TC you're an idiot... This was shown on a PC as final PS4 dev kits are not in the hands of the developers yet..

So come back to gloat when 

1. It's actually running on PS4

2. When and if it still looks like that

I love it when console pessants claim ownage for games that were more then likely demo'd on PC's in the first place...

Of course it'll do fine because the world has a sub-species of man called idiots that will still buy it...

Someone add the dog from the new COD into the GIF too :lol:

All that PS4 has it's PSU internally.... One has a power brick...... EPIC FAIL there microsoft.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

[QUOTE="GulliversTravel"]Ive always wondered, just how well optimised is Crysis 1 because even today running the game on Max is struggle on high-end systems. 

blues35301

Not sure if serious....

Here's my system running Crysis...

This is with 8xMSAA+8xTrSAA+MLAA

The first game can only use 2 CPU cores and as result is very CPU intensive and requires a very fast CPU to run it smoothly... You NEED an overclock Intel CPU to play it at it's best.... For those wondering my GPU is a 7950 with a mile overclock with a 4.6Ghz 2500k.

You have a slow GPU and a mega crap CPU... that's why you're having problems... if you want to play Crysis as smooth as possible you need a CPU with a high clock and a high instructions per clock....

That Phenom 2 of yours is no faster then a Core 2 Quad.

I can run the Harbor benchmark ( The benchmark of GAMEPLAY ) and still get an average 60fps with a minimum of 45fps with 8xMSAA+8xTrSAA+MLAA enabled

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]While I agree, let's not throw Crysis out of proportion here. Making bullshots on custom levels is not exactly how the game looked in real time. In fact most of those custom levels were built just to show how far you could push that engine on the hardware. Unfortunately Crysis is optimized just enough. Even with a massive rig today keeping over 60 fps is kind of a struggle. The engine isn't optimized that well. 

It took them until 2009 to get the engine more optimized and stable and really until just this year with Crysis 3 to fully utilize DX11 and all of its glory. This new engine for CoD isn't really that far behind if you look at the bigger picture.

That said, it's clear that they are not focusing top-end PC hardware with this engine too. I didn't see a lot in the way of physics, destruction, post processing effects, or anything. I saw something that was a noticeable increase over CoD but will run at 60fps no problem on the console hardware. They aren't making an engine like the Unreal 4, CryEngine 3 or Frostbite 3 engine which is meant to scale up and up as time goes by. This is an engine that looks like it's built with optimization and ease of game development in mind. Different strategy than those other engines.GulliversTravel

Not sure if serious....

Here's my system running Crysis...

This is with 8xMSAA+8xTrSAA+MLAA

The first game can only use 2 CPU cores and as result is very CPU intensive and requires a very fast CPU to run it smoothly... You NEED an overclock Intel CPU to play it at it's best.... For those wondering my GPU is a 7950 with a mile overclock with a 4.6Ghz 2500k.

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

lol at their next gen engine

Crysis (2007)

 

Wasdie

That's super sampled to hell and back. Aka bullshots. The CryEngine's AA was total crap and you know it. 

This is what it looked like with mods in-game...

Crysis had scale and a lot of objects with some pretty advanced lighting, for 2007. Today it really fails on the small details, lighting, post processing, and AA.

Crysis has perfect AA on my machine :roll: