Support NeoGAF

PapaJustify · Feb 12, 2012

Samaritan demo certainly wasn't optimized for future consoles yet. It is surely doable on a current high-end PC.

So it is quite likely that next-gen PlayStation and Xbox are able to run an optimized version of this. And 1080p highly depends on the VRAM of the future consoles.

But why 1080p anyway? For all I care, I would probably prefer 720p@60fps over 1080p@30fps. The only thing you will see better in 1080p are the low-res textures used in many games. Oh dear...

But we all know since Uncharted: Good Art Direction always beats good graphics tech.

Plinko · Feb 12, 2012

kfpkiller said:
Maybe he was a troll, maybe he was under NDA and got scared, who knows?
Rumours are just rumours, and until we have actual specs everyone will just pick the ones that fit their agenda.

Every other person claiming rumors could verify it with a mod and could do so anonymously (i.e., not giving away who they work for or an identity)--some already have.

Arkam didn't--he was a hit-and-run troll who disappeared.

kfpkiller · Feb 12, 2012

Plinko said:
Every other person claiming rumors could verify it with a mod and could do so anonymously (i.e., not giving away who they work for or an identity)--some already have.

Arkam didn't--he was a hit-and-run troll who disappeared.

He was a troll because he downplayed the wii u, right?
I'm pretty sure everyone in that thread would have believed him if he said the contrary.

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

KKRT00 said:
Yes, You can. There were many things unoptimized in this demo, whole bokeh, tessellation, MSAA, 3x580 were there to ensure there was no drop below 60fps, so its quite possible etc. Also 3x580 doesny give 300% of 580, but more like 200-220%.

I've argued this alot, in alot of these threads, and yet people will never surrender their preconceived notions. Its 3 580s or bust if you want anything to look close to Samaritan.

blu said:
Which explains why the demo, as shown on the floor, could not have run on anything less than 3x 580s.

2560x1440x30x40000 FLOPs = 4423680000000 FLOPs, aka 4.4TFLOPs.

Im sure no one thought that it'd run at 2560x1440.

EloquentM · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
I've argued this alot, in alot of these threads, and yet people will never surrender their preconceived notions. Its 3 580s or bust if you want anything to look close to Samaritan.

Im sure no one thought that it'd run at 2560x1440.

But but but it's gonna be on all next gen systems in real time (excluding wii u).

Sho_Nuff82 · Feb 12, 2012

aeolist said:
I think people are trying to make the point that Wii U could be pretty close in terms of power and chip design compared to the 720 and PS4.

For some reason suggesting that Nintendo won't be really far behind next gen is offensive to some.

The low end PS4 and 720 rumors aren't the only ones out there. Much of the speculation that the 720 would be on par with the Wii U has gone hand in hand with the idiotic notion that it's releasing this fall; I think you'll notice quite a few of the same posters pushing those rumors as well, especially around CES. For people begging everyone else to listen to reason, there was a real failure in common sense there.

Krilekk · Feb 12, 2012

dragonelite said:
On request

720p 4x Msaa Max FXAA

1080p No Msaa Max FXAA

Dam imgur has some terrible compresion.
Edit: uploaded to abload.

Loks to me like you're using medium texture settings for the 720p shots vs. high texture settings for the 1080p shots to prove a point.

themadcowtipper · Feb 12, 2012

kfpkiller said:
He was a troll because he downplayed the wii u, right?
I'm pretty sure everyone in that thread would have believed him if he said the contrary.

No because he was going against what developers like Vigil and Crytek stated.

DCKing · Feb 12, 2012

kfpkiller said:
He was a troll because he downplayed the wii u, right?
I'm pretty sure everyone in that thread would have believed him if he said the contrary.

We have a pretty good picture in the Wii U thread about the specs frankly. What he said was contrary to what we knew, and even every other vague developer comment ever made about the Wii U, so we asked him to back it up. He didn't. For pretending to be a dev and getting people riled up about it, he's a troll.

