680 without 2-3gigs of GDDR5 costs less than ~80$. And that is far from "half of console price" at their launch.
Off course, they will not use it because is using shitton of electricity and its hot as hell.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Agni's Philosophy runs at 60FPS on a GTX 680, uses 1.8GB VRAM. Can next-gen run it?
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
680 without 2-3gigs of GDDR5 costs less than ~80$. And that is far from "half of console price" at their launch.
Off course, they will not use it because is using shitton of electricity and its hot as hell.
metalslimer
Member
Yeah true.
Horsemama1956
Member
This is just a tech demo though, games have other needs.
AstroNut325
Member
But... The 680 runs cooler and at a lower wattage than its predecessor. And if the trend continues we are likely to see the 680 successor drop further in temp and TDP. And that is what I think Sony and MS will target.
Edit: Forgot to mention it... A down clocked version of the 680 successor.
You mean the AMD equivalent of that. It'll come in the form of Sea Island GPU.
From what I have heard, AMD makes a much more understanding and cooperative partner than nVidia which is why both MS and Sony have opted to work with them for next gen.
AstroNut325
Member
Yes. I'm using the term 680 very loosely. Basically 8870 class GPU.
Given the scope of optimization (esp. for exclusive titles), it's safer to assume something along the lines 8770 or 8750 (underclocked).
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
that's what I was getting at with my og post. Just didn't go into depth because I was falling asleep lol.
it was a production machine.
Most likely they recorded the video on the same machine they developed the video on.
Saint Gregory
Member
It's really hard to watch this and not be hyped for the possibilities of next gen but I just don't trust Square Enix anymore.http://www.iverged.com/game/10081/a...-fantasy-realtime-next-gen-tech-demo-download
Halfway down the page.
It's still reassuring to see that the techniques they used to create the demo weren't back-breaking on current PC hardware though.
Also I'm not in the slightest bit interested unless this is for the PC and knowing sqeenix it never would be.
Because that's what you get when you exclusively develop for the pc instead of the other way around.
They should develop games for the pc then port it to the consoles. You'd (generally speaking) just tone down and rewrite the base calls rather than having to shove everything into an emulation layer and converting to using directx from LLC
Because that's what you get when you exclusively develop for the pc instead of the other way around.
They should develop games for the pc then port it to the consoles. You'd (generally speaking) just tone down and rewrite the base calls rather than having to shove everything into an emulation layer and converting to using directx from LLC
Technosteve
Banned
open gl demo?
I don't see 1080p/60 with these type of visuals/image quality being a reality. It's an entirely scripted non-interactive demo so it was probably very easy to optimize to that point , real time game engines will surely suffer some level of performance hit once actual gameplay is introduced. I'd suspect the cpu's in orbis/durango will preform to about 50% of the demo PC, and they'll have a roughly equivalent video card but with 4 GB of memory max. At most , 2 GB of that will be for video.
I'm basically expecting that in 3 years time we'll be playing final fantasy XV and it will look like agni's philosophy at 30 fps with slightly worse special effects.
I'm basically expecting that in 3 years time we'll be playing final fantasy XV and it will look like agni's philosophy at 30 fps with slightly worse special effects.
Zyrusticae
Banned
I don't like the obsession with getting 60 FPS.
As long as you have proper per-object motion blur and you're not CPU-limited, 30 FPS is more than enough for a smooth and very playable experience. Hell, just look at Dark Souls, and how good and playable it is at 30 FPS. Amazingness.
As long as you have proper per-object motion blur and you're not CPU-limited, 30 FPS is more than enough for a smooth and very playable experience. Hell, just look at Dark Souls, and how good and playable it is at 30 FPS. Amazingness.
Once you go 60fps... It's hard going back.
Metal Gear Solid 3 looks substantially better in 60fps.
I totally agree but I'll take 60fps whenever I can get it.
Kung Fu Grip
Banned
You mentioned this to me in PS4 thread. Do you have video where i can see these games at 60fps?
I just think 30fps fit the look of some games. Infamous goes to 60fps when you move around in some spots. It looks good, but i don't really like it for that type of game. It's too smooth.
god no
it is impossible to go back from 60fps. Its an atrocity.
the ONLY game where I feel that 30fps "fits" is Shadow of the Colossus. Something about the animations make me feel like 60fps would look worse.
consoles will never be 60fps standard because people dont give a crap. Better graphics are much easier to show off and sell, so they'll always push that at the expense of performance. It's alright if most people can accept that 24ish fps world but I have way too much of a hard time tolerating it.
