View Full Version : Underworld v Crysis graphics
Everyone uses crysis as the benchmark standard for gaming graphics. I'm curious since I haven't played crysis or warhead, how does tomb raider underworld graphics compare? To me, at 1920x1080 and everything on, underworld looks stunning, lots of details, great lighting, shadows, moving tree branches, moving clouds, birds, leaves, etc. Would I be blown away by crysis after playing underworld?
Yes, you will. Try it yourself on max settings :)
Underworld wasn´t exactly state of the art in the graphics department when it originaly came out and Crysis engine is definitely much more powerful and evolved.
I don't think you can even compare, from what I've seen Crysis is on a completely diferent standard. As a PC only player, I'm thinking of buying it just to support the principle of developing state of the art games for the PC :D
Wow, so crysis really is worth checking out then. I didn't think underworld could be improved on so significantly but I'm way off :p
I'll download a demo of it and see how my rig handles it. My spec is:
CPU:AMD Phenom 550BE@3.1Ghz
GPU: Ati 4870 1GB
2 x 2GB DDR2 ram
23" LG monitor 1920x1080
Windows7 x64
Would I be able to turn up settings in crysis, or crysis warhead, reasonably high? Everything is maxed in underworld but obviously I know I won't be able to in crysis.
^ You're able to run Crysis/Warhead on highest settings.
^ You're able to run Crysis/Warhead on highest settings.
Really? That's good to know. I've currently got a 1.8GB crysis demo downloading.
I know my system is pretty good as I built it recently with gaming in mind.
But, I kinda thought from what people say about crysis, that anything short of an overclocked quad core, 8GB ram and crossfire/Sli graphics would mean playing it in low to medium settings. I'm certainly looking forward to checking it out. I use fraps to check framerates. What would be a good framerate to hope for with high or fairly high settings?
Actually anything higher than 30FPS is not noticable by human eye and can be used just for benshmarking of the system in general. If you're interested you can use some application that shows current FPS. Crysis itself has a command line option to show debug info :)
trust me... there are tons and tons of games that have better graphics than underworld.
uncharted 2 bieng one of them (which i my opinion has the best graphics for consoles)
also... think:
TRL is to TR1, as Crysis is to TRU
or even better
TR1<TRU<<<<<<CRYSIS
Really? That's good to know. I've currently got a 1.8GB crysis demo downloading.
I know my system is pretty good as I built it recently with gaming in mind.
But, I kinda thought from what people say about crysis, that anything short of an overclocked quad core, 8GB ram and crossfire/Sli graphics would mean playing it in low to medium settings. I'm certainly looking forward to checking it out. I use fraps to check framerates. What would be a good framerate to hope for with high or fairly high settings?
i have only AMD 64X2 500 with 8800gt and i can play on high/Very high :) (but sometimes medium, but mainly high)
(oh ****, double post, sorry, how do i merge to posts together?? ?? )
trust me... there are tons and tons of games that have better graphics than underworld.
uncharted 2 bieng one of them (which i my opinion has the best graphics for consoles)
also... think:
TRL is to TR1, as Crysis is to TRU
or even better
TR1<TRU<<<<<<CRYSIS
:vlol: So true!
Would I be blown away by crysis after playing underworld?
As others have said, Crysis is in a whole different league in terms of graphics. You definitely be blown if you play it at 'very high' settings. Gameplay-wise, Crysis is terribly generic (excluding one brief level)... even for a FPS, imo.
^ You're able to run Crysis/Warhead on highest settings.
At a poor framerate, though. When I played Crysis on a 1 gig 4870 at stock in a rig similar to Roman5's, I was hitting the mid 20's with DX10 very high settings. This was at 1680x1050, 4xAA and an AF value that I don't recall.
Actually anything higher than 30FPS is not noticable by human eye and can be used just for benshmarking of the system in general.
This is not true. What is noticeable varies by the person, and it also varies by what's being displayed on the screen (fast moving objects with or without motion blur, bright objects moving on a dark back ground, etc.).
At a poor framerate, though. When I played Crysis on a 1 gig 4870 at stock in a rig similar to Roman5's, I was hitting the mid 20's with DX10 very high settings. This was at 1680x1050, 4xAA and an AF value that I don't recall.
