March 23rd, 2011
Posted in 
“Can it run Crysis?”
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head – Crysis 2 Frame Rate Analysis. We put both versions of Crysis 2 through our analyzer to see which version performs the best. |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||
“Can it Run Crysis?” Welcome back for this special feature of Crysis 2 single player analysis. We’ve been getting bombarded with emails asking about how Crysis 2 performs on the consoles. So we decide to give our users a sneak peek on how the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 stack up to one another in terms of performance. But before you get to excited, this analysis only focuses on the single player campaign and a verdict will not be given until we complete our full in-depth analysis which will include more of the single player and Multiplayer levels. Until then, enjoy!
Performance: Like we said above, this is not our full analysis and a verdict will not be given. In the scenes we captured the PlayStation 3 version seems to be tripled buffered and has absolutely zero screen tearing. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 has some tearing but seems to handle the frame rate more effectively in catioc scenes. Here what we got so far, as seen in our analysis video below, the PlayStation 3’s frame rate dips in hectic areas more often than the Xbox 360 version but the PlayStation 3 version has zero screen tearing. Below our the average frame rates and screen tearing percentages.
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis | Xbox 360 Frame Analysis |
| Clip 1: Length of clip: 2384 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.52 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 1: Length of clip: 2384 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.0 Percent of torn frames: 1.88 |
| Clip 2: Length of clip: 2571frames Average FPS of clip: 25.18 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 2: Length of clip: 2571 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.99 Percent of torn frames: 0.89 |
| Clip 3: Length of clip: 5166 frames Average FPS of clip: 25.54 Percent of torn frames: o.o |
Clip 3: Length of clip: 5166 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.07 Percent of torn frames: 0.76 |
| Clip 4: Length of clip: 4681 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.03 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 4: Length of clip: 4681 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.00 Percent of torn frames: 0.74 |
| Clip 5: Length of clip: 2872 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.42 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 5: Length of clip: 2872 frames Average FPS of clip: 31.56 Percent of torn frames: 0.33 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 0.0 Global average FPS: 26.54 |
Global percent of torn frames: 1.93 Global average FPS: 29.11 |
Conclusion: There’s no doubt both versions of Crysis 2 look amazing, and better yet, they both perform pretty good. So the question was “Can it run Crysis?”. Yes they both can! Make sure you check back in the next couple days for our full in-depth analysis as we break down the graphics, loading, Multiplayer, single player and much, much more. Hope you enjoy!
Related Posts
Tags: 
Interesting. Very similar framerate but the 360 version has tearing while the PS3 is vsynced.
AWESOME GUYS! I would let you marry my daughter if i had one!
LOL.
You guys are amazing, and deserve all the support, and if there was a donation bottom I’d click it every time I visit your site, which 100 times per day.
Call me LOT addict
I’m gonna call tie. Both versions look identical for the most part and both have pros and cons for performance.
Lowest FPS clip for 360 was 20. Lowest for the PS3 was 25. When you look at the averages the PS3 ran less than 3 FPS slower but was more consistant. The 360 however had almost 2% tearing while the PS3 had none. Still 2% is a low number, as is a 2.5 FPS difference.
Once again, this is a tie in my book based on what we have so far. Keep up the goot work guys!
‘Lowest FPS clip for 360 was 28. Lowest for the PS3 was 25. When you look at the averages the PS3 ran less than 3 FPS slower. The 360 however had almost 2% tearing while the PS3 had none. Still 2% is a low number, as is a 2.5 FPS difference.’
In view of corrected info, FIXED
Yeah that first comment was before Jamie fixed the averages. No edit button and me being to lazy to post a second comment right away is why I didn’t correct myself. I figured people would put two and two together, guess I was right!
So sorry guys! Shawn and Aaron have already disciplined me.. I’m sure the Jason’s will yell at me at some point too.
Take care guys
-Jaime
I’d say it’s a tie in performance but I personally prefer higher framerate in exchange for some screen tearing.
I prefer Ps3 not for any fanboy reason just because i own one and i like the controller.and from what i seen the Ps3 ran about 2 FPS slower then the 360 while triple buffer.Not saying it’s better just mean no version is bad.Alot of people thought crytek droped the ball on ps3 but thats not the case.
Case of pick your poison. Framerate vs tearing. Going by this H2H I’ll take the small amounts of tearing over the v-sync for a better framerate.
Pretty Good. That’s all I have to say.
Ouch for ps3 owners. The single player framerate drops a lot more than the 360 and this is on this small clip at the start of the game.
You can tell the ps3 version is going to have issues on certain more detailed parts later in the game.
It’s going to struggle framerate wise on the majority of the game.
Even with scaled back graphics compared to the 360 version
And there’s still MP to come lol.
android123
what is scaled back graphics wise on ps3 have you not seen the screen shots or has years of wanking yourself silly over your xbox made you blind.
You know if lens of truth did a comment of the wekk this would be a sure fire winner!!!! Made me properly laugh
You sir are blind,the Ps3 runs damn near the same minus the screentear.I don’t understand why people like you log in and start flamewars.Both versions look and play the same.2Fps isn’t enough to brag about,the ps3 is triple buffed while the 360 is only double.I hope when people look at your comment,understand your only here to start bullshit.