Stop claiming agendas until you have a good argument for why our rumors and interpretations are incorrect and unreliable. A good argument does not include "does not match my expectations if they would do that", which is what I get a lot. I'm sorry, but my expectations are shattered all the time. I thought the Wii U was going to be an ARM-based super-Vita. I though the next Xbox would be clearly more powerful than the Wii U (although that can still happen). I thought we would have heard about the PS4 by now. Hell, I was one of the guys who used to think that the Revolution would somehow match the PS3 and Xbox 360. I've grown wiser than that, luckily.

Dreams-Visions · Feb 12, 2012

PapaJustify said:
But why 1080p anyway? For all I care, I would probably prefer 720p@60fps over 1080p@30fps. The only thing you will see better in 1080p are the low-res textures used in many games. Oh dear...

lolwut. easy to tell those who don't keep up with graphics technology.

anyway, this isn't a problem anyway. Very few games will have the budgets and talent necessary to create "Samaritan" visuals. It's a non-issue, by and large.

and 1080p should be the target, as by the time the next generation ends, 4K TV will be common...and 720p will look very mediocre at that point.

blu · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Im sure no one thought that it'd run at 2560x1440.

Right. Some just claimed it could've run at 1/3rd that if Epic had only 'optimised it a bit' (without touching the assets, mind you), without a clue of how much power was used by what was demonstrated. It was a hilarious thread, I still remember it. Full of console magic and pixie dust. Well, I'm glad we closed that argument.

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

Dreams-Visions said:
lolwut. easy to tell those who don't keep up with graphics technology.

anyway, this isn't a problem anyway. Very few games will have the budgets and talent necessary to create "Samaritan" visuals. It's a non-issue, by and large.

and 1080p should be the target, as by the time the next generation ends, 4K TV will be common...and 720p will look very mediocre at that point.

Theres so much wrong with this post.

quest · Feb 12, 2012

Dreams-Visions said:
lolwut. easy to tell those who don't keep up with graphics technology.

anyway, this isn't a problem anyway. Very few games will have the budgets and talent necessary to create "Samaritan" visuals. It's a non-issue, by and large.

and 1080p should be the target, as by the time the next generation ends, 4K TV will be common...and 720p will look very mediocre at that point.

4K TVs being common at the end of next generation is just wishful thinking and dreaming. 1080P will be the standard for TVs for a very long time. There will be no reason for people to upgrade to 4k TV. Broadcast,cable and satellite will be 720p/1080i for at least 2 decades.

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

blu said:
Right. Some just claimed it could've run at 1/3rd that if Epic had only 'optimised it a bit' (without touching the assets, mind you), without a clue of how much power was used by what was demonstrated. It was a hilarious thread, I still remember it. Full of console magic and pixie dust. Well, I'm glad we closed that argument.

Pretty sure that wasn't the argument. Pretty sure it was more like, if they tried to make a practical game(720p/30-60fps/Standard game design) that you could get something close to Samaritan.

Pretty sure someone was spouting, "but but but they used 3 580s to do that, with help from Nvidias best people. Next gen consoles lol. derp" or something to that effect.

XOMTOR · Feb 12, 2012

Not being psychic, I can only speculate on how the next gen consoles will shape up performance wise but if there's anyone looking for 1080p @ 60 fps with Samaritan like graphics on a console, I just have this strange feeling you may be disappointed.

Instead of waiting on the possibility of such graphical prowess, why not buy a console for its exclusives and build yourself a gaming PC for the multiplats where you want max performance? It's not really that expensive or difficult and besides there are plenty here on GAF that'd be willing to help. Plus with HDMI standard on GPUs and 360 pad support, there's not even a need to give up gaming on the couch. Oh, and Steam of course.

SlickShoesRUCrazy · Feb 12, 2012

bigtroyjon said:
Your points lose all meaning when you keep throwing in bullshit stuff like this 3 billion dollar profit number.

Seeing as the Entertainment and Device division of Microsoft posted a revenue 4.24 billion dollars for just Q2 of their 2012 fiscal year, he probably isn't too off.

Plinko · Feb 12, 2012

kfpkiller said:
He was a troll because he downplayed the wii u, right?
I'm pretty sure everyone in that thread would have believed him if he said the contrary.