This is not true. What is noticeable varies by the person, and it also varies by what's being displayed on the screen (fast moving objects with or without motion blur, bright objects moving on a dark back ground, etc.).
I guess time to clean some (if gently speaking) resident crap from your PC :mis: Oh, yeah, DX10 = Vista... Try Warhead under DX9.0c Win2003 Server on Very High and see the difference :p
What you have listed is affected by matrix latency, not framerate, unless FR is lower than 30-26 FPS. If you can see the deifference between let's say 30 and 60 FPS with bare eye while gaming, tell us what planet you are from. :wve:
I guess time to clean some (if gently speaking) resident crap from your PC :mis: Oh, yeah, DX10 = Vista... Try Warhead under DX9.0c Win2003 Server on Very High and see the difference :p
No crap was on my PC (aside from Crysis and Vista itself) back then. I know that Warhead is more optimized than Crysis and runs faster.
What you have listed is affected by matrix latency, not framerate, unless FR is lower than 30-26 FPS. If you can see the deifference between let's say 30 and 60 FPS with bare eye while gaming, tell us what planet you are from. :wve:
I have no clue what matrix latency is.
But for those examples I cited. At a given frame rate, with no motion blur, moving objects may stutter depending on how fast they are moving across the screen. With 24 FPS film, there's a ton of motion blur, thus no stutter. With high contrast images (i.e. really bright object on a dark background) at certain framerates, the current frame (say frame# 0) your eyes see can have a residual effect on the next frame (frame# 1) ... so if that bight object disappears on frame #1, and reappears on frame #2, you may not notice it disappeared.
Here is extreme example. Say if you had a video running at 30 fps where every odd frame was completely white, and every even frame was completely black. Then you had another video running at 60 fps with the same content of alternating black white frames. Most people would be able to see a difference between the two videos (the amount of 'flicker'). The only way the 60 fps video could be seen as the same as the 30 fps video is if the 60 fps held each black and white image for 2 frames.
This principle also applies with objects moving on screen. Instead of flickering... it's about stuttering.
As for what planet I'm from... I'm from one where we tend to base things on facts. :p
Link from a simple google search: http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_2.html
If you have access to JSTOR or similar digital archives of peer-reviewed journal articles, I can give you the titles of better articles on the subject.
Some people can't perceive the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS... which is fine. Just like some can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at the same viewing distance and screen size.
I can clearly see a difference between 30fps and 60fps, especially in a fast paced first person shooter. Anything past 60fps however is imperceptible to me.
That being said, 30fps is completely acceptable in my opinion. Not everybody can distinguish a difference.
Isn't it an illusion thing? Like, when we look at image projected at 60fps, our vision still only responds to some 30 frames in a given second, while the rest is just percieved as sort of a 'blur' that gives the illusion of movement appearing more fluid?
Isn't it an illusion thing? Like, when we look at image projected at 60fps, our vision still only responds to some 30 frames in a given second, while the rest is just percieved as sort of a 'blur' that gives the illusion of movement appearing more fluid?
That's one theory. But even if it were truth, it still means that one can perceive a difference between 30 and 60.
^ But you won't still argue most won't give a damn while playing action game ;)
^ But you won't still argue most won't give a damn while playing action game ;)
You're right. In fact that's what I meant by: ...
30fps is completely acceptable in my opinion. Not everybody can distinguish a difference.
:mis:
xXhayleyroxXx
16-11-09, 23:09
trust me... there are tons and tons of games that have better graphics than underworld.
uncharted 2 bieng one of them (which i my opinion has the best graphics for consoles)
also... think:
TRL is to TR1, as Crysis is to TRU
or even better
TR1<TRU<<<<<<CRYSIS
sorry i have to disagree with you, i played uncharted demo the other day to see what all the hype was about and well... i was disapointed
yeah the graphics r ok but it blurs when you rotate the camera so visually its not better
I tried out the demo. Probably overly ambitious, but I set the game res to 1920x1080. Everything was on HIGH, as chosen by the game optimiser, not me. Although the res was set to 1024 before I changed it.
Very smooth, no lag, no jerkiness, though there is motion blur when sweeping the mouse left and right. However, typing r_displayinfo 1 into the console, it shows pretty low framerate. Standing in one area showed 30fps, but as soon as I started moving it dropped considerably below that, down to 20 and often lower. Considering how good it looks and how smooth (I was expecting a slideshow), it surprised me the framerate isn't higher. So it's very playable right now. Anyway, what would be best to get nearer to 30fps? Take down the res first? Or leave the res and take down some of the settings that are on high? Putting 2 x AA on or leaving it off didn't make a whole lot of difference to framerate.