Zyrusticae
Banned
It doesn't have per-object motion blur.
It makes a huge difference in perceived smoothness.
Remember, our eyes do not see in discrete frames like the ones our monitors are showing us - they see shapes, and all fast motions bend the light in such a manner that you see blurring. The monitors themselves are incapable of generating realistic motion blur on their own, because they're just shifting colors for tiny dots on a flat surface - you need physical movement to create motion blur, and all of that movement occurs in-game, hence the need for proper per-object motion blur.
There are very few games that currently use such physically-accurate motion blur. The only ones that come to mind atm are Crysis, Crysis 2, Dark Souls, and Planetside 2 (there's probably more, I just don't remember them/don't play them).
professor_t
Member
Stability is my primary interest. Sure, 60 is better than 30, but I'll take a rock solid, unwavering 30 over a variable framerate that bounces from 60 to 40 and back again.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Errr, not surprising considering a CPU pretty much spends its time sleeping during cinematics, and the whole demo was a cinematic.
Zyrusticae
Banned
Your loss.
Keeping in mind many games don't have per-object motion blur, only camera motion blur (which is not accurate as we don't actually perceive that kind of blur), your dislike is certainly warranted for those games.
Again, I'm speaking exclusively of per-object motion blur. It's hugely important.
Just moving up from a c2d on the mid range end to i5 I'm surprised at what it runs. I can have 2-3 steam games running plus league of legends client which chews up cpu OS is not taking that much power compared to other stuff in the background running and they still keep fps.
that's what I meant as part of the 90% bad implementation
it can be done well and per-object but id ussually hear about it beforehand because its so rare. They just dont bother
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
NOPE!
Not gonna believe it! Nu ahu. Nada. Not. Against!
Nice try Sqeenix... go sell your lies elsewhere for I REFUSE TO BELIEVE! Not making a sucker out of this fool!
Not gonna believe it! Nu ahu. Nada. Not. Against!
Nice try Sqeenix... go sell your lies elsewhere for I REFUSE TO BELIEVE! Not making a sucker out of this fool!
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
doniewhalberg
Member
Haven't really kept up with the news on this one since they showed it, any indication either way if we're likely to see any Eidos games use the engine, or is it just for the Final Fantasy series?
LoL I felt the same way when I saw Luminous but yeah... until we see something concrete and until Versus is out, I could care less.
Crysis 2 60fps with per object motion blur>>>>30fps per object motion blur
Why do you think Tekken Tag 2 looks so amazing? It's doing exactly that on console!
Dreams-Visions
Member
actually, you can get 16GB of ram for $40.
Of course but, for example, Crysis 2 30fps with per object motion blur feels comparable to Crysis 2 60fps without motion blur at all.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Am I crazy or is there always a substantial gulf between graphics tech demos and actual games that come out on the same hardware?
Why are people talking about this as though a game could look like this? Remember how every console graphics tech demo in history has NOT been representative of what games actually end up looking like?
Somebody please explain to me what I'm missing here.
Why are people talking about this as though a game could look like this? Remember how every console graphics tech demo in history has NOT been representative of what games actually end up looking like?
Somebody please explain to me what I'm missing here.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Most tech demos from PS2/GC have been surpassed. This gen have been a bit different since companies liked to use target renders.
These are real time demo which feasible on actual hadrware. Chances that they have to downgrade a few things are quite high, but Agni demo on PS4/720 should be feasible, I'm pretty sure companies have already the final specs of the future systems and are working around them...
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Only because it's a scripted demo. CPU load will go way up once you stick things like AI in there.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You hit a good point, and one that I am surprised more people are not talking about.
My prediction is lame, but it is that there will be more middleware. These are tools that are supported in various engines.
For example, if I am making a UE3 (engine) based game, I might use a middleware program like Speedtree. Speedtree allows you make thousands of different highly detailed trees, of all sorts, and with extreme ease, customize, extend, add more branches, make for different bark, wood, fit for different seasons.
This little program is of course a life saver. the man hours that are saved from your artists, modellers so on, just making trees are staggering. Now you can directly put trees into your game world and make them all look different.
Speedtree is highly used. You have played many games that have used that middleware. Now imagine what other middleware programs they can make for people?
Imagine a middleware program just for skyboxes.(real time!). Now you can just pop in as many suns, moons, and have it work snappy in your new engine.
It could be water, or people.
There are already tons of people-human-skeleton middleware to reduce the time it would take to make faces on generic characters.
But horror scenario; We all know how many UE3 games this generation looked the same? We might see even more of that in next gen.
It's a retarded analogy to compare but bare with me for no reason other than my own volition (I like saying that word, though I barely know what it means!) - In web development, a lot of people lost their jobs once they made easy-management tools on how to make a website. Suddenly a person can design a professional looking website (if they got artistic flair) with little/no coding.
I think we will see a similar trend in gaming. We will see more tools to reduce work load. more outsourcing, more middleware. More easy solutions. Because its the man hours that clock up the costs.
yeah this is what I'm hoping
Many reasons. For one, people run these games on high-end PCs at massively higher levels of image quality than they do on consoles. If a game runs at 720p with no AA (or post AA) on consoles, and you then run it on PC at 1440p with 4xAA, then that's a 16-fold increase in sampling. And that's just IQ, disregarding any increase in framerate or effect/asset complexity. On top of that, good PC ports add effects/settings that are far beyond what the console versions do. E.g. at "ultra" shadowing, AC3 uses an ambient occlusion technique that would probably grind to halt on a PS3/360 (even if they just tried to use it at their resolution instead of a much higher one).
So, that's point 1: PC versions are often simply doing much more than console versions -- if you set them to be equivalent they'd run like hell, but PC gamers would probably turn away from their monitors in disgust at the IQ.
The second point is that you slightly misrepresent my original post. What I said is that people overestimate the performance impact of the OS overhead on modern PCs. I didn't say anything about hardware-specific optimizations. Those can make a significant difference, especially when you get developers like Bethesda probably spending man-months fine-tuning performance on 360 and then not even bothering to enable common compiler optimizations on PC.
I have thinking that myself. Tech demos generally misrepresent the visuals until it's matched sometime during the mid life of consoles and finally somewhat surpassed in the twilight years. As such, I am wondering when the lame age of tech demos will come to an end for showing off new consoles.
Here are two pictures that show how games today with actual environment and gameplay physics and animations have either matched or surpassed these pieces of tech demos:
Here's me hoping for the death of tech demos in favour actual gameplay segments during the next E3 to represent next gen.
Horse Armour
Member
The difference is that for a lot of those tech demos, they ran on mythical PC hardware that the consoles had no chance of matching. In this case, all they're using is a GTX 680 and are running at 60FPS to boot. Based on that there is no reason not to believe that even a modest GPU such as a 7850 in a console environment won't be able to achieve something 99% similar at 30FPS.I have thinking that myself. Tech demos generally misrepresent the visuals until it's matched sometime during the mid life of consoles and finally somewhat surpassed in the twilight years. As such, I am wondering when the lame age of tech demos will come to an end for showing off new consoles.
Here are two pictures that show how games today with actual environment and gameplay physics and animations have either matched or surpassed these pieces of tech demos:
Here's me hoping for the death of tech demos in favour actual gameplay segments during the next E3 to represent next gen.
Apart from AA, I'd say it has been matched to say the least. Remember that that tech demo didn't show an ounce of actual interaction. In-engine cinematics have a come a long way to match that quality.
We're likely not going to get tech demos like usual at E3 since the announcements are all going to be close to the final launch and not a year and a half or more away. Games will be ready to show.I have thinking that myself. Tech demos generally misrepresent the visuals until it's matched sometime during the mid life of consoles and finally somewhat surpassed in the twilight years. As such, I am wondering when the lame age of tech demos will come to an end for showing off new consoles.
Here are two pictures that show how games today with actual environment and gameplay physics and animations have either matched or surpassed these pieces of tech demos:
Here's me hoping for the death of tech demos in favour actual gameplay segments during the next E3 to represent next gen.
For the sake of comparison:
Uncharted 1 (in-engine, beginning of the gen):
Uncharted 3 (in engine cinematic, near end of the gen). Kudos to artists and programmers:
Isn't it a bit late to target the GPU towards that? Wouldn't specs already be nailed down by now?
I think pretty much all action games are better in 60fps if for no other reason than it makes the controls more responsive.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I guess I was overestimating the difference. I should have watched some of those demos to refresh my memory.