I'm starting to wonder if you even bother to read anyone else's posts before you post your own drivel.

If you'd take the time to go through the Wii U thread, you'd see that the expectations are reasonable and that there are a few reliable sources that pop in now and then to either temper wild expectations or boost low ones.

If people post unrealistic expectations, other posters quickly quell them. The conversation has been quite reasonable. I look forward to seeing new threads for the newer systems as well when more reliable stuff is released.

As I said earlier, I'm all in with every company--competition is a great thing. I'm a fan of all three. On GAF, though, I've noticed a heavy separation between the Nintendo fans and the MS/Sony fans. It seems like if you like one, you can't like the other and vice-versa. I find it absolutely ridiculous.

You want to know my prediction for the next gen of consoles?

Every gamer is happy. Fanboys will continue to believe that their console is better.

Sho_Nuff82 · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Pretty sure that wasn't the argument. Pretty sure it was more like, if they tried to make a practical game(720p/30-60fps/Standard game design) that you could get something close to Samaritan.

Pretty sure someone was spouting, "but but but they used 3 580s to do that, with help from Nvidias best people. Next gen consoles lol. derp" or something to that effect.

Pretty much this.

FLEABttn · Feb 12, 2012

Dreams-Visions said:
and 1080p should be the target, as by the time the next generation ends, 4K TV will be common...and 720p will look very mediocre at that point.

4k has no real timeline and will be not be common place by the end of next generation. It would need to be significantly more real in the "can actually go to best buy and buy a 4k TV" sense for that to even be a remote possibility. Right now it's just a twinkle in electronic companies eyes.

HDTV as we know it started being broadcast in 1996. You could buy an HDTV from best buy without total wallet rape in 2001 or 2002. And despite that, a whole ton of people don't have HDTV sets, and a whole ton of people who have HDTV sets don't actually view HD content. With a complete lack of content or physical consumer devices now, 4k has no chance of anything beyond single digit home penetration numbers in 2017.

Thunder Monkey · Feb 12, 2012

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Pretty much this.

blu is much closer to the actual situation.

I was one of the people arguing that as is Samaritan wouldn't be possible. My argument was "It should look close... but the underlying tech is going to be so drastically different as to not be the Samaritan demo anymore."

Of course most of those guys have trouble seeing the difference between high precision shadow maps and high quality shadow volumes. They were arguing that all it will take is some "optimization". I argued and then blu backed up "No amount of optimization in the world (on the programming end) is going to get a tech demo running on a triGPU at 4500 SPU's working on a 1040 SPU part."

The look should be very achievable. Approximated for weaker hardware of course.

bigtroyjon · Feb 12, 2012

SlickShoesRUCrazy said:
Seeing as the Entertainment and Device division of Microsoft posted a revenue 4.24 billion dollars for just Q2 of their 2012 fiscal year, he probably isn't too off.

He's off by almost a factor of ten. The division has made an overall profit of less than $400 million since the 360 came out. That doesn't include unknown losses on other products but it also doesn't include the years of R&D that were spent developing the 360.

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

Thunder Monkey said:
blu is much closer to the actual situation.

I was one of the people arguing that as is Samaritan wouldn't be possible. My argument was "It should look close... but the underlying tech is going to be so drastically different as to not be the Samaritan demo anymore."

Of course most of those guys have trouble seeing the difference between high precision shadow maps and high quality shadow volumes. They were arguing that all it will take is some "optimization". I argued and then blu backed up "No amount of optimization in the world (on the programming end) is going to get a tech demo running on a triGPU at 4500 SPU's working on a 1040 SPU part."

The look should be very achievable. Approximated for weaker hardware of course.

Um, no he isn't.

I was the one arguing that Samaritan isn't an actual game and the 3 580s were not indicative of the power required. If he wants to play revisionist history and say he only meant the crazy 2560x1440 version wouldn't run on consoles, then we can play but still.

DCKing · Feb 12, 2012

specialguy said:
The SOC rumors also stated it was a "7000 series" GPU, not a 6670. So you're actually sourcing two rumors that contradict each other as proof of something?

