OMFG.... CRYSIS on DX10 ~ DIRECT3D10 Hardware (must see vid)

[AirRaid1500]

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv


this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.


console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
believe it, especially in terms of the console GPUs. Xenos/C1 (Xbox
360) and RSX (PlayStation3) are just nowhere near powerful enough.

 

[Jonah Falcon]

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv


this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.


console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
believe it, especially in terms of the console GPUs. Xenos/C1 (Xbox
360) and RSX (PlayStation3) are just nowhere near powerful enough.

Er, uh. Untrue. See: Gears of War.

PS. What do you think the 360 runs on?

 

[AirRaid]

Er, uh. Untrue. See: Gears of War.

Gears of War looks very nice, but sorry, it's nowhere near even this
early footage of the Direct3D10 version of Crysis.

PS. What do you think the 360 runs on?

not sure what you're saying here, but I will take a couple of shots...

*Xbox 360 is not quite upto Direct3D10 / Shader 4.0 standards, does not
have nearly the performance of the ATI R600 GPU or the Nvidia G80 GPU.
nor does Xbox 360 have nearly enough RAM. I think i'm going to
take Crytek's word for it.

the PC trailer has a "360" in the file name, but that's because it was
shown on a 360 degree screen. nothing to do with Xbox 360.

 

[Pez D Spencer]

looks good.

don't see why this couldn't be done on the 360 down the line, though.
maybe without the 360 degree view, though. looks great for being on
such a big screen. i'm gonn hafta track down some direct feeds now.

 

[Unknown]

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv


this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.


console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
believe it, especially in terms of the console GPUs. Xenos/C1 (Xbox
360) and RSX (PlayStation3) are just nowhere near powerful enough.

while i agree its a pretty poor show that you could put together a
reasonable to high spec pc for about the same as this current gen of
consoles which on paper has a higher performance and much more flexability
you cant underestimate the value consoles have.

developers love a fixed target which they can tweak the arse off, look at
doom on the xbox, i doubt you would be able to play anything close to
modern games on a 733mhz celeron with 64 megs ram and a tweaked geforce2
mx gpu.

also i doubt the developers are going to limit there market to people who
have blown over £200 on a new graphics card 3 months before the game comes
out.

 

[AirRaid]

while i agree its a pretty poor show that you could put together a
reasonable to high spec pc for about the same as this current gen of
consoles which on paper has a higher performance and much more flexability
you cant underestimate the value consoles have.

developers love a fixed target which they can tweak the arse off, look at
doom on the xbox, i doubt you would be able to play anything close to
modern games on a 733mhz celeron with 64 megs ram and a tweaked geforce2
mx gpu.

I agree with most of your points, however,

GeForce2 MX (NV11) with 2 pixel pipes, 2 TMUs per pipe, T&L unit but no
Vertex Shader is *not* comparable to Xbox GPU with 4 pixel pipes, 2
TMUs per pipe,
2 Vertex Shaders.

totally different generations of GPU.
you compared a lowend NV1x to a middle of the road NV2x

GeForce3's are lowend NV2x,
Xbox GPU is middle of the road NV2x
GeForce 4 Ti's are highend NV2x

Xbox GPU (NV2A) is more comparable with a downclocked GeForce 4 TI 4200
(NV25)
than GeForce2 MX.

 

[Schrodinger]

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv


this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.


console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
believe it, especially in terms of the console GPUs. Xenos/C1 (Xbox
360) and RSX (PlayStation3) are just nowhere near powerful enough.

Holy crapamoly.

That looked pretty good.

/goes to buy 60 old CRT monitors on eBay.

 

[Zackman]

(e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> spake thusly:

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv

I can't believe you're shitting your pants over a shaky-cam video of a giant
projection screen. How is that supposed to do the game justice?

console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
believe it, especially in terms of the console GPUs. Xenos/C1 (Xbox
360) and RSX (PlayStation3) are just nowhere near powerful enough.

Which means neither are 95% of the GPUs in current PCs. Which in turn either
means this is marketing bullshit and the game will scale to lesser systems
the same way pretty much every other high-end PC game does, or EA only plans
on selling 10 copies of Crysis for the first year.

My money is on the former. If I'm wrong, looks like I won't be playing
Crysis. I'm done with yearly $500 video card upgrades just to play the one
or two games that demand it.

-Z-

 

[Interesting Ian]

| http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv
|
|
| this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
| Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.
|
|
| console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
| PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I

Not powerful enough?? PS 3 hasn't even come out yet! :-( I was thinking
about buying one as well.

 

[TheGame]

Meh, I am not spending $500+ upgrading my PC for one game. If it does
not come to 360, I will pass. Besides, its just another FPS... I won't
lose any sleep over it

 

[AirRaid]

| http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv
|
|
| this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
| Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.
|
|
| console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
| PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I

Not powerful enough?? PS 3 hasn't even come out yet! :-( I was thinking
about buying one as well.

THAT'S RIGHT, PS3 isn't powerful enough. so WHAT if it hasn't come out
yet. The range of possible specs for the PS3 GPU are well known. it's
based on NV47 / G70 / G71, but with only half the pixel rendering
pipelines and half the memory bus width that connects to graphics
memory. RSX is a lowend GPU by late 2006 standards.

CELL might be powerful enough as a CPU once developers come to grips
with it, but, CELL won't make the graphics chip do anything beyond the
graphics chip's limits.

If Crysis was translated to PS3 (and Crytek said they won't be doing
that), it would have to be severely downgraded.

not unlike Half Life 2 was on the original Xbox.


this does not rule out different Crytek games being made for consoles,
just not Crysis in its current form anytime in the foreseeable future.
their words, not mine.


hey off topic, I was thinking (always a dangerous thing lol) that a
beefed up Crysis engine running on the refreshed, mid-life upgrades of
the new ATI/Nvidia GPUs, meaning R680 or R700 and NV55 / G90, which
should be coming out late 2007 or early 2008
(2-4 of them, SLI / CrossFire) on quad AMD or Intel CPU platforms, and
a BUTT LOAD of RAM, might be able to handle the Killzone E3 2005
trailer, realtime

AMD's so called 4x4 platform, coming out pretty soon with 4 CPU cores
and 4 graphics cards / GPU is said to be one of the ideal platforms for
running Crysis according to Crytek. I was thinking on such a platform
Killzone PC and other games could actually live up to the E3 2005 PS3
hype, just not on PS3

better yet, wait for AMD's new K8l processor, 4 cores on one die,
reducing price, and 2 graphics cards of the R700 / G90 generation.
we're not talking technology that's years and years away like *PS4* but
1 ~ 1.5 years away

but I do agree for the masses, Xbox 360 and PS3 are where most of the
best games, for an affordable price, will be going, for years. It'll
take a $2000 PC to run Crysis even at ~30fps (1 new GPU, 1 dual-core
CPU)

 

[Interesting Ian]

|
| Interesting Ian wrote:
| > | > |
http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv
| > |
| > |
| > | this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
| > | Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.
| > |
| > |
| > | console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
| > | PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
| >
| > Not powerful enough?? PS 3 hasn't even come out yet! :-( I was
thinking
| > about buying one as well.
|
| THAT'S RIGHT, PS3 isn't powerful enough. so WHAT if it hasn't come out
| yet. The range of possible specs for the PS3 GPU are well known. it's
| based on NV47 / G70 / G71, but with only half the pixel rendering
| pipelines and half the memory bus width that connects to graphics
| memory. RSX is a lowend GPU by late 2006 standards.
|
| CELL might be powerful enough as a CPU once developers come to grips
| with it, but, CELL won't make the graphics chip do anything beyond the
| graphics chip's limits.
|
| If Crysis was translated to PS3 (and Crytek said they won't be doing
| that), it would have to be severely downgraded.
|
| not unlike Half Life 2 was on the original Xbox.
|
|
| this does not rule out different Crytek games being made for consoles,
| just not Crysis in its current form anytime in the foreseeable future.
| their words, not mine.
|
|
| hey off topic, I was thinking (always a dangerous thing lol) that a
| beefed up Crysis engine running on the refreshed, mid-life upgrades of
| the new ATI/Nvidia GPUs, meaning R680 or R700 and NV55 / G90, which
| should be coming out late 2007 or early 2008
| (2-4 of them, SLI / CrossFire) on quad AMD or Intel CPU platforms, and
| a BUTT LOAD of RAM, might be able to handle the Killzone E3 2005
| trailer, realtime
|
| AMD's so called 4x4 platform, coming out pretty soon with 4 CPU cores
| and 4 graphics cards / GPU is said to be one of the ideal platforms for
| running Crysis according to Crytek. I was thinking on such a platform
| Killzone PC and other games could actually live up to the E3 2005 PS3
| hype, just not on PS3
|
| better yet, wait for AMD's new K8l processor, 4 cores on one die,
| reducing price, and 2 graphics cards of the R700 / G90 generation.
| we're not talking technology that's years and years away like *PS4* but
| 1 ~ 1.5 years away
|
| but I do agree for the masses, Xbox 360 and PS3 are where most of the
| best games, for an affordable price, will be going, for years. It'll
| take a $2000 PC to run Crysis even at ~30fps (1 new GPU, 1 dual-core
| CPU)
|

I was just wondering if I should buy a console -- either the 360 or PS 3.
There a far cry game for the 360 which I believe is distinct from the PC
version. Trouble is I've heard that the xbox 360's are very unreliable and
keep crashing. So I was thinking about the PS 3. But not sure if the far
cry games will be available on it nevermind crysis!

Or maybe I should just buy a new PC sometime within the next 18 months. My
current one is 4.5 years old now (AMD XP1800 and ti4200 graphics card) and
can't really play modern games (hence my vacillation on whether I should buy
a games console or not).

 

[AirRaid Mach 2.5]

|
| Interesting Ian wrote:
| > | > |
http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv
| > |
| > |
| > | this means, this footage must be from ATI's R600 (next-gen Radeon) or
| > | Nvidia's NV50 / G80 (next-gen GeForce) hardware. wow.
| > |
| > |
| > | console versions of Crysis are NOT in the works, since Xbox 360 and
| > | PlayStation3 are simply not powerful enough according to Crytek. I
| >
| > Not powerful enough?? PS 3 hasn't even come out yet! :-( I was
thinking
| > about buying one as well.
|
| THAT'S RIGHT, PS3 isn't powerful enough. so WHAT if it hasn't come out
| yet. The range of possible specs for the PS3 GPU are well known. it's
| based on NV47 / G70 / G71, but with only half the pixel rendering
| pipelines and half the memory bus width that connects to graphics
| memory. RSX is a lowend GPU by late 2006 standards.
|
| CELL might be powerful enough as a CPU once developers come to grips
| with it, but, CELL won't make the graphics chip do anything beyond the
| graphics chip's limits.
|
| If Crysis was translated to PS3 (and Crytek said they won't be doing
| that), it would have to be severely downgraded.
|
| not unlike Half Life 2 was on the original Xbox.
|
|
| this does not rule out different Crytek games being made for consoles,
| just not Crysis in its current form anytime in the foreseeable future.
| their words, not mine.
|
|
| hey off topic, I was thinking (always a dangerous thing lol) that a
| beefed up Crysis engine running on the refreshed, mid-life upgrades of
| the new ATI/Nvidia GPUs, meaning R680 or R700 and NV55 / G90, which
| should be coming out late 2007 or early 2008
| (2-4 of them, SLI / CrossFire) on quad AMD or Intel CPU platforms, and
| a BUTT LOAD of RAM, might be able to handle the Killzone E3 2005
| trailer, realtime
|
| AMD's so called 4x4 platform, coming out pretty soon with 4 CPU cores
| and 4 graphics cards / GPU is said to be one of the ideal platforms for
| running Crysis according to Crytek. I was thinking on such a platform
| Killzone PC and other games could actually live up to the E3 2005 PS3
| hype, just not on PS3
|
| better yet, wait for AMD's new K8l processor, 4 cores on one die,
| reducing price, and 2 graphics cards of the R700 / G90 generation.
| we're not talking technology that's years and years away like *PS4* but
| 1 ~ 1.5 years away
|
| but I do agree for the masses, Xbox 360 and PS3 are where most of the
| best games, for an affordable price, will be going, for years. It'll
| take a $2000 PC to run Crysis even at ~30fps (1 new GPU, 1 dual-core
| CPU)
|

I was just wondering if I should buy a console -- either the 360 or PS 3.
There a far cry game for the 360 which I believe is distinct from the PC
version. Trouble is I've heard that the xbox 360's are very unreliable and
keep crashing. So I was thinking about the PS 3. But not sure if the far
cry games will be available on it nevermind crysis!

