-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Gears of War PC Performance and IQ Tested
- Thread starter RajunCajun
- Start date
taltamir
Lifer
bioshock is awesome... it looks good and gets reasonable performance (not as good as I would like, but reasonable)...
Crysis is hyped up, it is meant to showcase their crytek engine which they hope to sell to other companies and replace the UT engine... but they have a dud with it, it simply cannot perform (currently) at anywhere near the level of other engines out there... sure its supposedly looks awesome at max, but it is completely unplayable, while other engines look slightly less awesome and are playable... so no sane developer would use their engine right now... by the time it IS playable on top end hardware, there would probably a newer version of the UT engine that eats it up... we shall see
Crysis is hyped up, it is meant to showcase their crytek engine which they hope to sell to other companies and replace the UT engine... but they have a dud with it, it simply cannot perform (currently) at anywhere near the level of other engines out there... sure its supposedly looks awesome at max, but it is completely unplayable, while other engines look slightly less awesome and are playable... so no sane developer would use their engine right now... by the time it IS playable on top end hardware, there would probably a newer version of the UT engine that eats it up... we shall see
EvilComputer92
Golden Member
Once again DX10 does nothing.
It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why Crysis demands significantly more horsepower to run. It simply looks much better. I don't get why people keep comparing Crysis performance to UE3 engine games. The visual quality and scale difference is huge. Also, why wouldn't developers choose CryEngine2 instead of UE3? It's not as if they can't just tone down the graphics slightly and get better framerates. The end result will still not be inferior to using UE3.
Logical thinking seems to be on a serious decline recently...
Significantly better. Having played the 360 version extensively, I know that it doesn't run all that well. Looking at HardOCP's figures, I'd say an 8800GT is atleast twice as fast.
I'm honestly shocked at how many people are blind, p00-flinging monkeys over this Crysis deal. 50% graphics, which is playable for some of us, touts graphical features that I've never seen before. Ultra textures are mind-blowing. I mean, the sand has shadows! WTF mate? It may be a bit demanding at high resolutions with our current drivers (which are heinous BTW), but pound for British pound, you pay $50 for one game, set graphics at a playable level, still enjoy more eye candy than most even current games can offer, while being introduced to better physics more damage systems and more articulate combat than any game yet, and all of this wrapped into a clever storyline with suspense, realistic voice acting and human animation, as well as genuine fear at times. (try out the first map on crysis-maps.com which sneaks in an alien beast) It's quite a level equation and "reflects great credit" upon Crytek if I may say so myself.
Honestly, the GOW screenies aren't that impressive. The people look like Doom3 characters with new heads and some better textures, but they still glow like the dickens with such overblown "HDR" which is really just an artistic bloom effect, not a simulation of the contrast from bright light to dark shadow. Why does everything nowadays have to look like a glowing romantic sepia Audrey Hepburn vaseline lens filter job? That's one of the things that shines in Crysis... only things that are supposed to shine.
Honestly, the GOW screenies aren't that impressive. The people look like Doom3 characters with new heads and some better textures, but they still glow like the dickens with such overblown "HDR" which is really just an artistic bloom effect, not a simulation of the contrast from bright light to dark shadow. Why does everything nowadays have to look like a glowing romantic sepia Audrey Hepburn vaseline lens filter job? That's one of the things that shines in Crysis... only things that are supposed to shine.
jonks
Lifer
Feel free to ignore people who think GoW/Bioshock/Any-other-game looks as good or better than Crysis. Better, pity them for not being able to appreciate the difference. Like when your mom looks at 1080p and says "what? it looks like everything else on tv!" DOH!
From the screens I couldn't (nor did the reviewers) see any real between dx9/10 or ati/nvidia. Which is comforting to the majority of the gaming public as it's made up of 95% non-dx10.
From the screens I couldn't (nor did the reviewers) see any real between dx9/10 or ati/nvidia. Which is comforting to the majority of the gaming public as it's made up of 95% non-dx10.
AzN
Banned
Let's compare crysis low settings against Unreal 3 on high settings. Which one do you think looks better? I take Unreal engine anyday. Why? Because Crysis at low settings perform about the same as Unreal engine at high. Crysis at medium settings don't even get me 25fps while I can get 50fps with Unreal engine at the highest settings. Anything higher than than medium settings I get slide show.