This makes the decision even harder! I guess both sides win. 360 has some screen tearing but a little bit higher frame rate. Ps3 has no screen tearing with a little bit lower frame rate. I’m also going to call this one a tie.
The Frame is +or- the same…..but Tear is better on PS3 but isn’t a big problem in Xbox, so…I think the ppl have get Crysis on your favorite console.
I will get for PS3 cuz I need first pay the Gold Acount in Xbox, I will only pay when Gears of War 3 come out *-*
So they both suck. Would have gotten the PC version by now if it wasn’t clearly held back by the consoles and still priced at $60…
PS3 have Vsync,,very good
Both excellents versions
Question for the more technical minded people out their.
How cpu/gpu heavy is something like triple buffering. Would having something like this come at the cost of frames per second for the PS3.
Of interest i was reading on the eurogamer forums that an editor from the top swedish gaming magazine was running a blog on comparing crysis 2 graphics on ps3/360. He states that last week he was at crytek in frankfurt and had played both versions. He commented on his blog and review that the 360 seemed to have the edge in graphics over the PS3. He’s now played the retail version of both and now states in his blog that crytek seem to have done some very late polishing of the PS3 version and that its now almost identical to the 360 version(Even the resolution seemed to have been upped, so much so that he was going to change his review to reflect this.
It is possible that many gaming sites are reporting the 360 to be slightly better based on the same build this guy played in frankfurt, word on the street is that crytek only sent out 360 copies for review.
LOT have stated from the begining that this is all based on retail versions and it seem to back what this swedish guy is saying, they look identical, be it screenshot or videos.
Anyways im predicting that tonight about 9pm uk time LOT are going to put out their full analysis……….fingers crossed
V-sync is a real system resource hog. That’s why the PS3′s freamerate averages 3 frames less than that of the 360. If V-sync was turned off, you would see 40-50fps on the PS3, but the screen tearing would be far worse than what you are currently seeing on the 360. The two consoles have very different hardware, and it’s pretty amazing that Crytek was able to give gamers nearly identical performance on both.
No offence to your analysis but I highly doubt if v-sync was turned off then we would be seeing 40-50fps on PS3 (or 360 for that matter). We’ve seen other much less technically demanding games with v-sync off and they are nowhere near 40-50fps. The Call of Duty games with their soft v-synced 60fps gameplay hover between 20-50fps mark on PS3 at low resolution and dialled back effects.
But your right about v-sync being a system hog so in that respect it seems like the PS3 is doing more work than the double buffer soft v-sync approach of the 360. But is it? Does triple buffer require v-sync?
Now correct me if I’m wrong but we’ve seen triple buffering on PS3 before but not 360. Why is this? I think it’s because of the 360 eDram being both its strength and achilles heel and the inferior bandwidth on PS3. It’s more advantageous to lower the framerate cap slightly and triple buffer the game on PS3 (which slightly increases lag) than double buffer with v-sync on PS3 because double buffering with v-sync (or soft v-sync) uses more bandwidth something the PS3 is in short supply and it’s better to use up VRAM which triple buffering uses more of. I don’t think triple buffering requires v-sync so it’s less GPU intensive as long as the framerate is capped at a manageable level.
360 eDram isn’t big enough for triple buffering at decent resolutions so the more GPU and bandwidth intensive double buffering with v-sync (or soft v-sync as in most cases) is used. Upside is better latency.
Also isn’t triple buffering something Open GL (API for PS3) offers as an option while on the 360 API (Direct x 9c) it has to be forced something MS would most likely frown upon so developers don’t do it?
I’m no computer expert so I’d like to know the actual reason why 360 does’t do triple buffering?
Dead space 2 on the pc had a triple buffer v-sync option and i noticed no difference between triple and double buffer settings. If they turned off v-sync on the ps3 the frame rate would be in the 30-35fps range. To match the performance of the 360 they should have just turned off v-sync and it would have made the games equal.
unscarred785
That’s because Dead Space 2 is hardly taxing your PC (presumably you have a powerful gaming rig).
I’m sorry but I don’t think that if the PS3 version was “not v-synced” we would be seeing an incredible framerate. Just 10 or 15% more than what we have today on this retail version. Remember the differences between the Mass Effect 2 demo vs the final retail.
Beside this, on PS3, the triple buffering can only be used with the V-sync activated, and vice & versa.
Regards
I read this too here is link and translation . These review conferences are bs. Ign based there review on this Type conference too. http://www.ign.com/blogs/arthur-ign/?p=60 so there review is now kinda defunct, but bet there’s no mention of it .
http://www.gamereactor.se/blog/petter/
“Google translation of the Swedish guys blog
When I during my week at the home of Crytek (Frankfurt) tested the Playstation 3 – and the Xbox 360 version to each other, the latter felt a little bit more polished. The lighting effects were a bit better looking, the graphics a little sharper and a little bit better fluency. So I wrote in my review, although the differences were small, so I mentioned them. Tomorrow is released Crysis 2 in Sweden and I have this morning, sat and compared the two store versions (PS3 and Xbox 360) and now realize that Crytek must have done some kind of hasty (and very effective) final polishing of the versions I tested in Frankfurt. For Crysis 2 for PlayStation 3 is just as nice as it is the Xbox 360. There exists a certain difference in the resolution, which is not noticeable / visible. Equivalent versions, in other words. And I must correct myself in my review as promptly.”