Dropping the resolution will net the best performance increase.
And the blur; are you talking about Motion Blur? If so, that's a feature, not a flaw.
Dropping the resolution will net the best performance increase.
And the blur; are you talking about Motion Blur? If so, that's a feature, not a flaw.
Yeah, I just tried different resolutions since posting. I noticed the the motion blur even at 1024 res. Thing is, after 1920x1080, everything else looks ****, lol. At 1024 res, I was hitting 45fps at some points, but it's not worth crap as it looks rubbish. At 1680x1050 there's a marginal increase in framerate and it doesn't look too bad, but you still lose that crispness.
Edit 1: Hey, I read something about dx9 running the game better than dx10, is that true? Would it give me better framerate and how would I get it use dx9?
Edit 2: Woah, all of a sudden, I'm now getting much higher framerate between 30 and 40fps, going no lower than about 27fps when it gets busy. Yesterday I was getting 15 to 20fps. Time demo yesterday average fps was 21, today it's 36! I'm still on 1920x1080 and high settings. I don't get it. I decided to see what would happen if I tried very high settings. Still playable but with obvious fps drop. Then I put everything medium settings, fps went up. Then I put it back to high settings, and that's when I found my framerate was higher than it was last night. Maybe I cleared something?
Yesterday:
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 96.94s, Average FPS: 20.63
Min FPS: 16.56 at frame 1960, Max FPS: 23.74 at frame 989
Average Tri/Sec: -16937024, Tri/Frame: -820950
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.12
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 93.88s, Average FPS: 21.30
Min FPS: 16.56 at frame 1960, Max FPS: 23.99 at frame 1016
Average Tri/Sec: -17246738, Tri/Frame: -809527
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.13
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 93.85s, Average FPS: 21.31
Min FPS: 16.56 at frame 1960, Max FPS: 24.34 at frame 1012
Average Tri/Sec: -17252098, Tri/Frame: -809589
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.13
================================================== ============
Today:
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 59.71s, Average FPS: 33.50
Min FPS: 23.88 at frame 1943, Max FPS: 41.78 at frame 926
Average Tri/Sec: -28261136, Tri/Frame: -843683
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.09
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 55.71s, Average FPS: 35.90
Min FPS: 23.88 at frame 1943, Max FPS: 43.63 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -29875620, Tri/Frame: -832124
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.10
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 55.44s, Average FPS: 36.08
Min FPS: 23.88 at frame 1943, Max FPS: 43.63 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -30002822, Tri/Frame: -831628
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.10
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 55.49s, Average FPS: 36.04
Min FPS: 23.88 at frame 1943, Max FPS: 43.63 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -30009468, Tri/Frame: -832560
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.10
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
=============================================
Hi Roman, I just wanted to let you know that it is common courtesy and part of the forum rules to edit your last post in the thread in stead of "double posting". Having two or more replies in the thread from yourself right after one another without a reply from another member in between. This is what the edit button is for. :)
Hi Roman, I just wanted to let you know that it is common courtesy and part of the forum rules to edit your last post in the thread in stead of "double posting". Having two or more replies in the thread from yourself right after one another without a reply from another member in between. This is what the edit button is for. :)
Sorry about that. I've merged my posts. Can you delete the last two of mine? Cheers.
Generally 60 fps is the target you want to reach for the best looking game performance. Anything higher than that is bonus.
sorry i have to disagree with you, i played uncharted demo the other day to see what all the hype was about and well... i was disapointed
yeah the graphics r ok but it blurs when you rotate the camera so visually its not better
i am talking about uncharted 2, not uncharted? :confused:,
and i dont have the demo, i have the full game, and played it through (admiring every view along the way) (on HDTV :p ;)),
so therefore i dont think your opinion is relevent seeming as:
a) we are not even reffering to the same game (huge difference from uncharted to uncharted 2),
b) you have only played the demo (of uncharted, you said)
c) even the demo of uncharted 2 is a beta online multiplayer that is not from the actual single player game, just some of the maps. Therefore, the retail game is head over heals better then the beta demo.
:)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.