I do not claim proof of anything, anywhere. What we have is one rumor claming a low-midrange GPU and the other a SoC GPU which is usually (not certainly) low to midrange as well. Furthermore, IGN described the GPU as "akin" to the 6670, not the exact chip. Both are pointing to a GPU of modest capacity at this point. I've theorized that it may be clocked very high (> 1 GHz) and would allow some decent FLOPS to get some good looking graphics out of them. But that's just speculation.

specialguy said:
6670 isn't 6X 360 though, it's more like 3-4X, that was one of the clue's the rumor is stupid.

The bad part about this "X times" better discussion is that everybody just spouts out numbers, and nobody tells us what that means.

specialguy said:
I dont recall IGN reporting anything on Wii U that wasn't cribbed from 01.net.

I've checked this and you're right that 01net was there first. IGN makes it sound as if they've got their own sources, but it does seem a copyjob. IGN seems to have had info on the controller before 01net however.

specialguy said:
They also put together a 4850 PC and used it as an example of what Wii U could do, aka run Call of Duty with a little more AA and slightly sharper textures (because hey that's what a 4850 PC can do). So are you believing IGN there, too? Because the fact is in a closed box a 4850 would run rings around PS360, not run PS360 games slightly better as IGN implied. But if you believe IGN that it's a 4850, then you also need to believe IGN that it'll just run PS360 games a little sharper and that's all.

The basic fact is IGN has absolutely no idea what they are talking about when it comes to tech matters.

Hey, I'm saying IGN's sources are correct. You won't find anybody on GAF praising their reports or interpretation. I happily agree there

specialguy said:
Not really, the actual rumor implied it would be a 550 MM^2 SOC, which would be more silicon than the original 360 shipped with in two separate chips combined. Not only that but you could get some quite tasty performance improvements over two separate chips because you'd have unheard of intra-chip bandwidth between the CPU and the GPU.

It is true that in general, soc's have typically so far been used where low power is a primary goal, but there's nothing really saying you couldn't do a quite powerful SOC theoretically.

Though I dont believe the rumor at all anyway.

I searched for the original report on the rumor and nowhere was it implied that it would be a 550mm^2 chip. A 550mm^2 (or anything over 400mm^2) chip would be very problematic for a console chip anyway. I do agree that the bandwidth could be a very attractive feature.

blu · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Pretty sure that wasn't the argument. Pretty sure it was more like, if they tried to make a practical game(720p/30-60fps/Standard game design) that you could get something close to Samaritan.

Pretty sure someone was spouting, "but but but they used 3 580s to do that, with help from Nvidias best people. Next gen consoles lol. derp" or something to that effect.

'Pretty sure'? Where have I heard this before?.. Oh, wait:

me
you
me
you
me
you
me
you

Funny.

nephilimdj · Feb 12, 2012

FEAR is a example of how the number crunching in this thread kinda shows its weakness. 360 and PS3 couldnt get close to it on FEAR PC on medium ($200 6600GT released the year before). The lighting and particles were way below.

Got the same thing here, this tech demo most likely wont come close for the first few years.

nephilimdj · Feb 12, 2012

double post

kfpkiller · Feb 12, 2012

Fear on consoles was a very lazy port.

Sho_Nuff82 · Feb 12, 2012

nephilimdj said:
FEAR is a example of how the number crunching in this thread kinda shows its weakness. 360 and PS3 couldnt get close to it on FEAR PC on medium ($200 6600GT released the year before). The lighting and particles were way below.

Got the same thing here, this tech demo most likely wont come close for the first few years.

FEAR looks awful compared to modern console games though.

FLEABttn · Feb 12, 2012

kfpkiller said:
Fear on consoles was a very lazy port.

On an engine that wasn't designed for multiple cores.

My laptop from 2005 with an AMD 2800+ with a 9700 mobility ran fear better than the ps3 and 360 did, but that's not because it was a better piece of hardware.

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

blu said:
'Pretty sure'? Where have I heard this before?.. Oh, wait:

me
you
me
you
me
you

Funny.

Very. Thanks for that link.