I wonder why IGN.com gave 8.5 on the graphics for PS3 and 9.5 for x360 saying: “Crysis 2 looks great on PS3, but a worse framerate, lower resolution, and missing effects compared to the 360 release hurt it. PS3 owners expect more.” if what we see here is an almost equal work. To take 1 full point less than the other version it should mean an agressive difference \O/. Can’t wait to check the full analysis.
Because IGN is lathered in Fail. The screenshot comparisons clearly show that the PS3 has better lighting and water effects, while the performance analysis shows that the 360 averages 3 more fps than the PS3, and that the PS3 has v-sync enabled, and never tears. Both versions have their weaknesses and strengths. LOT’s impartial comparisons have shown that IGN is full of s***.
Wrong. several other sites including gamereactor have also said the 360 were the better version
Ign based there review on a review conference organised by ea, and this version was apparently less polished than retail version.
. http://www.ign.com/blogs/arthur-ign/?p=60 so there review is now kinda defunct, but bet there’s no mention of it .
http://www.gamereactor.se/blog/petter/
“Google translation of the Swedish guys blog
When I during my week at the home of Crytek (Frankfurt) tested the Playstation 3 – and the Xbox 360 version to each other, the latter felt a little bit more polished. The lighting effects were a bit better looking, the graphics a little sharper and a little bit better fluency. So I wrote in my review, although the differences were small, so I mentioned them. Tomorrow is released Crysis 2 in Sweden and I have this morning, sat and compared the two store versions (PS3 and Xbox 360) and now realize that Crytek must have done some kind of hasty (and very effective) final polishing of the versions I tested in Frankfurt. For Crysis 2 for PlayStation 3 is just as nice as it is the Xbox 360. There exists a certain difference in the resolution, which is not noticeable / visible. Equivalent versions, in other words. And I must correct myself in my review as promptly.”
The IGN reviewer seems to clearly state he reviewed the retail version of Crysis 2 (not a pre-release). This web page will mark the fourth time he has reiterated that in his opinion the 360 version is better.
The first time in the original review (the quotes from the original review have been requoted many times now so I won’t requote)
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/115/1156446p1.html
Then in the article below:
How I Reviewed Crysis 2
http://www.ign.com/blogs/arthur-ign/2011/03/22/how-i-reviewed-crysis-2
“I received a retail copy of the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2 from EA last Friday, on March 18th, which I played through primarily on my home theater setup. I received a PS3 retail copy of Crysis 2, also from EA, on Monday, March 21st. I’ve played about half of the PS3 version of the game, enough to get a feel for the games overall look and performance given my completion of the game twice on Xbox 360.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 versions received the same overall score. I often hesitate to discuss minor technical differences between platforms in my reviews, because a) they usually don’t hurt the game and b) I don’t want to deal with the people accusing me of fanboyism one way or the other. However, a number of our readers own more than one console, and there are times when I think it would do them a disservice to sugarcoat the situation. This is one of those cases. Crysis 2 looks great on PS3, but it has some problems that aren’t as severe on the 360 version of the game. The 360 offers the smoother, better looking experience…”
(Note that there is no mention of any pre-release EA press event.)
And a third time in the comments section for the article above:
“I can’t speak to EA’s motivations for holding back on the PS3 version of the game. I can only state facts and my observations, which are as follows: We didn’t see the PS3 version until the first week of March. There was only one PS3 at the review event. The PS3 multiplayer demo was pulled after three days from PSN. And finally, despite the desperate protestations otherwise, the PS3 version of the game doesn’t look as good or run as well as the 360 version.”
And then a fourth time (again in the comments):
“Between the two versions, the 360 release is superior.”
Nah, this is good enough. I’ll go out and buy my version of choice now, simply can’t wait.
Can somebody send this to the IGNorant ppl?
Both looks good, regardless of the tearing in the xbox.
Anyway, thanks guys :>
Clip 1=20fps on 360 version?…didn’t see that happen in video comparison
Thanks for the heads up. When our analysis is done with the video it outputs a txt file like below:
While putting the post together I must have overlooked clip one. Rest-assure it doesn’t change the “Global percentages”
Thanks and it’s my fault sorry.
Clip 1 info:
Length of clip: 2384 frames
Average FPS of clip: 30.07
Percent of torn frames: 1.88
Clip 2 info:
Length of clip: 2571 frames
Average FPS of clip: 28.99
Percent of torn frames: 0.89
Clip 3 info:
Length of clip: 5166 frames
Average FPS of clip: 28.07
Percent of torn frames: 0.76
Clip 4 info:
Length of clip: 4681 frames
Average FPS of clip: 28.00
Percent of torn frames: 0.74
Clip 5 info:
Length of clip: 2872 frames
Average FPS of clip: 31.56
Percent of torn frames: 0.33
Global percent of torn frames: 1.93
Global average FPS: 29.11
Me and few other forum dwellers noticed that 360 version looks washed out compared to site comparisons and that symbol on shirt was in the process of loading before the still was taken so anything you would like to say about it?
