If the first wave of consoles games don't blow away every PC game released so far I will be disappointed. Nothing looked like PGR3 when that came out.
-
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.
Timothy Lottes: "a 2011 GPU (6970) seems like a possible proxy for nextgen consoles"
- Thread starter angular graphics
- Start date
If the first wave of consoles games don't blow away every PC game released so far I will be disappointed. Nothing looked like PGR3 when that came out.
You will be disappointed then. PC processors and GPUs are much more developed and mature now, and a PC with no restrictions on power draw is not going to be blown away by launch titles on a $400 or even $500 console that has to fit inside a small box without overheating.
Maybe if you want to restrict the comparison to PCs that cost under $1,000, only use one video card, only use so much power, etc.
Maybe if you want to restrict the comparison to PCs that cost under $1,000, only use one video card, only use so much power, etc.
Why waste time and money porting VLIW4 to the new process node? It's fine to use more transistors so long as die size and power draw are reasonable.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
launch games will blow away every pc game so far no question. imo last gens 360 line up blew away high end pc games that were new at the time of the launch but others will disagree with me
nincompoop
Banned
PGR3 runs at a shit resolution and low framerate. F.E.A.R. looked way better.
Yup.
Anyone who saw FEAR running on a PC and Perfect Dark Zero on a 360 in November 2005 will disagree with you. The confidence you have that launch games will blow away PC games in 2013 "no question" is based on dreams, not reality.
Aren't they about to start tradition with 7xxx series? If people think nextbox GPU will be based on 4 year old architecture than they are wrong. Thats one area where MS will put alot of money to get it done right...
I completely disagree. Battlefield 2 launched in June 2005 and blew away every launch 360 title.
Also a lot of early 360 games were PC ports that ran and/or looked worse anyway like CoD2 and Quake 4. Then there was Oblivion in 2006 which was miles better on PC.
Proelite
Member
Developers don't have to relearn multicore programming this time around. I say for certain that launch titles for next gen xbox / ps4 will take better advantage of their hardware's power than current gen launch games did.
What blew away Doom 3, Far Cry, or Half-Life 2?
the 360 also launched with a gpu equivalent to mid-high end pc videocards of the time. even if nextbox retails for $1000 and is a 100% committed gaming machine, it won't have anything close to a high-end part purely due to power requirements.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Better cost scaling down the road? Better efficiency? Certainly wouldn't be a waste of anything either way.
I don't really see that being the case since GCN is better in a lot of ways that a console maker will care deeply about, specifically power management and more advanced API support.
Also I'm not entirely sure how much of a difference this will make but GCN was designed from the start to be integrated into SoCs and I'm sure having tighter integration and lower BOM from the start of the generation would greatly interest Microsoft.
Necronomikon
Member
They will, but not technically. Unless Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo have managed to produce some unpublished shader tech we haven't seen before, or some kind of texture tessellation detail technique, then I guess technically we won't see something new or something never seen before on current-gen PCs.
Now if we talk about other games characteristics such as: art, direction, story telling, gameplay, cinematic values... then it most probably will blow us away!
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i can compare the two right now in 2012. pdz looks waaaay better
and even then fear came out in late 05, right on the heels of the xbox launch. the blown away no question statement was in reference to games so far. i even bolded it. its 2012 not 2013, and at this point 2013 would be early for the next gen systems
Cmd. Pishad'aç
Banned
If that becomes true, the wet dreams some people have about Wii U being left miles behind from XboxNext are gonna crash-land somewhere.
jim-jam bongs
Member
That's fair enough, but it's not particularly impressive for consoles coming out in 2013 to exceed graphics from late 2011 or early 2012. And honestly, it's foolish to count on that being the case anyway when you consider that the average PC GPU uses four times the power of a 360 or PS3 under load, and produces a lot of heat and noise in the process.
We will see some impressive games since developers are currently targetting their games to run on hardware developed and shipped in 2005. More games will make use of DirectX 11 features. It's going to be a jump either way, it won't beat the PC in terms of IQ/AA/resolution but these machines will set the new standard for game technology and developers will set the bar higher with their games. New consoles will basically remove a whole bunch of limitations and see a substantial increase in RAM.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
"Waaaay better", huh? What was better? The lighting? The textures? The character models? All of the above?
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/653/653534/fear-20050923050657674.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/670/670581/perfect-dark-zero-20051123110154037.jpg
I bought and enjoyed both games but I don't even think it's a contest here.
It's amazing how many people can't get their heads around this fact no matter how often it is pointed out.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
id say those are decent pics of each game so kudos for that and id say pdz looks a hell of a lot better
and yeah i guess all of the above. fear probably has better art direction though.
Fear also had incredible AI along with partial environmental destruction and insane particle physics, none of which were things the 360 was doing at that point.
What average GPU uses 400W under load? o_0
Most mid range GPUs takes up to 140W, but mostly around 100W and those are 40nm cards and not custom made. Hell, my whole PC probably takes 280W under load [i5 2500k, two hdd, 2x4gb ddr3, GTX 560].
280W is still way too much for a console.
I agree that it'll be closer to a midrange 28nm PC GPU but just saying it's "custom" doesn't make a difference when it comes to power draw. The laws of physics still apply.
The point is that it won't be near the power of a 6970, even on a new architecture and process. GCN is good but performance gains weren't big enough to offset the difference you'd see going midrange versus previous gen high end.
jim-jam bongs
Member
http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php?showtopic=264
Even your card peaks at over 200W and it's not particularly high-end.
I'm primarily a PC gamer, but I have to admit that 1st generation console games still manage to impress me. Dedicated and serious platform specific development along with fantastic art direction creates some pretty good looking games. Exorbitantly large budgets probably play a factor too.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Aesthetics aside, FEAR has dynamic lighting and it looks like it even has self shadowing.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/SapientWolf/108hv.jpg
Looks at the jowls on that dude. FEAR was clearly ahead of its time in jowl rendering.
To be honest, comparing PC hardware and console launch games isn't going to tell you much about generational graphics. FEAR 3 somehow looks worse than FEAR 1 and Gears 3 looks better than all of them.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Didn't they end up getting rid of self shadowing in Oblivion because 360 couldn't handle it; but was perfectly fine on PC version? Didn't FEAR 360 look like utter crap compared to FEAR PC despite FEAR 360 coming out much later?
I wouldn't call that a blowout.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Yes they will. Closed platform with similar power to what PC's have today (maybe a little less) is going to blow away what PC games are doing right now, no doubt about it. But PC games will move forward as well so console games may only have a slight edge for a little bit.
Is that Jim Sterling from Destructoid? The resemblance is uncanny.
lol
I think a 6970 is overly hopeful. Unless we move to a smaller process than 28nm, I think a card with that kind of performance will take too much power to be feasible.
The RSX in the PS3 is a cheaper/slower brother to the 7900GT, and the 7900GT only takes 50W of power.
A 6970 takes over 200W of power on its own. You won't be able to get a card with similar performance that consumes ~100W in the near future.
The RSX in the PS3 is a cheaper/slower brother to the 7900GT, and the 7900GT only takes 50W of power.
A 6970 takes over 200W of power on its own. You won't be able to get a card with similar performance that consumes ~100W in the near future.
Whats amazing is "fact" isnt one at all. Its completely false.
Witcher 3 could very well be a nextbox launch title :0
BoobPhysics101
Banned
I'm betting right now that it will take 150W of power and not equal the 6970.
edit: TDP of 90W? Well, that might shut me up. That would be an incredible feat, to more than double power efficiency within about a year's time. I'll remain skeptical.
It seems too good to be true, especially when the 7970 doesn't achieve anywhere near that efficiency. That quote is suggesting that you would get 80% of the 7970's performance for less than half of the power cost.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Got charts, brah? I posted one a little further up.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
It will be faster than a 6970 and will use closer to 100w. I'll bet $100 on that right now if you'd like to take me up on that offer.
The possibly overly optimistic PR that you just posted says it'll be similar to the 6950 which could mean slower
In case you were wondering that chip is slower than the 6970
Edit: Whoops reading comprehension. My bad.
Seems too good to be true, but we'll see
It was above what was available on launch, and there was even tech from the generation after that inside it.
But at a moderate clock frequency for power/heat/yield management reasons...
Whats stopping it is we don't know the route MS will travel for the 720... they could go high end again, but they could throttle it a bit more, much like a 7950 vs 7970... so they'll get more margin, better yields, lower heat, lower power...
Personally I think that is what will happen...
I believe it was the first chip that had a unified shader architecture to be put in a retail product so in that sense it was.
Power-wise it was close to top of the line but outclassed completely within a year.
Top of the line PC GPUs these days use 300W. When 360 was released they used 100. So a contemporary top of the line GPU is completely out of the question.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Not too good to be true. It's 28nm, it has a more advanced architecture, and will most likely clock higher at lower voltages.
I'm with this.
They can optimize for 60fps at 1080 no problem with something like that.
300 and 400W GPU figures? That's entire PC load. Cards than do 60fps at 1080p use under 140W. Much less is needed for optimization if its targeted at a wattage, and less even than that because devs can optimize for a fixed GPU.
Ah this makes a lot of sense.
This thread makes me think about how much Nintendo may be about to bone themselves with the Wii U.
I mean, 2-3 years down the line when Third Parties are moving all resources to the next gen consoles, where the hell will Nintendo be left with their technology that's just a couple years beyond what the 360 and PS3 can do? Will they be stuck with more shitty ports or do they have a proper next gen console in the pipeline for just after MS and Sony's systems?
Has there already been a topic made about this?
I mean, 2-3 years down the line when Third Parties are moving all resources to the next gen consoles, where the hell will Nintendo be left with their technology that's just a couple years beyond what the 360 and PS3 can do? Will they be stuck with more shitty ports or do they have a proper next gen console in the pipeline for just after MS and Sony's systems?
Has there already been a topic made about this?
perhaps launch games on the consoles won't spunk their entire tessellation budget on a damn brick wall, and instead use it efficiently?
PC games already don't stretch their GPUs in terms of polycount because they're restricted by being part of multi platform development with consoles as the lead. So you just get a resolution/texture/framerate bump. I'm sure some are perfectly fine with that, but I'd like to see what could be done with the entire development focused on using that power to its best advantage
ColonelColon
Member
7970 only uses 210w. The 7870 (6970 equivalent) is rumored to only use 120w.
You said the avg gpu uses 4 times as much as a console gpu. Launch 360 gpu used 100w. So yeah you are wrong.
Even so cpus have come a long way in efficiency. I see no reason why a optimized cpu could clear up room for a 125w gpu which is very close to some current amd offerings. I know you like to shit on consoles but these next gen boxes will be monsters even if its middle of the road tech.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll