it deserves but when you compare FC3 to Crysis side-by-side, you have to wonder which of them is really a 2012 game?

FAR CRY 3 VS CRYSIS - BATTLE

There are also some hideous looking textures in FC3 for a 2012 game.

It's been 5 years since Crysis 1 was released and nothing truly blows it away!! Some games are better here and there and in some areas FC3 is better but overall it just isn't considering we are comparing a 2012 to a 2007 game.

Why isn't there a next generation game that looks like this out of the box?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1165090/y...#post_18308022

Maybe my expectations are too high or consolitis is fully in effect. FC3 looks great compared to other 2012 games but it's because games like Black Ops 2 and Assassin's Creed 3 are so ugly in comparison that it skews the real advancement in PC graphics, or lack thereof.
Wow RS, thanks for linking that video; what a great comparison. It just goes to show that Crysis 1 was truly the last great PC FPS and it's really been all downhill since. Watching the whole video, there are parts of Far Cry 3 that mimic the effects of Crysis 1 well, but overall Far Cry 3 looks much flatter, less detailed, and less realistic than Crysis 1 (5 years later, sadly enough). It just goes to show how much PC games have stagnated due to consoles holding them back. Terrible shame.
__________________
My "For Sale" Thread
| Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced with custom water cooling | Seasonic X650 | Core i5-2500K @ 5.0GHz | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 | 2x4096MB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 @ 2134MHz 10-11-10-30 | 256GB Samsung 830 | 2x 2TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 in RAID 1 | Gigabyte HD 7970 @ 1300MHz/1750MHz | Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC |
[6950 -> 7970 Overclocking User Review] [5850 -> 6950 Mini-Review]
MrK6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:42 AM   #250
toyota
Lifer
 
toyota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: time out
Posts: 12,065
Default

AGAIN that is Crysis modded. surely everyone here owns Crysis and has enough sense to fire up the game and take a look for yourself .
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | MSI GTX780 Gaming | G.SKILL Ripjaws 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS
toyota is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.