Hey Comic-Jumper. Sure I’ll try to answer some of your questions.
Not sure why you think the Xbox looks washed out. Every time We do an Analysis we do them the same exact way. We use HDMI cables for both systems, and both systems are set to 720p with the appropriate settings ( full, expanded). We have a capture station where the systems never move or settings ever touched. Maybe the washout look your seeing is a contrast difference, which can be calibrated on your t.v.
As for the texture on the Xbox shoulder. Yes it took longer for the Xbox to load that texture, if you look closely in the video above you’ll be-able to see how long it takes. From experience, when I make textures for cryengine3 I export them as “crytiff” (.tiff) from Photoshop. There are many different options in the exporter which creates textures for different assets in the game. Like terrain, menus, spec maps, normal, high and low detail, diffuse, etc.. Then the CE3 resource complier (which comes with the editor) coverts it to the .dds format automatically. The engine then applies this .dds texture to the model/models. The dds texture is the compressed version of that .tiff, the .dds also contains all the mipmaps needed for the texture. The only thing that comes to mind is that the mipmap for that texture might be having issues? Obviously I can’t speak for CryTek but that’s the best I got.
Anyhow, thanks for commenting and enjoy this game because it’s truly awesome!
Just bought the game people (Best Buy is only one street away), now brace yourself for impact. The single player campaign is great, fantastic, use whatever words fancy you have to describe it, it deserves it. Now let’s move on to multiplayer. Seriously, I’m shocked, because textures pop-ins are still there, haven’t changed a bit. I mean seriously, what the hell, I wonder who the hell constructed the multiplayer, ‘cuz there is a freaking obvious gap between the two. Anyway, that’s my impression after the first impression 15 minutes (10 on campaign, 5 on observing the multiplayer in private session) playing/going through this game.
imo its a tie now, both have there problems. for a mulitiplate game crytek did do a great job, but still don’t think its major great looking. like ive said before the game looks washed out if your not playing it at 720p and the brightness isn’t turned down on the ps3 version. now from looking at the 360 version better its probably little bit the same in it. i can say the mp of ps3 version its almost like the demo just tweaked out to look better, so im sure 360 has the upper hand on that.
Were the Xbox version running on DVD or installed in HDD??
The multiplayer part of Crysis 2 runs worse than the single player. How is that possible?
different devs, Crytek germany did single player, Crytek uk did multi. Crytek Uk is made up of ex Free Radical staff (Time splitters)
You can argue which version looks better, but in terms of performance i would give xbox 360 a win. PS3 hovers mostly around 24fps during firefights, sometimes even 20fps. Xbox 360 stays at 28-29fps and i dont see any screen tear during firefights, only in the beginning and mostly on top (unnoticeable). 5-7fps difference is notifiable
*noticeable* not notifiable.. sorry
You must not play GTA IV on PS3… that game drops frames a lot worse than this and it’s still very fun and playable.
I would say this game is still very playable and the framedrops are hardly noticed (at least by me). Every once in a while I can feel a lower framerate, but for some reason, it doesn’t distract me as much as screen tearing does.
I hate screen tearing with a motherf’n passion, so I’m glad I got the PS3 version (I also have a 360). Plus, it’s kind of a pain in the butt to use my PS3 controller on the 360 (gotta start up 360, plug wired 360 controller into XCM Cross Fire Converter, wait for it to register it, and plug in PS3 controller), so it’s a minor hassle that I’d rather not go through for 3-5 extra frames per second.
I hate frame tearing too, but when i watch the analysis video, i don’t see any screen tear during gameplay on the xbox 360 version. Not even during hectic moments with lots of shooting. The only time i see the screen tear is during the first clip, where all the soldiers are talking.
Why did Crytek force v-sync on PS3 when the fps get so low, even down to 20? Is it really worth it?
But the avarage though is in any case just 2,5 frames which pretty much is as annoying as 2% screen tear, even if it’s in the upper part the xbox suffer framerate drops as well and the combination will probably drive you crazy! anyway some frames here & there can’t compensate for the missing light effects on the xbox 360!
God…why are you doing this to me?!!
There’s no missing light effect on the Xbox dude…not even one…the damn sun is in another place…but if i ignore that fact…ok..according to Xbox 360 shots PS3 has missing shadows because i saw them in Xbox but in ps3 they were gone(¿?¿?¿)…
No dude Im talking about the flickering light in 1:30 & also 1:52 no leaves in the xbox (not my discovery btw), I’d rather have the full game including leaves, flickering lights than 2 extra fps (consequense of 2% tearing)
What makes them unnoticeable is that all the frame tear occurs on the very top of the screen, away from players view angle. Mind you, this is all the impression i get from the analysis video, i havent played either version.
The exact opposite is true, when the action gets intense, the PS3 performs better than the 360.
Digital Foundry just released their performance analysis. “The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it’s actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better. ”
Your statement couldn’t be further from the truth.
