Super Smash Bro
Banned
Just watched Samaritan for the first time, and this is seriously what everyone is wetting themselves over? Am I missing something? Because if you told me that was a current gen game I wouldn't bat an eye.
-
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.
Epic Reveals Samaritan Processing Requirements: 10x 360 at 1080p, (4.4x 360 at 720p)
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
If I was pro PC, wouldn't I want consoles to be powerful so that PC hardware would no longer be constrained? What kind of bullshit are you spouting?
I'm seeing reality rather than the hype goggles that you have on.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Wow
No you wouldn't because you wouldn't want them to be a better platform than PC due to 'fanboy' (I hate that term) tendencies. I've read your past posts, just saying.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Bro Sony is losing money, but they're far from broke. Learn about what you think before you say it.
That demo has so much more going on in it than anything this generation. I would shoot my lunch out my nose if someone told me that was running in real time on current gen hardware.
You are really being dense aren't you. I bought every single console this gen at launch. Heaven forbid I rag on 6 year old hardware as being shitty.
But I suppose because I'm not riding the hype train for next gen consoles I must be a fanboy.
Ah, I see.
a Master Ninja
Member
Epic, I'm counting on you to strong-arm Microsoft and Sony into putting at least 2.5 teraFLOPS of processing power into the next Xbox and PlayStation.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Tag quote bla bla bla lol. Just playin my brosef.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
As a basis for comparison, the TFLOP performance of ~modern PC GPUs includes;
GTX 570 = 1.4 TFLOPS
GTX 580 = 1.5 TFLOPS
GTX 590 = 2.4 TFLOPS (dual GPU core)
HD 6930 = 1.9 TFLOPS
HD 6970 = 2.7 TFLOPS
HD 6990 = 5.0 TFLOPS (dual GPU core)
All of these are available now.
GTX 570 = 1.4 TFLOPS
GTX 580 = 1.5 TFLOPS
GTX 590 = 2.4 TFLOPS (dual GPU core)
HD 6930 = 1.9 TFLOPS
HD 6970 = 2.7 TFLOPS
HD 6990 = 5.0 TFLOPS (dual GPU core)
All of these are available now.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
AHAHAA
Scapegoat
Member
Maybe the CG intro to a current gen game?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
the 6990 could do 2 samaritans, damn. i wonder where the 7xxx's stand
To bat an eye, you first have to open it and watch the damn thing.
Why are the Nvidia cards outputting so fewer flops when they run games faster?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
That data is just collected from Nvidia/AMD data, so I don't really know the technicalities behind it or how performance is valued. Real world performance definitely doesn't match the TFLOP discrepancies.
So yeah, someone with more technical knowledge will have to give deeper insight into how this all works. But this should still give you an idea of modern GPUs and what kind of TFLOP performance we're already seeing.
Numbers mean nothing when talking about components that specific. The Wii U rumors could be talking about any component, or just a general vague idea of them. From a figure like that, it might be that powerful, or it might not have any noticeable difference from 360 graphics. Both would still be correct, since the rumor means very little.
Same as the rumor that the 3DS could do 360-like graphics. Obviously from a technical standpoint that's not true, but RE:R could be mistaken for an HD console RE game from far away due to the shaders, which happens the 3DS is good at.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Drivers. One of the main reasons the pc is such a terrible platform.
PC's are not 'ideal' for gaming, but they can give a better experience than consoles to those who can achieve it.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I can see why you totally lead your debate team.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
You're saying that what's keeping AMD away from a 2x performance advantage is 3-4 software engineers.....Sounds legit.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
AMD has higher theoretical performance but lower average utilization.
JordanLMiller
Member
I actually can't tell too much of a difference either. At least it doesn't look 10x better than what we've got now.
That may be the case, but it's probably a complicated reason, like a hardware design having a choke point somewhere that reduces actual performance. I doubt it's management being so careless to not be able to fill a few positions to make all competition obsolete.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
No its just architectural differences. On the surface it seems like Nvidias' archetechure is better because it gets closer to its theoretical max but AMD still has better performance compared to die size and power. Whats more important?
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
Its not a bottleneck its fundamental to the architecture. AMD's arch depends on instruction level parallelism while Nvidia on thread level parallelism. Basically Nvidia spends more transistors on scheduling while AMD sticks in more compute units. AMD still gets more performance per die area which is allot more impotent then actual performance vs theoretical max. The one bottleneck is geometry throughput which only sows up on heavily tessellated games.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
lol , no
bgassassin
Member
TOAO already pointed out the architectural differences, but this does beg the question. Is the calculation "nVidia TFLOPs" or "AMD TFLOPs"?