Me said:
I was the one arguing that Samaritan isn't an actual game and the 3 580s were not indicative of the power required. If he wants to play revisionist history and say he only meant the crazy 2560x1440 version wouldn't run on consoles, then we can play but still.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32244117&postcount=746

ME said:
Yeah I can see how you could think that, regarding downgrades and stuff like that, but its a bit different. Samaritan is a tech demo, its only purpose is to look good. In no way does it employ real word game design practices. Its very "sloppy" if thats a good word, and in the post you quoted I gave a few reasons why. You don't design actual games like that.

Thats why me and the people at epic seem to think it is very likely that they could achieve a game around this tech on the next gen hardware, without it costing an arm and a leg. There are other reasons also, in why games will look alot better next gen while at the same time not becoming much more costly and complex.

blu · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Very. Thanks for that link.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32244117&postcount=746

Actually I missed a couple originally (just edited them in). Those are particularly juicy.

Oh, and Samaritan uses no actual game programming techniques? That's a new gem. Thanks.

nasos_333 · Feb 12, 2012

nephilimdj said:
FEAR is a example of how the number crunching in this thread kinda shows its weakness. 360 and PS3 couldnt get close to it on FEAR PC on medium ($200 6600GT released the year before). The lighting and particles were way below.

Got the same thing here, this tech demo most likely wont come close for the first few years.

Maybe for the first 2-3 years indeed wont be like that, wont be miles behind that either though, considering how Gears 3 looks in the 8 years old by then 360

But since this can run in a 580 and xbox 720 will have something probably stronger, then i dont see why this could not be in the 2ond generation games and in fact in 720p and 30fps we may see something way more impressive

Obviously it takes time to max any system, agreed there

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

blu said:
Actually I missed a couple originally (just edited them in). Those are particularly juicy.

Oh, and Samaritan uses no actual game programming techniques? That's a new gem. Thanks.

Can you read? Or is comprehension your problem?

In no way does it employ real word game design practices

Again, Epic just provided a bit of data to futher support my claims(including the precious ALU/SPU requirements you begged for) unless of course you're moving the goal posts.

charsace · Feb 12, 2012

MS is going to use an ATI 7000 chipset. People just seem to ignore that this chipset is made with power consumption and heat in mind.

bgassassin · Feb 12, 2012

Absolute Bastard said:
I'd say it's Nvidia Tflops. The samaritan demo that needed three GTX 580s ran at 2560x1600 resolution, about double the pixels of 1920x1080. Three 580s has little about 5 Tflops theoretical so 2.5 Tflops for 1080p matches.

It's interesting that you point this out. That means now that they have given official confirmation of what Samaritan needs, we know for sure they didn't "optimize it to one 580". Makes me wonder if they couldn't or just didn't bother. I lean towards the former.

thuway said:
I am guessing if next-gen goes the way I want it too-

Sony- Samaritan 720p all bells and whistles
Microsoft- Samaritan 720p maybe all bells and whistles
Wii U- Samaritan "PS360 Sub-HD" maybe all bells and whistles

Sounds about right?

Fixed.

iamshadowlark said:
Um, no he isn't.

I was the one arguing that Samaritan isn't an actual game and the 3 580s were not indicative of the power required. If he wants to play revisionist history and say he only meant the crazy 2560x1440 version wouldn't run on consoles, then we can play but still.

I remember the debate and I pointed out you two were saying the same thing from different perspectives.

AB12 said:
Guess I need a reality check, because the lowest GPU I see MS/Sony using for the next gen systems is 6970 (2.7TFlops) or its equivalent. I laughed at IGN's rumor where they were saying the 720 would use 6670. These systems are coming out in 2013 or later, why aim so low with your expectations? By 2013 they can fix the power usage and it could be efficient.

As I pointed out, one 6970 is not running Samaritan at 1080p. Samaritan at that res still needs two 580s to achieve that and that's not going to happen in a console. But like I said seeing something like that at 720p is still awesome IMO.