Umm the 360 does worse in firefights then the ps3..this game guns at a uncap framrate i seen both versions bog to 16fps.
Still this doesn’t mean multi will suck on ps3
It would be better if the disabled v-sync on ps3 and then locked the fps on 30. ^^
If v-sync was disabled, so would triple buffered textures, the PS3′s lower resolution would be much more apparent is triple buffered textures was turned off. You can’t have one without the other.
Sorry Xbox fan boys. We known you had high hopes for this title being definitive on your console. Especially amidst all the contoversy surrounding it. But your just going to have to face facts. The Xbox’s day is over. Like We all knew would happen. Slightly higher frame rate, sure! But the performance suffers with tearing. It simply cannot out do the Sony.
you guys really are the scum of the net with your words twisting
Sheesh you PS3 fantards from N4G need to go back to your cage. The facts are that the 360 version has a consistently higher framerate 99% of the time and the torn frames are not even noticeable in gameplay. The PS3 version gets to some seriously low FPS, it’s just piss poor that this game drops to 20fps at times on PS3 and is still sub HD.
I can’t stand you damn PS3 fans who twist shit to suit yourselves. 360 has this one in the bag, Lens of Truth will confirm it shortly.
So piss off.
Why are you so rude?
The fact is that the 360 has on averge a framerate advantage of 3 frames per second but isnt vsynced. The PS3 version is vsynced. If Vsync was turned off on PS3 it WILL have a higher framerate than 360 but would also tear.
Where is proof of sub Hd no one has officially proved this fan boy theory
Why is it that everyone forgets that the 360 runs upscaled 1080p not true 1080p. that said the ps3 version that I bought this morning has a native resolution of 1080p, and again not upscaled 1080.
I hate to break it to you but the ps3 version does run in actual 1080p. the only sub hd is the upscaled 1080 on the 360.One of the rare times a ps3 game runs at 1080.Both versions look amazing
No it’s upscaled to 1080p just like every single 360 game is when set in the options that way.
hahahaha Nicky. It is well established that this is an Xbox fanboy site, and us pro-sony heads are not welcome. But, we’ll stick it too you anyway. N4G rocks BTW.
It would be great if you could say a word or two about the differences concerning the 3d modes (xbox 360 and ps3).
I know that, at the moment, there are not much useres with a 3d tv-set but it would be great!
Because after i have played the two demo versions the ps3′s 3d mode looked much better than it’s 360 counterpart!
Why is it that when the PS3 screen tears, this forum rips it a new one. But when the PS3 is the version that doesn’t screen tear, and the 360 does…. everyone finds a reason to still hate on the PS3 version.
I used to think that there was no bias here, but the more I read comments, the more I’m not so sure. I’d love to think this was a 50/50 site, but I’m thinking it’s more like 70/30 in the Xbox’s favor. I’m just saying.
You can prove your point in another multiplatform games…Red dead redemption…you should have seen how many votes got the Ps3 version claiming for be the best version…
You should see how many thumbs down get a Xboxer saying something bad about a ps3 console….
then you can say there are 70/30 in xbox’s favor or 70/30 in ps3′s favor
But 80% voted XBOX in the rdr h2h so gtfo.
you didn’t get the point, dude…
Can you guys tell us about the native resolution of the ps3 retail version of Crysis 2? Is it because of the low resolution that the crosshair and the button icons on the ps3 version look stretched? Come on giving us a taste of the full analysis won’t hurt
It runs 1080p on ps3
Not being rude, just telling trolls to shove it up their ass.
People come to LoT to get the facts, not the fanboy BS , go to N4G or Gamefaqs if you want to play with the kids.
I agree with you, but the more I read, I think that the facts get skewed a bit in favor of one system in particular.
I personally own all 3 next-gen consoles, and I buy games based a lot on what I read here on LOT (hence, I bought Bayonetta for the 360), and as far as Crysis goes, I’d rather have in on the PC anyway.
but I feel that when a system’s game review is shredded based on screen tearing all the time (PS3), the same should be true when the 360 is the one with the bad screen tearing. Yet instead, we find “other” reasons to just hate on the PS3 version. I just think that things aren’t as unbiased as they should be.
“If vsync was turned off it would have a higher framerate than the 360 version”
I’d like some of what you’re drinking monkeyspoonhead lol.
There’s some real classic excuses being thrown out here by the ps3 crybabies.
We’ve had the ‘the lighting effects look far better on ps3′(wrong).
We’ve had ‘ign reviewed an unfinished version’(despite the dude still saying he prefered it on 360)
Other websites have confirmed they prefer the 360 version.
I’m telling ya, if the ps3 dropped to 1 fps in hectic fights you deluded ps3 fanboys would still make excuses about preferring the ps3 version.
I’ve never known such a bunch of whinging petition signing crybabies in all my life lol.
It makes perfect sense to say that if the PS3 never had triple bufffering/v-sync on then the frames per second would increase, after all it being their is taking up system resources.
The reason that its been implemented is probably because without it the screen tearing hits unacceptable levels, who knows. the architechure off both systems is vastly different so its no surprise different techniques have bee used to get parity.
