That looks bad. I am telling you on my TVs LOD in distance is horrendous.
Post automatically merged:
There is no target frame. I compared settings that allowed me to take screenshots. Cyberpunk 2077 is trash in optimization.
- Status
So you actually don't want to compare these games, it's just about how poorly it runs with your RX 580?
I just did in a manner that is possible for me.
Here is how it run on 1.12 patch:
Q: Why is the comparison not fair?
Both game rasterization.
Both game 1080p. Shadows all low. -Volumetrics low in Cyberpunk 2077(does not influence look much).
Both games AA enabled.
Rest is high.
Motion blur off in both games.
Lens flare on in both games.
Last edited:
Damn, I'm happy to play Cyberpunk on my poor XBSX, it look really better than on your PC (way more smooth anyway)
(4K HDR and on FPS mode)
When I see your video I think of the same thing as when I was playing Cyberpunk on my XB1x :
"Ding dong (striking clock), it's time to upgrade/change my material"
Last edited:
XboxSeriesX has GPU equivalent to an 2080 super as I read somewhere(don't remember now).Damn, I'm happy to play Cyberpunk on my poor XBSX, it look really better than on your PC (way more smooth anyway)
(4K HDR and on FPS mode)
RX 580 is way inferior to a RTX 2080 super.
Plus the CPU(Zen 2 like ryzen 3000) in XboxSeriesX is better also then my Ryzen first generation CPU.
I plan to upgrade to Ryzen 9 5900x + Asrock B550 Taichi Razer.
GPU upgrade cannot do. Either unavailable or too expensive.
Another thing who could explain why Cyberpunk could be very resource intensive and require a "good" machine (I'm not an expert, it's just a supposition).
Light sources...
In many games, there is the Sun/Moon and practically nothing else (or very little).
In Cyberpunk, the number of light source is just insane... There are only in the Badlands where it is possible to count them. In the other areas, it's impossible to know how many there are, even the NPC with phone creates light sources...
If we add the shadows for every light source, I can easily understand that it can bring the less powerful machines to their knees
Light sources...
In many games, there is the Sun/Moon and practically nothing else (or very little).
In Cyberpunk, the number of light source is just insane... There are only in the Badlands where it is possible to count them. In the other areas, it's impossible to know how many there are, even the NPC with phone creates light sources...
If we add the shadows for every light source, I can easily understand that it can bring the less powerful machines to their knees
Can't remember, played it years ago on low end machine. Won't platy it now since I think there perhaps could be remaster and I woud like to try that.
I don't think I ever heard that water is way graphic and I disagree. What is most common must look the best, not water.
But I want to mention that I perhaps agree with most the issue you mentioned , I also complained on the SSD right after launch, I tried to turned off AA in the files... I do not think that it is not an issue and that they did everything right. I would even add inconsistency as some common assests are actually looking bad.
It just that it's not enough to make me think the Crysis 3 was better looking. Supperior geometry and lighting are just hard to beat with some grainy effect, water lacking post process effects or common open world problems.
There are so many games on the last gen consoles that have better graphics than CyberJunk on the new consoles..the water and rain effects are so janky and terrible looking ..character models have less details than the strippers in gta..I play on a ps5 and I know this isn't the ps5 version, but playing black flag on ps4 has way better graphics for water and characters...hell even ghost recon wildcards has better water effects..
"Can't remember, played it years ago on low end machine. Won't platy it now since I think there perhaps could be remaster and I woud like to try that."
Then if you cant remember and why come here and say "Cyberpunk 2077 looks a lot better". To make such bold statement and you don't remember.
I am telling u that there is no texture that are not loaded or are loading in real time. Textures look crisp and detailed everwhere.
There is no grainy textures anywhere.
There is no forced blurry TAA but many several choices including MSAA.
There are 3 factors that play in favor of Crysis 3 which plague Cyberpunk 2077.
"I don't think I ever heard that water is way graphic and I disagree. What is most common must look the best, not water."
Reviewers and people when make comparisons usually look at vegetation-foliage, ground-rock-wall textures, water.
Raining is bugged also and very bad implemented in Cyberpunk 2077. A minus in the graphics department.
Foliage and ground textures in the desert look bad compared with those in Crysis 3.
It just that it's not enough to make me think the Crysis 3 was better looking. Supperior geometry and lighting are just hard to beat with some grainy effect, water lacking post process effects or common open world problems.
Lighting i agree but dont understand about geometry. Explain.
All I know when i look at my TVs that Cyberpunk 2077 looks blurry, textures missing or loading in real time, very low textures, very low detailed LOD at distance, textures changing in real time depending on distance, water and textures looking grainy, water looking bland-no effects or physics, rain looks weird and bad with almost no effect/missing physics.
Last edited:
I'm afraid to know the answer, you talk about AC Black Flag ? Because if so, I'm afraid I haven't played the same game as you.
For the water, I have no doubt, it was better (knowing that the game was played on a boat, it would be ugly if the water was badly done).
But for the characters, I can't agree. Cyberpunk have the best characters details I have ever seen in a game (I don't talk about cinematics that have nothing to do with the game, that don't count as game parts). But hey, I don't play all the games, it's still my opinion.
Just look at the Screenshots section to realize it, just the eyes... Damn, that hardly couldn't be better...
Simple screenshot about a character in game (not cinematic) taken by LeonidLoren who won't blame me (I hope)
Better yes, but don't you have the impression of seeing the same plants all over the place ? (as in ARK)
Me, I see 3 types of plants in total, one broadleaf, one with a flower and a last one that looks like a fern. For a jungle, it's seem to be pretty poor, no ?
Last edited:
Why? Because we had to read 19 posts to find out which GPU you're using which already is a bad start because information like that is absolutely necessary for a comparison, and because there's obviously something wrong with your PC! You should be able to get 30 FPS with the RX 580 and there are tons of videos on YT proving that.
That does not answer why the comparison is not fair.
The guy is using a 3700x CPU.
8GB 580 not 4GB.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
Maybe Cyberpunk 2077 does not like first generation Ryzen or 4gb video memory or both.
It actually does because if you're not coming close to the frame rate that is possible with your GPU, it probably means that your card is faulty [damaged] which could be the reason for your textures not loading fast enough leading to bad image quality, and yes it is possible that the problem is less obvious in Crysis_3 because it's an older title which uses less video memory.
Maybe, but Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't, at least not on your system.
Lets get on topic. This is a comparison thread not how its runs on my pc.
First video, I have some comments to add
-TW3 : years of updates/optimization and "old" game.
-Outers World : look not better than Cyberpunk on my XBSX (even with next gen update). And smaller world, less NPC, less everything in fact. I played it while downloading patch 1.22, and honestly it was a bit of a disappointment.
-RDR2 : The same as TW3. And the world seems to need less resources to run (lights, npcs, vehicles, reflexions,...). It work perfectly in 4K on my XB1x.
For all the rest, I don't play them, so I don't know
But what every plant in Cyberpunk desert its unique looking?I'm afraid to know the answer, you talk about AC Black Flag ? Because if so, I'm afraid I haven't played the same game as you.
For the water, I have no doubt, it was better (knowing that the game was played on a boat, it would be ugly if the water was badly done).
But for the characters, I can't agree. Cyberpunk have the best characters details I have ever seen in a game (I don't talk about cinematics that have nothing to do with the game, that don't count as game parts). But hey, I don't play all the games, it's still my opinion.
Just look at the Screenshots section to realize it, just the eyes... Damn, that hardly couldn't be better...
Simple screenshot about a character in game (not cinematic) taken by LeonidLoren who won't blame me (I hope)
Better yes, but don't you have the impression of seeing the same plants all over the place ? (as in ARK)
Me, I see 3 types of plants in total, one broadleaf, one with a flower and a last one that looks like a fern. For a jungle, it's seem to be pretty poor, no ?
Common.The argument its not about uniqueness but how two separate things looked compared to each other in graphical fidelity.
And these images are less then 1080p and 1080p unlike your image which is 4k and probably ray traced.
Image this images in 4k or ray traced. Not impressed at all by face geometry.
I don't play Crysis 3, but how many they are those kind of characters ?
Because "my" screenshot, it's a character who you encounter one time in whole game (like 5 minutes if you really take your time).
I could take the same screenshot on many characters like that (I wouldn't even know how many they are).
Just for example : those are all well done.
This is the topic. You are not able to compare these games, because your setup is not working like it should, so based on your screenshots on page 1, we are not able to find out if Cyberpunk looks better than Crysis 3.
- Status