Krilekk said:
I think it's you that needs a reality check. Basically every console generation of the past fifteen years has seen at least a tenfold increase in performance over the last. Expecting the same kind of jump after a generation that lasted longer than any before is not some kind of voodoo but just common sense. The same can be said about the market. What's wrong with the market? Nothing. People talk about recession, yet all the tech companies in the US make higher profits than ever before. Microsoft manages to sell more Xbox 360 in the US than ever before without cutting the price in three years and people pretend like the market is in some kind of trouble. Yes, Nintendo is in trouble with the Wii because it's not a HD console and consumers moved on. But 3DS seems to do great despite people running after smartphones and tablets. It only needed the right price, Nintendo tried to sell overpriced hardware to cash in on the 3D hype and it didn't work out. That's it. December NPD numbers weren't great, but overall the last quarter was still the best ever for the industry. Those revenues just moved to November. And why should January sales be any good with the total lack of interesting new releases? And let's not forget digital sales which aren't part of NPD numbers.

Releasing the most powerful console possible at the launch with the given budget is about the only thing they can do. Because evolution sells and evolution keeps you competitive. It's one of the things you learn in your first week if you're studying economics. Apple shows again and again that people are willing to pay incredible amounts of money for products that will be old after a year.

Sales of PS3 and Xbox 360 will slow down this year if they don't adjust prices. But that's not because of recessions or a shift towards social gaming or mobile gaming, it's because of old tech being sold for too much.

Nothing wrong with expecting it until you factor in cost and heat. A $399 console won't be able to contain that kind of power.

Thunder Monkey · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Can you read? Or is comprehension your problem?

Again, Epic just provided a bit of data to futher support my claims(including the precious ALU/SPU requirements you begged for) unless of course you're moving the goal posts.

So wait...

Are you two arguing the same thing?

Neither of you believed it was indicative of a real game engine.

nasos_333 · Feb 12, 2012

charsace said:
MS is going to use an ATI 7000 chipset. People just seem to ignore that this chipset is made with power consumption and heat in mind.

They will probably use a custom chip, we dont know anything much about it yet either

blu · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
Can you read? Or is comprehension your problem?

Please, fill me in on the 'game programming practices' that I apparently cannot comprehend.

Again, Epic just provided a bit of data to futher support my claims(including the precious ALU/SPU requirements you begged for) unless of course you're moving the goal posts.

Yes. Your claims of 'They just needed to optimise it and it'd have run on 1/3rd of the GPU resources. I know all about optimisations - that's what they teach us in school.'

aeolist · Feb 12, 2012

charsace said:
MS is going to use an ATI 7000 chipset. People just seem to ignore that this chipset is made with power consumption and heat in mind.

OK but what people seem to misunderstand is that "designed with power consumption in mind" largely means "cut-down version of a chip with fewer SPUs and lower clock speed".

Optimization is not just a magic spell that lets you get whatever you want. They will have to go with a weaker chip than high-end PC cards if they want to maintain a reasonable TDP and cost.

quest · Feb 12, 2012

nasos_333 said:
Maybe for the first 2-3 years indeed wont be like that, wont be miles behind that either though, considering how Gears 3 looks in the 8 years old by then 360

But since this can run in a 580 and xbox 720 will have something probably stronger, then i dont see why this could not be in the 2ond generation games and in fact in 720p and 30fps we may see something way more impressive

Obviously it takes time to max any system, agreed there

If you expect the next xbox to have anything close to a 580 then be ready to be disapointed. The next xbox will have something like a modified 7770.

Here are the rumored specs of the 7770 that should launch soon.
Built on TSMC 28 nm process, ~1.5 billion transistors
10 Graphics CoreNext Compute Units (CUs)
640 stream processors
40 TMUs, 16 ROPs
128-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

bgassassin said:
It's interesting that you point this out. That means now that they have given official confirmation of what Samaritan needs, we know for sure they didn't "optimize it to one 580". Makes me wonder if they couldn't or just didn't bother. I lean towards the former.

I remember the debate and I pointed out you two were saying the same thing from different perspectives.

As I pointed out, one 6970 is not running Samaritan at 1080p. Samaritan at that res still needs two 580s to achieve that and that's not going to happen in a console. But like I said seeing something like that at 720p is still awesome IMO.

Nothing wrong with expecting it until you factor in cost and heat. A $399 console won't be able to contain that kind of power.