Anyways i dont know why im trying to give you a sensible reply, its likely to fall on deaf ears to a 360 fanatic like yourself.
I mean i know your smarting from the fact that the PS3 version matches up to the 360 version, its kind off surprised everyone but really are you smarting that bad, its not the end off the world mate, its really not
android you need to smoke a joint
trust me it will relax you
The 360′s 1.9% screen tearing doesn’t seem to be noticeable at all to me judging from the video. The large fps drops in firefights and chaotic scenes on the PS3 are unfortunately.
I hate bad tearing more than bad fps but if tearing isn’t perceptible like the framedrops on PS3 are, then it’s a no brainer for me.
Also it’d be interesting to know if the triple buffered vsyncing on PS3 effects controller input response because I’ve never seen it implemented without that problem?
Uncharted 2 uses Triple Buffering.
Vanquish as a multiplat game use Triple buffering on PS3 without controller lag problems.
Smarting you say?
I’m loving this thread and all the delusion that comes with it from the ps3 fanboys.
I just wish they’d hurry up do the proper head to head so the ps3 fanboys can finally see the light lol.
7:49pm shit android you better get to bed its a school night mummy will not be pleased. Dont cry yourself to sleep little boy your xbox still loves you.
Android123 how do you even manage to turn a console on, let a lone get on the internet.
We will probably never know.
Lol my fart sounded like yoshi
Judging by the video, I don’t see the same lighting differences that were shown in the earlier retail screenshots. Especially when you first open that door to outside.
What’s the deal with that?
Hey justspaztik.
I had to double check the video again.
I see what happened. If you download the megaupload video found on the Crysis 2 Frame Rate Analysis. If you go to frame 135 and slightly skip ahead you can see it. (I used the QuickTime player) Looks like the deferred rendering pass occurs a few frames earlier on the PS3. I know it’s a small difference and that’s why a full in-dept analysis of these high profile games are so important. Pictures just aren’t enough.
Anyhow, I hope this clears up any concerns you may have had and enjoy the game, I know I am
Triple Butt Buffer ANALysis
hhahaha SushiBallz, that’s amazing!
Where’s the face off Jamie ??
I replayed the beginning three times, and the placement of the sun differed each time I walked out that door, which also changed the overall lighting. I supposed it has to do with how much time you spent in the building, or maybe it’s random, who knows.
All these crysis 2 articles are teasing my noodle man!! Can’t wait for the full comparison
Dude change your avatar man, it’s gross…
and yours is unoriginal
lol, heres the one i made for the neo-geo forums: http://s815.photobucket.com/albums/zz77/bagofwetmice/
I didn’t mean anything bad I just feel sick everytime I see your avatar. Come on it’s ewww. All the other ones are nice.
And btw that’s Kip Drordy, you don’t like Kip Drordy?
crap, thats the wrong link.. but u can see my other goofy drawings like “Gnome Front” there
If it’s a character that’s appeared any time after the 10th season I don’t really give a brown booty loaf
Sushiballz picture fits his personality. Look at some of his past comments and i think you might change your mind lol.
PS3 up scaling 1080P!!!
What is the native resolution of the systems?
Both Xbox and Xbox 360 are more prone to games with screen tearing because devs on both MS-platforms seem(ed) to be favoring the “Performance over Image Quality” implementation. On PS3, although some games have more tearing, we see more multiplatform releases opting for vsync at the price of framerate. Vsync 30fps or 60fps should be a standard really, and the fact that people clearly accept screen tearing as being part of the “higher performance” on some Xbox (360)-games is due to a review community which has become numb to technical issues and is paradoxal at the least: performance in not only a measure of frames per second but also about maintaining image consistency. It’s a good reviewer’s task -imho- to point out these two performance parameters when talking about which version is “better”.
Justspaztik, yeah uncharted 2 had triple buffering and that’s probably one of the reasons why the controls felt so loose and floaty when running around climbing over things.
Ps3 fanboys probably didn’t notice it because they’re not used to tight responsive controls on games like gears of war lol.
Uncharted 2 had some kind of controller lag feedback.
And just a point about screen tearing on the 360 crysis2.
If the tearing is only as bad as the clip comparison video shows then you won’t even be able to spot such tiny amounts unless you have bionic eyesight(in both eyes lol).
Framerate is king in crysis2 just as it was on the pc original all those years ago when hacks and stuff came out to get some extra fps out the game.
The 360 version has gone about things the right way here.
360 wins the battle of the consoles unless LOT gives the loading test a ps3 win just so it can get an undeserved draw out the proper head to head lol.
are you a game developer?
No, more like a moron. They are worlds apart.
Even the xbox cotroller has more lag than a ps3 contoller.
Gears of War or Gears of Lag?
Dear Lens of Truth Staff, I have a question for you!
IGN claims Crysis 2 on PS3 runs in lower resolution, is that true or are they trying to coat another multiplat’s PS3 side with their shit?
I have seen many say it runs in 1024×720, but if that is the actual case i don’t know.
Both game run Sub HD, at that point who cares.
To LOT : Have you planed to make an specific analyse to compare each systems running the game with his 3D features ?