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Are there any other super compelling talks by tim sweeney that I could watch right now?
AMD TLOPS, since the number he's using for the Xbox 360 is essentially AMD's stated performance for Xenos (240 GFLOPS).
Holodeck reality aw yeah
McHuj
Member
except not at all. These are only theoretical flops not actually programmable flops.
Shaders x Clock X 2 flops
For AMD 7970:
2048 shaders x .925 GHz x 2 = 3,788 Gflops
For Nvidia GTX580:
512 shaders x 1.544 GHz x 2 = 1,581 Gflops
The over GPU architecture and memory bandwidth will dictate how efficiently you can utilize those flops.
I'd like to know how Epic is counting the flop numbers for Samaritan: Theoretical or did they actual profile the code and estimate the number of operations that were executed.
I expect them to actually be good.
bgassassin
Member
Yeah but the demo was run on nVidia graphics cards.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
Can you elaborate? I never knew they calculated them differently.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Idk what this is even supposed to mean, but as a software engineer-in-training a windows pc is one of the absolutey worse platforms to attempt to get anywhere near peak performance from. And my professors, who have more knowledge than any of you combined, seem to agree.
But go on, keep on buying your 300$+ gpus and keep on believing you're doing anything more than wasting your money for more AF and AA.
Angelus Errare
Banned
no sure if serious
bgassassin
Member
Sorry. I put them in quotes for a reason and didn't mean to cause confusion. What I mean by that is 2.5 TFLOPs with nVidia hardware is not the same as 2.5TFLOPs with AMD. Are we talking about the demo needing pretty much two 580s or is one 6970 more than enough?
Graphics and processing power isn't gonna help there unfortunately
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
AF/AA/high resolutions and stable high frame rates alongside maxed out DX11 or whatever other settings in the latest games, exclusives or otherwise, are just a waste now? Neat... Note my PC isn't actually capable of any of that atm, and I'm comfortable enough with its performance outside games like GTAIV, but I'd certainly like all of that and I'm not gonna bitterly tell someone he wasted his money to achieve it, lol... As for efficiency, nobody said PC hardware is utilised 100%. That doesn't suddenly nulify what is achieved on PC however, considering the alternatives on consoles or what you get with lower end parts. That's ridiculous.
Also, ITT people can't differentiate between "i don't like this art style" and "this graphics tech isn't great". Whether you like how Samaritan looks or not (I don't), it's leaps and bounds ahead of everthing currently out there in pretty much every way. The same technologies applied to the games and settings you do like, alongside vastly improved assets to match the specs seen there, would also make them look a shitload better than they do. It's not that hard to get. And yeah they can probably get a passable impression of it done on much lower end hardware, but the whole point of that tech demo was to show off the full real deal.
Also, ITT people can't differentiate between "i don't like this art style" and "this graphics tech isn't great". Whether you like how Samaritan looks or not (I don't), it's leaps and bounds ahead of everthing currently out there in pretty much every way. The same technologies applied to the games and settings you do like, alongside vastly improved assets to match the specs seen there, would also make them look a shitload better than they do. It's not that hard to get. And yeah they can probably get a passable impression of it done on much lower end hardware, but the whole point of that tech demo was to show off the full real deal.
This guy is going to be a master of fixing software bugs with this confirmation bias, lol.
Guess what. I am a software engineer with years of experience. And I totally work with chief architects. Fuck, I've seen my CEO from time to time. He surely agrees with me.
I don't see why there's this argument. Consoles and PCs have their strengths and weaknesses. Consoles have ease of use, but also suffer from poor cooling/power, etc.
DocTarHeel
Member
How reliable is the "Wii U GPU > 1 TFLOP" statement supposed to be? I tried searching the internet, but the only place I found it mention was here. LOL
For Samaritan, it ran on three cards, but they said they felt they could get it down to one with enough optimization.
So that would likely be either one 580 (1.5 TFLOPS) or the AMD equivalent 6970 (2.7 TFLOPS).
Basically they want a card in late 2013 that runs like a high end card from January 2012, or approximately two years old.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I honestly don't care as of now, for the difference between 720P and 1080P. My gaming space isn't set up in a way that would allow me to discern the difference between the two very easily.
so i'm better off playing my games on a console that's stuck @ 720p and 30fps?
doesn't sound like i'm getting peak performance there.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Im not gonna dispute you on these numbers, because frankly idk where they come from and am too lazy too look up. But I know for a fact that no game on pc today ever comes close to the max specifications of a modern gpu, except maybe heat and watts generated.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
To figure that out you need to calculate the average utilization each card gets when running Samaritan then extrapolate that to however many cards gets you 2.5tf.