CryEngine On PS4 Yields Same Results As Xbox One, Crytek Explains Why 30fps Is Here To Stay

Sean Tracy of Crytek talks in detail about exploiting the power of the PS4 and Xbox One.

Posted By | On 13th, May. 2014 Under News


1374230689-ryse-cinematic-2

While we often debate about the power differences between both the Xbox One and PS4, there’s still so much we don’t know about either console. How does a game like Ryse: Son of Rome look so good on the Xbox One despite not being in 1080p? How is it that most PS4 games are capable of outputting to the PS4 at 1080p without much issue (granted, there are issues with frame rates and such but still)? Neither console is perfect and having released just six months ago, it’s still any one’s ball game when it comes to which platform is suited to 1080p/60 FPS.

GamingBolt spoke to Crytek’s US Engine Business Development Manager Sean Tracy about how long it would be before developers would properly exploit the power of the Xbox One and PS4, especially when it comes to CryEngine.

He stated that, “CryEngine has classically been designed at a 30FPS target. Keep in mind that running at 60FPS means you have to fit your whole game, renderer and all into only 16ms vs 33ms for 30FPS!

“Just to give you an idea of what this means practically is that the renderer for Crysis 3 alone required a bit more than 16ms which doesn’t include everything else going that’s happening in the game.

“Albeit, you can surely achieve 60 FPS with the CryEngine but I can’t say for a certainty that you could retain the amount of scene complexity that games like Ryse and Crysis currently have.

“As we fight to squeeze every millisecond out from the next gen consoles we usually don’t see a huge value sacrificing 50% of our computational time per frame at least for the types of high fidelity realistic scenes that we include in our games. We leverage every bit of computational time we can get so that we can deliver this directly to the gamer through unrivaled visuals.”

A few days ago we detailed how CryEngine is utilizing the Xbox One’s eSRAM to yield better results but what will be the performance be like on the PS4. Furthermore what are Crytek’s opinions on the differences between either console’s GPU, especially as some developers have talked about the same? “Again it’s a bit difficult to speak in terms of a comparison between the two platforms as Ryse was never run on a PS4. We have found though that testing the CryEngine on PS4 yields similar results.”

What are your thoughts on the same? Let us know in the comments.

This is just a snippet of our interview with Crytek and we will have more in the coming days.


Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Convergence87

    crytek suck as game developers and while their games look good they are very poorly coded

    • dsswoosh

      Wrong.

    • Guest

      Wrong.

    • Guest

      Right.

    • chrisredfield31

      correct

  • Corey

    BF3 was 30fps….and it’s probably my favorite game I’ve ever played. Other than Halo. 60fps is over-rated. It does feel nice with aiming and such. But I’d rather have a good immersive game than a little bit better handling.

    • maybe

      It definitely works to have some games at 30 fps but i feel games like battlefield should run at 60 fps. They are getting pretty fast paced so it helps and makes it more responsive.

      but then games that revolve around single player gameplay like watchdogs I welcome 30 fps to make the game look nicer.

    • Corey

      I thought the same. But Battlefield 3 worked absolutely fine and was still fast paced, etc. I can definitely tell the difference between BF3 and BF4 in terms of aiming and such with the 60fps…..but it’s really easy to adapt to. I’ll take BF5 at 30fps with all kinds of awesome weather effects and destruction over 60fps with less effects any day.

    • maybe

      I agree, and I would accept bf5 with open arms if it had all of the above along with destruction like Bad Company (really want BC3. Starting to miss it), and if it wasn’t broken…

  • brianc6234

    CryEngine must be mediocre if the PS4 version is as bad as the Xbone version. Everyone else can push the PS4 a lot further. They must be holding back to mae Microsoft look better.

    • T_Brumak

      The cry is free !!! Xbox has better games !!!

    • ps4lol

      Ryse is a pretty awful “game”.

    • scotmacb

      No he just told you they are so close in power hopefully they unlock the 10% power from kinect then they have dx12 coming good chance it will beat the ps4

    • ps4lol

      No

    • Cassive

      LMAO I’m cracking up

    • ps4lol

      Still no.