Or maybe I should just buy a new PC sometime within the next 18 months. My
current one is 4.5 years old now (AMD XP1800 and ti4200 graphics card) and
can't really play modern games (hence my vacillation on whether I should buy
a games console or not).

the Xbox 360 and PS3 are / will be more than good enough for any of the
Far Cry games.
there's even a Far Cry game coming out on Nintendo Wii
(which is just an upgraded Gamecube with more memory)

 

[Unknown]

I agree with most of your points, however,

GeForce2 MX (NV11) with 2 pixel pipes, 2 TMUs per pipe, T&L unit but no
Vertex Shader is *not* comparable to Xbox GPU with 4 pixel pipes, 2
TMUs per pipe,
2 Vertex Shaders.

totally different generations of GPU.
you compared a lowend NV1x to a middle of the road NV2x

GeForce3's are lowend NV2x,
Xbox GPU is middle of the road NV2x
GeForce 4 Ti's are highend NV2x

Xbox GPU (NV2A) is more comparable with a downclocked GeForce 4 TI 4200
(NV25)
than GeForce2 MX.

interesting to know, i read somewhere the xbox1 had a geforce4 mx gpu
which i understood was based on the geforce2 mx but must have been
missinformed.

ot but ive actually got a mx and a 4800se and never saw that
much of an improvement in the games i played at the time.

 

[Unknown]

AMD's so called 4x4 platform, coming out pretty soon with 4 CPU cores
and 4 graphics cards / GPU is said to be one of the ideal platforms for
running Crysis according to Crytek.

lol thats like saying you need an opteron rig to run a calculator.

we are talking about 8 amd cores{1} and 128-256 graphics pipelines, ffs
unless their target market is the military then they may as well mothball
it till the next decade for a minimum 30% of the pc industry to have a
chance at playing it.

{1} possibly "only" 4 cores i havent been following the 4x4 stuff that
much since i always knew if i wanted a dual cpu system it only required a
slightly more expensive motherboard and an extra £30 per cpu.

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

(e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> spake thusly:

http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv

I can't believe you're shitting your pants over a shaky-cam video of a
giant projection screen. How is that supposed to do the game justice?


Which means neither are 95% of the GPUs in current PCs. Which in turn
either means this is marketing bullshit and the game will scale to lesser
systems the same way pretty much every other high-end PC game does, or EA
only plans on selling 10 copies of Crysis for the first year.

My money is on the former. If I'm wrong, looks like I won't be playing
Crysis. I'm done with yearly $500 video card upgrades just to play the one
or two games that demand it.

-Z-

Well, I'm sure it will scale down, but it will be programmed to work with
the latest hardware to the level shown in the movie. I agree with you about
PC hardware though. There are only a handful of games that are worth playing
and having a higher end PC for. Either it's me getting older, or just too
much recycling of old ideas, I am not as excited about as many games as I
used to be.

While I have a high end PC (A64 4800+, eVGA 7900 GT KO SC, 2GB DDR500) I can
still play everything on my older PC (Athlon XP 3000+, GeForce 6800+, 1GB
PC2700) even if I have to "dumb down" the settings a little bit. But for the
most part, it still plays well. Once Vista comes out, I will probably go for
a new Dx10 video card middle to end of next year, and live with it for
another couple years.

The main thing holding me back from a new gen console is the game
controller. Never could handle it well. Maybe just haven't played enough.

 

[AirRaid Mach 2.5]

interesting to know, i read somewhere the xbox1 had a geforce4 mx gpu
which i understood was based on the geforce2 mx but must have been
missinformed.

okay the GeForce4MX GPU is the NV17, and indeed, it is based largely on
the GeForce2MX GPU (but *nothing* to do with the Xbox1 GPU) with some
added features and significantly more speed, but GeForce4MX actually
less powerful than the plain vanilla GeForce3. it was very deceptive
of Nvidia to call the NV17 the GeForce4MX.

GeForce"4"MX (NV17) series and GeForce4 Ti (NV25, the real GF4) series
are totally different architectures.

The Xbox GPU (NV2A) is well ahead of GeForce3 (NV20) and is like just
somewhat behind the NV25 / GeForce4 Ti GPU family.

the NV17 / GeForce"4" MX has no Vertex Shaders or Pixel Shaders.