Dkcode
Senior member
At the end of the day they are only console ports (except Unreal 3). Crysis has much more depth and technology buried in its engine. A year down the line when everyone can unleash its full potential things will be different. Although i do sympathise with your comments on being able to get Crysis to run at decent frames matching the quality of an UE3 based title at max settings.
lol. I once showed a very good friend of mine Oblivion nearly maxed out at 1600x1200 on my old rig. His comments were "It just looks like the playstation!" 😕
lol. I once showed a very good friend of mine Oblivion nearly maxed out at 1600x1200 on my old rig. His comments were "It just looks like the playstation!" 😕
Yeah, but you're not taking the scale of the game world into account. It's the main reason Unreal Engine 3 games run so much better and it's really quite obvious too. Gears of War, BioShock, UT3, they're all very limited in terms of environment scale. All of them are very far from modelling the same kind of scale at the detail levels Crysis do.
So, it's really not a valid comparison and it's actually quite suprising that this keeps being dragged up again and again.
taltamir
Lifer
scale shmale, its the bottom line that counts... how good it looks at a playable fps. Which is only on low. They simply made their engine too ambitious, they should have had something between the current engine and the UT3 engine, and what they came up with now should have been their crytek2 engine to come one year later...
They didn't and people complain because they can only play it on low, and it doesn't look that hot on low...
Sure, I will play it for the plot, and enjoy the voice acting, but the game isn't what it is tauted as.
They didn't and people complain because they can only play it on low, and it doesn't look that hot on low...
Sure, I will play it for the plot, and enjoy the voice acting, but the game isn't what it is tauted as.
So... What you're saying is that the engine can't scale down the details correctly? Meaning that the game could have been made to look much better on weaker hardware, if they just made a less capable engine? I'm not buying that. Let's look at two scenarios:
1. Current scenario: The engine supports a host of advanced effects, where all of them can be toned down or disabled to provide better performance.
2. Hypothetic scenario: The engine supports only a handful of those advanced effects. This obviously makes the game perform better on highest details, since it is simpler to render.
Exactly why would the hypothetical engine be able to provide better performance for the same visuals as the current engine set to lower details? If you disable some of the effects in the current engine, they're not used. How is that any different from removing the code/support for that feature from the engine altogether?
I'm sorry, but I need you to explain this to me, because I can't make any sense out of it.
nullpointerus
Golden Member
:thumbsup:
After playing some COD4 yesterday and the Demos of Unreal and finishing BioShock. I always switch back to the Demo of Crysis and just marvel on how much more realistic it looks and how much more dynamic the game play is with real physics. Sure it?s not perfect but its a start of the future of high end PC gaming.
I ran them all with a 1900XTX, In Crysis I can not run everything on High, but I turn 3 settings down to medium and I get good performance and looks better than any other games that is out.
As the previous poster, sometime I wonder if some people have reduced eye sight or something. The difference is in the details. Crysis is a high quality graphics engine with advanced physics. My opinion is that the Unreal 3 engine or any other console "ports" just does not even play in the same division, I will stand corrected if Unreal 3 look better with High Res Textures though as I havent really seen that yet I cant really say. So now I compare Demo to Demo.
There is an expression in math called least common denominator, that?s what I feel about the games that come out on all formats; the studios just don?t spend the time to make the games significantly better on PC for the enthusiasts. Crytek did this and they should be applauded for it and I hope more studios follow suit and create extra candy for the high end pc gamers. That is what drives innovation in graphics and gameplay.
I ran them all with a 1900XTX, In Crysis I can not run everything on High, but I turn 3 settings down to medium and I get good performance and looks better than any other games that is out.
As the previous poster, sometime I wonder if some people have reduced eye sight or something. The difference is in the details. Crysis is a high quality graphics engine with advanced physics. My opinion is that the Unreal 3 engine or any other console "ports" just does not even play in the same division, I will stand corrected if Unreal 3 look better with High Res Textures though as I havent really seen that yet I cant really say. So now I compare Demo to Demo.
There is an expression in math called least common denominator, that?s what I feel about the games that come out on all formats; the studios just don?t spend the time to make the games significantly better on PC for the enthusiasts. Crytek did this and they should be applauded for it and I hope more studios follow suit and create extra candy for the high end pc gamers. That is what drives innovation in graphics and gameplay.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