Thank a “lot” (^^) for your great job !
Regards.
Okay, now I can definitely say that I’m happy that I purchased the 360 version. The FPS is more stable. It’s as simple as that.
Yes the analysis shows minimal screen tearing for the 360 but that is the keyword here folks: MINIMAL
360: better frame rate; minimal screen tearing (that you will not notice)
ps3: less stable frame rate (which you will notice more); no screen tearing
You tell me which packaged deal you would take?
It’s simple really: The 360.
Also for those of you making excuses about well if the triple buffer wasn’t there the frame rate would be better. I mean we’re talking about what we have NOW in the final products. To talk about “what-ifs” is a little pointless.
Also did it ever occur to you that if the ps3 made that sacrifice that the screen tearing would reach abysmal levels. These are the compromises that need to be made in the ps3 hardware especially for a high tech game like this. Sorry.
You say that the PS3 had to make a “sacrifice” and have triple buffering otherwise the screen tearing would reach “abysmal” levels. That may be true we’ll never know but how do you know the 360 never had to make a similar “sacrifice”
It could well be that crytek tried to v-sync the 360 version but doing so made the frame rate “abysmal”
We’re talking about 2.5 frames against 2% screen tearing they effectively cancel each other out. you wont notice 2% percent screen tearin but neither will you notice a difference of 2.5 frames……….unless the game drops into low single figures of fps, which it doesnt and if it did you would most certainly notice the screen tearing.
Its a tie and personal preference…….enjoy your game
@pantherjag:
“It could well be that crytek tried to v-sync the 360 version but doing so made the frame rate “abysmal””
But that statement makes little sense and is pointless since the 360 already has an acceptable framerate with unnoticeable screen tearing. What I’m saying is that the 360 already has a good deal/package (at least by console standards of a game of this magnitude).
Its hardly pointless, If they could cut out screen tearing completely then they would do so as long as the frame rate remained acceptable.
I agree that the current config is acceptable too, i also think the config on PS3 is equally acceptable.
There seem to be some doubt from users creeping into the validity of the LOT comparision in this thread due to most other gaming sites giving the edge in graphics to the 360.
Have a read of this quote from a guy who reviewed crysis 2 for a top swedish magazine, its been translated by bing but its perfectly clear.
“”When I during my week at the home of Crytek (Frankfurt) tested the Playstation 3 – and the Xbox 360 version to each other, the latter felt a little bit more polished. The lighting effects were a bit better looking, the graphics a little sharper and a little bit better fluency. So I wrote in my review, although the differences were small, so I mentioned them. Tomorrow is released Crysis 2 in Sweden and I have this morning, sat and compared the two store versions (PS3 and Xbox 360) and now realize that Crytek must have done some kind of hasty (and very effective) final polishing of the versions I tested in Frankfurt. For Crysis 2 for PlayStation 3 is just as nice as it is the Xbox 360. There exists a certain difference in the resolution, which is not noticeable / visible. Equivalent versions, in other words. And I must correct myself in my review as promptly.”"
From what i can gather the vast majority of PS3 reviews have been based from people who played the game at media events like this gut. Gamestop themselves have written that crytek only sent out 360 copies and despite numerous requests for a PS3 copy they never got one……..now considering gamestop are the 2nd biggest gaming website in the world and couldnt get a PS3 copy i doubt anyone else could.
Lens of truth have based all these comparisions on retail copies(friends in right places i guess) and its clear to see from these comparisions that the comments made by the swedish reviewer ring true…..The games look identical.
Whilst reviewers where writing up their articles and critising the PS3 version the guys at Crytek were still putting the finishing touches to the retail build.
It should also be noted that the PS3 version has an update available on boot up which i believe only went live on the 22nd, no details as to what that contained and it could be the same on 360 im not sure.
Just wanted to make people aware of this information
minor differences really, but differences nonetheless, with 360 being sharper looking overall, but kinda ugly at times as ps3 has better texture filtering.
frame rates overall better on 360, but better on ps3 in chaotic fights(surely better time to be stable ??)
The IGN reviewer seems to clearly state he reviiwed the retail PS3 version.
http://www.ign.com/blogs/arthur-ign/2011/03/22/how-i-reviewed-crysis-2
I received a retail copy of the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2 from EA last Friday, on March 18th, which I played through primarily on my home theater setup. I received a PS3 retail copy of Crysis 2, also from EA, on Monday, March 21st. I’ve played about half of the PS3 version of the game, enough to get a feel for the games overall look and performance given my completion of the game twice on Xbox 360.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 versions received the same overall score. I often hesitate to discuss minor technical differences between platforms in my reviews, because a) they usually don’t hurt the game and b) I don’t want to deal with the people accusing me of fanboyism one way or the other. However, a number of our readers own more than one console, and there are times when I think it would do them a disservice to sugarcoat the situation. This is one of those cases. Crysis 2 looks great on PS3, but it has some problems that aren’t as severe on the 360 version of the game. The 360 offers the smoother, better looking experience…
Android123, I really can’t understand how you can’t notice how much your comments are pointless: don’t you see you’re the only one to deserve very poor-ratings EVERY time you post? Doesn’t this sound a bell in your head? Maybe you should listen to this bell: it’s telling you “whooops, maybe I’m too much on one side, maybe I’m not commenting prejudice-free”.
Try to read up a bunch of your comments: there’s no single time you commented in favour of PS3. Never. Is it possible in your opinion? Don’t you think this goes against the large numbers law? The truth is: you call the others fanboys, when you are exactly the DEFINITION of fanboy.
Seriously, do us but especially yourself a favour: stop posting your paranoia.
they sould call him héméroides insted of android is missing some memory cache in his heagd this héméroide he s so blind those two games are tie one has better résolution and tree or four frames higher and ps3 has so no screen tearing has better water effects and from what we v e heard from digital foundry when the action become intense the ps3 version did better so for me lens s gonna call this game at the end a tie game l m pretty sure of that both game look good and the résolution is so miniminal this time than you cannot notice the différence on the screen shots but you can see the tear frame on the top of the 360 version so its your call for every one stop bashing each versions both are good
I just wish people would license the CryEngine. I’m pretty tired of looking at Unreal Engine games.
And i think that with Crysis 2, they have proven that they can make good looking and well running games on both consoles with it.
Digital Foundry have given the nod to 360 version in their H2H but not by much. Also they say both have pro’s and con’s against one another. The biggest difference is resolution. 360 is full on 720p @ 1280 x 720, PS3 is 25% less at 1024 x 720 but due to all the post processing effects and texture filtering etc it’s not that noticable. I’ve always said resolution is not the be all end all, Alan Wake is only 540p I think but it looks better than most 720p games I come across on either console.
sorry to be pedantic, but just thought id add a few things to what u said
Its actually a 1024x720p, however its upscaled via rsx to 720p.
Ps3 has higher texture filtering
They also gave nod to ps3 3d over 360′s.
Bizarrely the frame rate is also more stable on 360 overall, but in combat drops more than ps3′s does, which maintains higher frame rates in combat.
That post processing also seems to make certain images and textures less ugly too at times, and aa seems slightly better too
its a very slight nod indeed to 360 imo
Bla bla bla…dude. Don’t be a fanboy, it’s a freaking tie.
And yes, xbox runs at 1280×720 not 1024x720p.
thats what u said, its the ps3 version thats upscaled, so i wasnt being a fan boy
Df’s analisis may not be completely accurate as i heard that the xbox version is only 1152×720. “According to B3D pixel counters the 360 version is 1152*720, even the dev said that in an interview”. so only a 12.5% increase also DF has said in more hetic scenes xbox’s frame rate drops lower than ps3 which would deminish response.
Yeah neither is a clear winner.
Nothing like what IGN made it out to be.
I hope this is a lesson to all to stick to the experts for comparisons. That is Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry.
I was surprised to see the 360 as full on 720p as before DF said it as 1152 x 720 and then hardware upscaled and it seems like this is in fact the case. So it’s actually a 12.5% increase.
Why do people think anal wake looks good!? The game looked like crap.
I’ll take this lines from Digital Foundry
“The increased performance and resolution indicates that the Xbox 360 is the preferred platform for Crysis 2, but in the heat of actual gameplay, this difference appears to evaporate.”
and
“The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it’s actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better.”
But they also said: “we do see an advantage to the Microsoft console” Talking about fps.
And :”we do see the odd tear at the very top of the screen on the Xbox 360 version, but this is basically invisible during gameplay.”
Seems like it’s a visual tie…may they should have used less res in Xbox, too.
I’m just saying…
Geeze…i can’t quote the whole article…hghgahgahjah…
it’s a fraking tie…
From DF:
“The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it’s actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better.”
Don’t be deshonest…there’s a lot in Digital foundry’s article. Don’t choose what you like to believe…
Yeah but Xbox screen tore… yeahhhhh that’s called a performance issue!
PS3 = 1024×720 = ZERO screen tearing!
Xbox 360 = 1280×720 = LOTS of screen tearing!
= DF FAIL!
It didn’t tear too much though, and you won’t notice it when you’re moving through the game.
It’s a very fast paced game and you think on your feet a lot, 1.9% screen tearing will go primarily unnoticed unless you’re deliberately attempting to point up such trivial matters while playing.
The same applies to the PS3 as well, the frame difference is not bad at all. It’s easily playable. It’s a win for both consoles, glad everyone gets to enjoy it.
According to LoT the tearing accounts for less then 2% and it’s at the top of the screen, I wouldn’t call that lots of tearing. Taking everything into account such as 3D and sound where the PS3 commands a lead, it’s probably a tie and really is a case of pick your poison.
360 version has a slight edge in frame rate. The gameplay on both games are closer with frame rate drops while the movie scenes on the 360 play much better. However, watching a movie at 20+fps there’s no noticeable change.
So while the PS3 version has slightly lower frame rate, the experience should be exactly the same. Just another fps.
All Playstation 3 Owners
With being extremely picky person in term of resolution and sound in any games.
I can tell you to go and get the game, and even enjoy the game at 1080p,
Oh My God The game looks amazing!
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/374/img2011032400029.jpg