IDK but I never was arguing that Samaritan would run at twice 1080p on consoles and I don't know for sure what he is/was arguing.

I know for a fact what StevieP was arguing and Im suprised he hasn't popped in here yet to tell people to "stop looking at Samaritan".

dragonelite · Feb 12, 2012

Krilekk said:
Loks to me like you're using medium texture settings for the 720p shots vs. high texture settings for the 1080p shots to prove a point.

Uuh no all i changed was resolution. And upscaled the 720p one with paint to 1080p

Postman · Feb 12, 2012

dragonelite said:
Uuh no all i changed was resolution. And upscaled the 720p one with paint to 1080p

yes because up scaling in paint is the exact same.. :/

iamshadowlark · Feb 12, 2012

blu said:
Please, fill me in on the 'game programming practices' that I apparently cannot comprehend.

Yes. Your claims of 'They just needed to optimise it and it'd have run on 1/3rd of the GPU resources. I know all about optimisations - that's what they teach us in school.'

The fact that you keep saying game "programming practices" when I clearly say game "design practices" leads me to believe you are trolling. Thats why I say reading might be an issue for you.

bgassassin · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
IDK but I never was arguing that Samaritan would run at twice 1080p on consoles and I don't know for sure what he is/was arguing.

I know for a fact what StevieP was arguing and Im suprised he hasn't popped in here yet to tell people to "stop looking at Samaritan".

Here were my posts about the debate between you too.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32243669&postcount=740

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32244530&postcount=752

likedamaster · Feb 12, 2012

I'm really hoping they push for 1080p over 720. I just don't wanna game @720p anymore, we've endured it long enough.

I remember having a single overclocked 8800 pushing Gears of War 1 to the limit @1920x1200p with antialiasing/DirectX10 on, @62 fps. So 1080p is definitely possible on a nextgen console, the engine and game just have to be optimized well enough, imo.

blu · Feb 12, 2012

iamshadowlark said:
The fact that you keep saying game "programming practices" when I clearly say game "design practices" leads me to believe you are trolling. Thats why I say reading might be an issue for you.

Yes, 'programming optimisations' as that was your big argument from the thread I just quoted (even though you later on switched to 'but who needs dynamic reflections anyway'). Otherwise 'design practices' is a vague enough term. Now, who said something about goalpost moving..

dragonelite · Feb 12, 2012

Postman said:
yes because up scaling in paint is the exact same.. :/

How else would you upscale, i just provided some screenshots to supplement the discussion people were having about going 1080p or 720p but with better sampling.

Im pretty sure you also have a pc capable of going 1080p and 720p4xMsaa just switch between the two resolution and judge with your own eyes.

Postman · Feb 12, 2012

likedamaster said:
I'm really hoping they push for 1080p over 720. I just don't wanna game @720p anymore, we've endured it long enough.

I remember having a single overclocked 8800 pushing Gears of War 1 to the limit @1920x1200p with antialiasing/DirectX10 on, @62 fps. So 1080p is definitely possible on a nextgen console, the engine and game just have to be optimized well enough, imo.

how old are you by chance? You realize in retrospect that we games in 320 x 240 2 or 3 gens.. then 640 x 480 for 2 or 3 gens..

Postman · Feb 12, 2012

dragonelite said:
How else would you upscale, i just provided some screenshots to supplement the discussion people were having about going 1080p or 720p but with better sampling.

Im pretty sure you also have a pc capable of going 1080p and 720p4xMsaa just switch between the two resolution and judge with your own eyes.

You can not just do that though. it doesn't work. you have to see them both natively to really judge. I am not saying there isnt a difference I am saying your low rez shot looked liked ass compared to what I see on my tv whci i play both 720p console games and 1080p pc games on.

Support NeoGAF

Epic Reveals Samaritan Processing Requirements: 10x 360 at 1080p, (4.4x 360 at 720p)

Member

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

Member

Banned

aka Mannny

Member

Banned

Smells faintly of rancid stilton.

Member

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Banned

Not Banned from OT

Banned

Member

Member

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Banned

Not Banned from OT

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads