Comments on: Haze vs. Crysis Screenshot by Screenshot

By: UE

UE — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:33:36 +0000

A what now?… Haze has so much fog and little dynamic lighting there you can’t really tell… where is the dynamic depth of feild… the high detailed normal maps…. ah no point arguing my point if you need glasses this bad… haze looks nice but doesnt even compair to UT3 of all things and anyone with half a brain knows Crysis kicks Unreal3 engine around the court…

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:39:16 +0000

dm and stu are right. anyway the pc is the most powerful. all the games on consoles are developed on the pc. the pc is crazy powerful. its really annoying when console owners try to say that they are more powerful than the pc. that whole cell processor for the ps3 is overrated. and im not being a pc fanboy. i like console games as well, but when it comes to a difference of power, the pc’s power is deffinatly greater. but then agian it also depends on whats in ur rig. and y are developers only using 30% of the ps3′s power when they can use all 100% of it. i think that whole 30% thing is crap. developers of games are always taking advantage of the power of the system their developing on. and isnt it kind of strange that if the ps3 is so powerful, that its competitors run the same game smoother? take the orange box or cod4 for instance on the 360. ive noticed smoother frame rates on the 360 than the ps3.

By: Stu

Stu — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:14:22 +0000

hahahaha this is one of the funniest threads ive read in a while. all the fan boys saying that the ps3 is future proof for 10 years lol with current tech pcs already blow away the consoles so untill the playstation 4 is released… it is outdated technology. of course a console will beat most mid range pcs because they arent built for gaming where as a console is, its not rocket science. put it up against a gaming rig and it will shit itself. if you were a real gamer and not just a stupid fan boy you would understand that the PS3, 360 and PC all have different attributes that attract different audiiences but when it comes down to raw power a PC will always dominate

By: dm

dm — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:39:49 +0000

please stop these console to pc comparison, it’s all non-sense. i’m once a pc gamer and i agree that it’s still more expensive as a gaming machine (the reason i bought a 360), but i also agree that no console can match the power of a high end pc. BUT, not all gamers are pc enthusiasts that can tweak their system or have the knowledge on the right specs to run certain games. so in the end, a GAME console is still the BEST GAMING MACHINE but PC is still the MOST POWERFUL… but PS3 is the MOST HYPED

By: Snazz

Snazz — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:16:25 +0000

Comparing a PS3 to last-gen or low-end “average” computers is just scraping at the bottom. Of course the PS3 could beat most cheap OEM machines in game performance, because those PCs aren’t made for gaming. If a PS3 outperforms an outdated gaming PC that’s obviously not relevant to todays hardware either.

Right now if you can afford a $100 video card like a 9600GT you’ve already got a superior graphics solution then the PS3′s RSX/7800 will ever provide.

Most PS3 games natively run at only 720P/1280×720 (GTA4 apparently “640P”), PC games can run at “1600P”/2560×1600 smoothly on max detail on a high end machine (even Crysis on GTX280 3way SLI). Anti-aliasing is another feature which (although taxing on performance) is optionally higher on PC games making them look smoother and more realistic. Modern gaming PCs also tend to have much larger harddrives and a lot more RAM then the PS3 allowing games to be bigger and more detailed.

PS3 games will probably become more optimized over the console’s lifetime but the hardware is still redundant. The best PC today will eventually be worthless too, but apart from it performing far better then a PS3 in the meantime it can be upgraded multiple times. Even after a PC has reached it’s upgrade limit (incompatibility with newer hardware etc.) it still has plenty of other uses, for example a gaming machine can become a multimedia machine then a simple web browser over it’s lifetime and interchange parts with other older computers. Whilst the PS3 probably eventually becomes a bulky old BluRay player.

As far as pure game performance and visuals go the PS3s currently reign supreme in the console hardware word and probably will until the PS4 comes out. But not compared to a modern gaming PC with a $100 video card, not even close.

Can’t forget online PC gaming either, I don’t see WoW or any other MMOs on the PS3. That can’t be ruined by piracy either because a unique CD key or user account has to be purchased to play online. There is decent sized online games on consoles like Warhawk and BF Bad Company on PS3 or Frontlines (w/ 50 players) on XB360, But the same type of games have been around on PCs for about a decade already.

Consoles like the PS3 are undeniably successful and suit their purpose sufficiently, they just don’t compare to todays gaming computers in graphics peformance anything like some people have commented above.

By: Rationalist

Rationalist — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:12:20 +0000

Just look at the idiots supporting the PS3…its no better than the geforce 7800. And why in the freaking world would developers only tap 30% of the potential. I agree that they don’t reach a 100% but come on!

Haze looks like a cartoon…not photo-realistic!

Instead of typing all the crap glorifying the PS3, why don’t you freaks give specifications to support your claims.

GeForce 8 Series is way superior to the PS3 GPU. [Fact]
PS3 is the most powerful machine on Earth and is a machine from the future [Total BS & Fiction]

By: David

David — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:32:57 +0000

Haze is the farthest the console could possibly maybe lucky a little more in visuals,but not much.People think the ps3 is better cause of the cell.But it’s a cpu not a gpu.The cell yea could do a little graphic coding but what that means you get better physics,and animations but it doesn’t improve graphics.The war now between these 2 monster consoles is graphics.I honestly think the ps3 in going to go down in this category,cause the obsolete rsx chip.nvidia already announced that it’s a little weaker than the 7800gtx.The ati gpu not only the first console to support unfied shaders but it seems to have a little support for dx10.it can’t operate it fully but could use some of the applications,and the other thing it has 512mb of on board ram which means the 360 will have no problem handling higher resolutions without taxing the gpu too much.If they want.They could have there consoles support some 16:10 resolutions(where i’m still waiting for them to make a update for)So it’s possible it could handle a rez as high as 1920×1200 and maybe a 2560×1600 resolution.But that’s where the ps3 falls.the reason why the games are stuck at 720p(1280×720)is cause of the ineffectual on board memory.it has only 256mb,so in real terms the ps3 is no true hd console.

360 wins:gpu
ps3 wins:cpu

stop being a fanboy and learn some facts before you shoot your mouth off,cause in the end you just sound like a complete frinking moron and like a person with a helmet trying to figure out how to tie your own shoes and flips out over having the wrong color laces.If you want more proof here’s a you tube vid link that compares the specs and what they exactly do(made specifically for ps3 fanboys)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5PsL89oTtE or if the link not working just type:why the ps3 suck 2nd edition, to get video on youtube

By: Heru-Ur

Heru-Ur — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:12:53 +0000

David, your last post is as correct as it is hard to read. Anyone that says you have to spend more than $1,000 on a PC to play ANY game at high settings is one of 2 things. Either misinformed or spreading misinformation. I built a PC in June 2007 for less than $600 that will run Crysis at high settings near flawlessly. Its not like building a PC is hard either, it took me 1 evening to put my PC together and i was gaming before bed that night. Its all color coded and idiot proof these days. There is simply no reason anyone should have to spend more than a grand on a PC unless they are just future proofing.

By: David

David — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:14:12 +0000

and one more.I actually decided to read the comments above.Fucking morons !I swear.You guys remind of shit heads like adem from g4 and reviewers like ign and shit.You exagurate too much.I only spend about 720 max on my pc to play the top games out and future games.I got a amd 3200+(it’s pretty good i have to say).A asus a8n-slir delux motherboard.1gb of kingston ddr3 memory.8800gt oc(700/1750/950). and it runs on ultra high settings(xp tweaked) at no less than 30fps at a 1680×1050.I needed a new computer so i bought individual parts(the smartest and cheapest way to go) and build it.Your just a dumbass to pay that much.with 5000 i could build a complete monster super computer that’ll stomp out 20ps3′s and 20 360′s at the same time.

By: David

David — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:42:00 +0000

Crysis will always have the upper hand in graphics period.I have the ps3 and the 360.There great counsels to have around,and good for friends and family,but in the end if your a hardcore gamer.You want to play those graphic hungry ass games and willing to spend some good hard earn cash to play it,but one thing is once you spend the money it’ll last you a very long time(depends on what kind of performance you want)I say if you get the best stuff out today.it’ll last you a few years.and a ps3 and 360 could be obsolete visionally.They could of pushed the systems past it’s limits and can’t push anymore.Where pc comes in.There’s no such thing as limits.You could push the performance(overclocking) even farther if you want and whenever you want.So in the end,pc will always be superior.And how can you not like pc games?They play at higher resolution and is capable of getting monster frames:Gear of war(360)max it went was 30.Gears of war(pc)not only better looking cause of the option of higher rez but can you play the game on the 360 with a whopping 90fps or unreal at 143fps.I don’t think so.Haze will be a good game and ps3 is still a good system,but come on people pc vs. consels.That’s not a fair match.ps3-360(gets curbed stomp).Crysis has awesome dynamatic lighting(not to mention the orgasmic god rays effect).Crysis has better visuals,better dynamatic lighting effects,better soft shadows,better texturing,better character models,basically stomps it in every category.PC>ps3,360

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:22:07 +0000

Not to take side with PC or PS3 fanboys out there, (even though I am a PC fan myself) but, what’s up with comparing PCs and PS3s and XBOX 360s and such? Consoles are designed for gaming, while computers are general purpose. The truth is though, PC technologies are developed before consoles (after all the hardware of the 360 and PS3 has to be tested in a PC before it is built into a console) as for those that say “PS3′s potential is not being used to its maximum blah blah) look up the PS3s specs, it has a cell processor (impressive) but it’s still only a single 3.2ghz. Any Dual Core PC can outmatch that easily. Also, the PS3 features an Nvidia RSX GPU, going only by the bandwidth it can process, it’s 22.4GB/s. So please, whoever said “to have PS3 equivalency you need an 8800GTS at least) was wrong. A 7600GT overclocked can achieve 22.4GB/s and as for core clock, textures/second and the rest, a 7900GTX Can match it with no problems. Interestingly enough, a 8800GT can outmatch a 7900GTX.
As for “PCs need major upgrades to be able to play blah blah and it’s expensive”
Consider this. In the end, both consoles and PCs end up costing the same. You buy a PS3 for i dont know.. 400-600, then you have to buy them precious 60 dollar games. A good PC will last well over a year without any major upgrades, and once you do upgrade it then it’s another year before you need something else. Truth, PCs end up being more longlasting than consoles. Once the new console comes out PS4 and whatnot, good PCs will be able to match up with a good upgrade… While the console fanboys will have to spend another 600+ dollars like the PS3 was priced in the beginning. And eventually, the PC being the universal system, ends up getting most of the games released for consoles.
In the end, it’s down to personal preference.
Just for the record:
Gateway GT 5220
AMD 64×2 4200+ (Dual-core 2.2GHZ) completely stock.
3GB DDR2 4200 of RAM
BFG 8800GT OC
Crysis plays at a framerate of 35FPS highest, 25FPS lowest with all settings on high and 8xAA. 1440×900 Resolution.

My PC still hasn’t gone over a $2000 pricetag.

And… Playing on a full 5.1 surround system is amazing.
Just had to add that It’s awesome to hear enemies behind you in Crysis turn around.. and they are behind you… heh

And for those that are curious:
PS3 Specs:
Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

* PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
* 1 VMX vector unit per core
* 512KB L2 cache
* 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
* 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
* 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

* 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
* Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
* Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

* Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
* VRAM: 22.4GB/s
* RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
* SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

As you can see the “games are not using full PS3 potential” might be true… to a certain point. But please don’t say PS3 is the “ultimate and cannot be matched by any PC” because it simply couldn’t be any more wrong.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:44:03 +0000

I have a great pc. Q6600 @ 3.0ghz, 2 gig ram, 8800GTX oc. I basiclly built the pc for the new gen games like crysis. So when i went out and brought the game and installed it on my system, i was excpecting to run it on very high as crytek said you could run it maxed out with a 8800 and core 2 duo. Well that game has made me hate gaming on pc’s. It runs like absolute shit. So now im very happy with my xbox and ps3. Because they are guarenteed to run good on the console. Thank god that valve know how to build games that run on the pc as they should. Crytek should be shot. There game is complete rubbish simply because it doesn’t run the way it should and the way the creaters said it would.

Bottom line yes pc are better than consoles. Only if you own a $5000 system….

By: Norbit

Norbit — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:49:51 +0000

@ Sean

I bought the X1900XTX in Feb 2006. When I bought it the card was the best gaming card money could buy. The 8800 cards weren’t released until about 9 months later.

By: pixelsword

pixelsword — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:42:13 +0000

As far as level of detail, they look the same to me in these pics… as far as LAYERS of detail, Crysis has more of that as far as I can tell, but whether it’s accessable or not will make it relevant or not; so as it stands to me, they might as well be the same.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:53:52 +0000

Some of you guys are idiots. Thinking that you have to buy a new video card every two years. The XFX GeFirce 8600 GT XXX can run crysis on high settings. Guess how much it costs. How about $99 CDN. idiots. ZNorbits, your bumb for paying $740 a year ago for a X1900. You ould have just bought an 8800 card for the same price. Consoles get raped by PCs spec wise. The only reason they run slower was mentioned. They are simultaneously running an OS on top of the game, how do you think you can Alt = F4 or Ctrl+Alt+Del and imidiately be placed at the desktop without reloading your OS. dumbasses. there are 50-100 dollar video cards on th market that rape the 360 and PS3 video cards. Even combined with some video cards. The two screen shots aren’t even close. Crysis wins handily.