    • Shamma Lammadingdong

      Even with the 10% the PS4 has more powerful hardware when you look at the components. The XB1 will never beat the PS4 in terms of performance potential. However, it’s up to the developers to learn how to tweak and utilize the hardware to produce visually stunning and well performing games. Look at what developers are managing to do with the 360 as opposed to when it first came out. It will take time but both systems should have solid gaming experiences on their resume in the future.

    • Psionicinversion

      PS4 has more power than X1 for cryengine but cryengine visually can be extremely demanding and neither console has enough power.for it

    • Guest

      True, but tell scotmoronmacb that. He’s the ret*rd who doesnt get it. Or you just another one of them “morons”? And funny name, Shamma Lammadingdong

    • chrisredfield31

      Crappy CryEngine is not optimized and hasn’t been for any platform, even PC, ESPECIALLY PC.

    • SonyElitistGod

      How would you know are you a ps4 dev and can state that 4 fact?

    • Psionicinversion

      all you have to do is look at cryengine 4 screenshots, think the ps4 can render that in realtime in gameplay? nope, but cryengine is more optimised for lower end hardware (according to crytek) but cryengine is a multiplatform engine and wont run as good as a custom built one specifically ps4 or x1 so needs more power… also theyll be competing with PC’s cus multiplats will have PC in and can already see how thats turning out 900p 30

    • Guest

      Who owuld it beat the PS4 when the PS4 is alot more powerful. Here are some facts, I know you xbot clowns dont like hearing the truth, but it dont matter what your stupid opinions are. Facts are facts regardless. I can sit here and argue that 5 is more than 15, but it doesnt make it so.

      PS4: 1.60GHz CPU (though PS4s CPU has been showned to perform better)
      Xbone: 1.75GHz CPU +9.375%

      PS4: 800MHz
      Xbone: 853MHz +6.625%

      PS4: 18CU +50% more
      Xbone: 12CU

      PS4: 1.84TFLOPS +40% more than 1.31TF, +44 more than 1.28TF and +56% more than 1.18TF
      Xbone: 1.31TFLOPS (1.18TF usable)(1.28TF usable once MS gives back 8% from Kinect)

      PS4: 176.0GB/s +258%
      Xbone: 68.3GB/s

      PS4: 1152 Shaders (cores) +50.5%
      Xbone: 768 Shaders (cores)

      PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
      Xbone: 48 Texture units

      PS4: 32 ROPS +100% more
      Xbone: 16 ROPS

      PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%
      Xbone: 2 ACE/16 queues

      PS4: 25.60GPixels/s +88%
      Xbone: 13.65GPixels/s

      PS4: 57.60GTexels/s +40%
      Xbone: 40.90GTexels/s

    • Guest

      Ugh! another xbot moron who obviously is oblivious to the technical facts and instead just wants to believe in his hopes and dreams instead of facts. Have fun with that buddy, you’re going to be in for a letdown.

    • scotmacb

      Have you seen the differences its almost nothing in games lol all this ps4 is so powerful it is but just by a bit onscreen when you see both versions one thing is for certain because of all the stick sony fans have dished out MS will never have the weakest console again thats for sure

    • Guest

      Blah, blah, blah, nonsense. MS went cheap on your a$$ and now you bots are paying for it. Enjoy the next 5+ yrs of losing.

  • ps4lol

    It doesn’t matter that Cryengine is built around 30 fps, so was Unreal Engine 3. If Ryse were brought to PS4 they’d get a more stable framerate and 1080p.

    • Failz

      Except Ryse uses ESram correctly which the PS4 lacks. So expect the same.

  • Dikan45

    I expected 1080/60P AS STANDARD this gen!! I’d rather have paid the £50 or whatever extra to make them powerful enough!!

    • theslu

      There is never going to be a standard, developers always pick and choose how to shape their games on consoles.

      Take PS3 for instance, there is games that are SUB HD such as Resistance 3, there are games like Uncharted which are 720p, there are games like GT5 that are sub 1080p (not that many horisontal lines)
      And there are games that are even full1080p and 120FPS and everything between… but you know both 1080p and 120fps (on ps3) arent going to mount to much eyecandy or even remotely close to AAA gameworlds.

      Ps4 currently only have 1 game as far as I know that isnt 1080p and that is BF4. I think Ps4 is going to be more stable with resolution since x1 is a bit weaker… Hence ports are going to get a boost in resolution and any less than 720p 30fps is stinky garbage and horrid for x1 so chances are that almost every ps4 game in the future is going to be 900p30fps or better.

      A lot of games are 30fps and there are always going to be devs that rather throw more things and shiny bling on screen and Im fine with that as long as it doesnt stutter and lag frequently like a slideshow. a stable 30fps is nothing to cry about imo. the hardware is what it is and developers do what they like.

    • Dikan45

      I know that now, I’m talking about before the new console’s specs were announced!

    • Cinnamon267

      People who expected that don’t know why devs pick specific framerates to begin with.

    • Dikan45

      What’s devs got to do with anything, I’m talking about hardware! Last gen before the new consoles were announced I expected 1080/60p to be the standard this gen!

    • Cinnamon267

      Because, as a developer, you pick specific framerates to work with. Your entire game is made with the rendering budget that comes along with it.

      This came, wouldn’t be the same game if it was made with a 60fps/16ms rendering budget. It would be drastically different.

    • Corey

      I can understand 1080p but 60fps really just isn’t that important. Everyone’s SO obsessed with it…

    • Dikan45

      Really? When I play on my PC at 60+fps then play a console game at 30 it really stands out and takes a while to get used to it again.

  • dsswoosh

    Ryse is the best looking next gen game by a long way tbph.

    Im playing through it now and some of the scenes are mind blowing.

    Better looking than any game on the PS4.

    This shows how powerful the XB1 is and will only get better in the future.

    The PS4 would do well to raise its standards to this level.

    Graphically light years ahead of all other XB1 games.

    • ps4lol

      Yeah Ryse has really good looking pre-rendered CG movie
      cutscenes, gotta hand it to Xbox to be able to play back a lot of
      pre-rendered video, really impressive.

      Infamous is technically superior to Ryse in every way. 1080p, 35 fps average (according to DF), open world, next gen visual effects, cutscenes are mostly realtime, etc.

      If you think a 900p, 25 fps average, QTE corridor brawler with copypasted barbarian enemies and CG movie cutscenes “looks better”, that’s your unfounded opinion.

      PS4 will have better performing games for the entire generation as it has more powerful hardware, you can’t overcome a hardware gap with better drivers/SDKs. Any game running on Xbox One can be run with better framerate/resolution/visual effects on PS4.

      If they’re both running at the same resolution the Xbox version will have lower framerate and/or visual effects, or the PS4 hardware isn’t being pushed.

    • dsswoosh

      A 12 litre more powerful double decker bus is slower than a less powerful 2.0 litre ford.

      I hope i didn’t give you nose bleed from your logic nodes overheating trying to comprehend these things xx

    • ImonadrugcalledCharlieSheen

      Why would anyone get a nose bleed from you babbling nonsense?

    • someguy11111

      yeah it costs more and to make up for the fuel costs you need to fill both bottom and lower decks. whats your point? a 700lb motorcycle is faster than a 2.5 ton car…..although this is comparing two very different things. like cable boxes are used for watching tv and game machines are made for playing games right? duhder

    • ImonadrugcalledCharlieSheen

      Your comment just proves your ignorance and clearly shows you haven’t played infamous which is actually the best looking next gen game. I’ll give it to Ryse for having pretty cut scenes but unfortunately not even that could make up for an otherwise terrible game. If any console needs to raise standards it would be the TV Entertainment Box One, had Ryse been on PS4 it would have actually looked better.

    • Guest

      Man, you just keep getting dumber by the comment. You’re crazy if you think Ryse looks better than Infamous or KZ. And you’re obviously a super fanboy, pathetic really. Stay stupid. And GamingDolt and their pro MS/X1 bullcrap. Thats why you banned all the Sony fanboys but kept all the MS ones.

    • FayZ_

      i’ll agree with him ryse IS the best looking next gen game regardless of it being 900p with 30fps that drops from time to time, but i agree if it was on ps4 it would most likely run at 1080p 30fps locked. i owned both consoles & played killzone as well & visually ryse was still on top to me, but it’s crytek, they are just great at making things look spot on.

    • Guest

      Nope sorry, i dont agree. Both KZ and Infamous look way better to me than Ryse. And Infamous is a great game.

