How does UE4 stack up against CryEngine 5's rendering capabilities

[Deathrey (DeathreyCG)]

Tessellation showed a significant improvement to performance over parallax occlusion and added benefits that parallax occlusion didn’t have. The benefit of tessellation is cheaper materials in the distance, while POM would increase the complexity of the whole scene

I have simply no comments. Ever heard of not not calculating POM at certain distance?

Old architecture that was optimized for older Direct X shading models will not run well in UE4

Links, please. Preferably with description of particular changes in architecture taken for particular shading model.

You can already get tessellation to succeed on a slower card as I have already proven to you by posting my in-editor framerate, which was faster than yours. And my scene is not fully optimized yet: there’s still a ton of overdraw in the fish and polygons in the coral, and my tessellation multiplier is set to 1 when it should be a bit lower.

Your scene(I assume it is the screenshot a few posts above you are talking about) shows 65 fps in editor, which is unbelievably low for how unadorned it looks.

Based on what you’ve posted so far in this thread, I have a prediction to make. Remember it. quote it, for you will realize that it came true, when the time is right.Behold…

Trolling with mariomguy aside, I certainly prefer UE4 over CryEngine, but surely not for rendering capabilities. To me, out of the box, CryEngine produces better picture at higher performance with less effort involved. But that is out of the box, so it is not actually very relevant.
There is also a special case, where I would prefer CryEngine. That is open-world game with dynamic light conditions. For anything else, UE4 seems to be remarkably better.