    • Guest

      You are the fanboy obviously cause I have both systems and yea infamous is a way better game than ryse but the graphics in ryse are better all around the only thing that looks better in infamous is the effects. And killzone shadow fall does not look better I could see you thinking infamous looks better but come on killzone looks good and all but ryse looks better and that’s the truth but honestly who cares cause ryse and killzone both sucked, they both looked good but was so boring, and infamous was great at first but the more u play it you realize the map ain’t all that big and there ain’t a lot to do and it gets boring fast, which sucks cause I was pumped to get it on release day only to find out that I could beat it in a day, and was boring after a few hours. Stop saying something’s better just cause you prefer that system, that’s something a child does

    • Guest

      You’re a fanboy too, dont fool yourself. Cuz that just makes you a real fool. When you can fool yourself like that. And while KZ isnt as good as say KZ2, it doesnt suck. Heck, i dont even think Ryse sucks, just not as graphically good as KZ or infamous.

    • dakan45

      Infamous is the best looking next gen game by a long way tbph.

      Im playing through it now and some of the scenes are mind blowing.

      Better looking than any game on the X1.

      This shows how powerful the PS4 is and will only get better in the future.

      The X1 would do well to raise its standards to this level.

      Graphically light years ahead of all other XB1 games.

  • WellWisher

    I seem to run Cryengine just fine at 60fps.

  • GHz

    “How does a game like Ryse: Son of Rome look so good on the Xbox One despite not being in 1080p?”

    Here’s another question. Which would look better? A game running at 1080p on the wii u or a game running 900p on the ps4?

    1080p doesn’t automatically mean a superior looking game. If that was the case COD Ghost which is 1080p on the ps4 would look better than BF4 which is 900p on the ps4, and we all know it don’t.

    • Guest

      True, but it doesnt change the fact that the PS4 is superior to the X1. Here’s another question both systems run at agme at 900/30fps, which is more capable of making the game look better? The same resolution and framerate doesnt automatically mean they will look the same. And we all know that

    • Failz

      In this case the X1 needs more time spent to develop there games to achieve visuals similar to the PS4. Hardware isn’t a factor here. PS4 is 50% faster to develop for which means they can finish there products and spend more time optimising there games leading into 1080p etc. For XB1 companies have been trying to finish there games in time for launch (Forza 5 and DR3). This gen there is going to be no advantage for X1 or PS4. In time when developers start working with ESram and DX12 both XB1 and PS4 games will look the same and will all rely on who makes the better AAA exclusives.

    • Guest

      Ummm, no, 50% faster doesnt mean that it can get the game done faster. It means that its 50% more powerful. As a matter of fact. COD on PS4 is 125% higher res than the X1 ver. and BF4 is 56% higher res with a better framerate than the X1 ver. Thats over 50% right there. And Tomb Raiders being 60fps while 30fps on X1 is 100% more frames not to mention that the X1 version drops in res to 900p to keep its framerate. By the time MS and devs better utilize the eSRAM (which will always be a hinderance), the same devs and Sony will have better utilized the PS4’s architecture. You know, you MS fanboys are very delusional and ignorant of the way tech works. Not to mention gullible. You believe alot of nonsense. But i guess its what you have to do to make yourslef feel better about the X1. In the meanwhile, enjoy your 792p WD.

    • Failz

      Lol your completely wrong. In your logic a V6 will never out perform a V8??? Thief on X1 rans at 900p yet utlises more effects then the PS4 version running at 1080p. The gap is alot closer then your pretend 50% more powerful. Its claimed and fact at 50% faster. You fanboys turned it into 50% more powerful. Cute.

      Id believe Crytek, AMD, INVIDIA AND INTEL over you and the rest of the 12 year old kids.

    • GHz

      Then how do you define superior? Look at the actual games that are out. For instance BF4 for PS4 and XB1. I got the XB1 ver. because it looked slighter better than the PS4 ver. despite it being only 720p compared to PS4s 900p. I like the better textures on the XB1 ver. No pixel counting needed, good old fashion from what the eyes can tell, and then I made my decision. Another example of higher p’s not necessarily means a better picture. Sharper maybe, but not better..and in the case of BF4, the 900p on PS4 didn’t even look sharper than the 720p on the XB1. So what happened there? Forget the pixel counting machines @ eurogamer, let your naked eyes do the analysis.

      Not saying that the PS4 don’t have the muscle because it clearly does when looking at SOME 3rd party multiplats. If you go by the numbers and pixel counting the proof is there. But by how much, if you sometimes need a pixel counter to tell you about something that you normally wouldn’t know about? If that is your definition of superior, you’re welcome to it. I’ll rather stay off that boat.

    • Guest

      The textures are not better on the X1, are you crazy? they are the same exact thing and as a matter of fact the PS4’s textures are higher res than the X1 ver. Hence, better. Dude, you need to stop drinking your own kool aid. You cant just be making up stuff. And the PS4 runs at a higher res, higher res textures and better framerate. Doesnt matter what your opinion is. Its better on the PS4. FACT!

    • GHz

      What’s up derp? now heres the thing. For the very fact that this topic is so much debated upon proves that, depends on how the upscaler in the Xb1 is used, XB1 720p can equal Ps4 900p. Think about it Derp. I’m only a consumer, not no pixel counting technician. I went into my neighborhood gaming store and lo and behold, they have their own comparison going on. A crowd of gaming geeks gathering around and in in discussion.

      The conclusion is w/o the aid of a pixel counter, as far as the eyes can see, BF4 on the XB1 wins anonymously, hands down. No if’s and buts about it. It just look a slight better to the eyes. lighting, clarity, texture quality ect. Now if what you see don’t matter to you because you’re in love with a brand. Like you for instance. You have an unhealthy love for sony? Then you would head on to a site like eurogamer for a total dismantling of the game through a pixel count.

      My question is, if it is so obvious that the PS4 is 50% superior, why do you have to peep through a microscope to see it, ala pixel count. Why does it have to be announced that this game is that p and this game is this p? Why, because in some cases you simply cannot tell with the naked eye. That’s why Euro have a pixel counter. To tell you what you cannot see with your naked eyes, or to point out things you normally wouldn’t notice while playing an intense game like BF4. But what was that Eurogamer was saying about both versions before the pixel count derp? What was their conclusion from just looking at the game with the naked eye? Didn’t they say the XB1 ver. looked better?

      What does that say for the tech in XB1 when games on it running at 720p matches games on PS4 running 900p? What does that say for the tech in XB1 and what does that say for the tech in PS4? Why is 720p on the XB1 can equal 900p on the PS4 derp?

      How do you define power looking at the games on both systems? If you stay away from the propaganda, remove the fanboy goggles, and think for yourself for once, you’d realize the p’s in a game don’t matter, there’s more to it than than that. What I’m saying is, how do you say PS4 is more powerful when 900p on it is hardly distinguishable from 720p on the XB1? Mind you, these games on the XB1 are being created with crippled horrible SDK’s and tools. What will happen when the tools catch up?

  • jeremiah

    I think ryse is beautiful. I own a ps4 and am a devout sony fanboy. But I give the xbone credit where it’s due. Infamous is easily the best looking game on any console. I think ryse looks better than killzone though. But you micro fans just wait for uncharted to come out. You dont have developers quite like ours. Sony ended last gen with the best looking game and that was “The Last of Us” and im sure we will do it do it again.

  • chrisredfield31

    If CryEngine runs the same as Xbox One then that means the PS4 kit is unoptimized. We know that you can get more power out of the PS4. There is no way they are both exactly the same.

    • Failz

      Actually the PS4 has the better optimized dev kits, XB1 is still waiting for there API (DX12)

      I think a lot of people underestimate the XB1.

    • chrisredfield31

      I’m not talking about other development kits. I’m talking about CryEngine.

    • Failz

      If the XB1 was running at its best, (which the PS4 is right now) then there is no difference. You cant argue with Crytek since they are the best in the industry when it comes to visuals.

    • chrisredfield31

      That’s wrong. The PS4 has better hardware that the XB1 cannot overcome no matter what they optimize on the hardware, as the PS4 can also optimize as well. It’ll always be 2nd performance wise.

      #2, Crytek has not yet made a game for the PS4, so at this point, they haven’t even tried optimizing their engine to utilize PS4’s power even though they optimized XB1’s for their eSRAM.


 

Copyright © 2009-2015 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.