-
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
did seem exessive, you got a link? Have they confirmed what hardware they were using?
60 FPS on a 680 is really impressive.
I really hope they either (a) manage to keep the IQ high when running it on consoles or (b) make a PC version, since it would a crime to waste those assets on a shitty IQ render.
I really hope they either (a) manage to keep the IQ high when running it on consoles or (b) make a PC version, since it would a crime to waste those assets on a shitty IQ render.
I've been posting about this a few times. I think people often overestimate the performance impact of the OS on a modern gaming PC -- it's negligible.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I am not a technical expert, so please correct me if I am wrong.
But I always thought that what we use CPU for in games is creating things like terrain, and simply having objects and characters inside the game. I always thought that the reason why RTS and MMO games often needed beefy CPUs and lots of RAMs was because of so many external things and characters going on.
I always thought that the GPU took care of the eye candy. Shaders, effects, lighting. But if you would remove everything that looks good and just look at the game at a skeleton level in black and white. only geometry of models as squares, circles and triangles floating through a black empty game space. those geometry is what the CPU handles. The GPU is the dress up and the CPU is the skeleton.
So I just assumed that a game running on the engine featured here would have a CPU dependecy based on how many characters you put in. 5 characters in a small-medium level? Perhaps a light CPU load.
200+ characters with high detail, animation, AI and polygon count? A more beefy CPU would be needed.
I heard a rumor that Broadwell might be soldered into the Motherboard itself. If that would be true, would that mean that we would be closer to a future with soldered-on GPUs? Or a future were CPU and GPU runs on a single chip! That is almost what it looks like when you watch a tear down of the new Imac or Retina MBP 15. It looks like they are from the same place and merely have different heat pipes exposing the heat in different directions.
But I always thought that what we use CPU for in games is creating things like terrain, and simply having objects and characters inside the game. I always thought that the reason why RTS and MMO games often needed beefy CPUs and lots of RAMs was because of so many external things and characters going on.
I always thought that the GPU took care of the eye candy. Shaders, effects, lighting. But if you would remove everything that looks good and just look at the game at a skeleton level in black and white. only geometry of models as squares, circles and triangles floating through a black empty game space. those geometry is what the CPU handles. The GPU is the dress up and the CPU is the skeleton.
So I just assumed that a game running on the engine featured here would have a CPU dependecy based on how many characters you put in. 5 characters in a small-medium level? Perhaps a light CPU load.
200+ characters with high detail, animation, AI and polygon count? A more beefy CPU would be needed.
I heard a rumor that Broadwell might be soldered into the Motherboard itself. If that would be true, would that mean that we would be closer to a future with soldered-on GPUs? Or a future were CPU and GPU runs on a single chip! That is almost what it looks like when you watch a tear down of the new Imac or Retina MBP 15. It looks like they are from the same place and merely have different heat pipes exposing the heat in different directions.
It's semi baked, semi dynamic depending on the object. There's a slide somewhere showing a matrix of combinations that determine what technique is used.
Anyway, I'm very confident now that we'll see this on new consoles soon and it'll look very good. And this will be just the beginning
dragonelite
Member
I believe Dx11 already took away a lot of resource overhead dx 9 still had?
Squeenix sure can impress when they want to. This thing running at 60fps already is really nice. You can't really compare recent games like Far Cry 3, those things are horribly unoptimized, like most PC ports these days. We're in a weird position where console versions run like crap and don't look too good, but PC ports also run like crap. It's like developers don't know what to do. Next-gen get here already plz.
toastyToast
Member
Not sure how this bodes for next gen considering how long the asset creation at that fidelity would take to develop. Even if they could, I don't think they'd go balls out like they did with that trailer for a 60 hour game
Running at 60fps on one 680 is crazy. I didn't think it was being run on a single GPU config
Running at 60fps on one 680 is crazy. I didn't think it was being run on a single GPU config
Horse Armour
Member
If that's true then why are PC games getting such bad performance/graphics. Take games like AC3 or FC3 which, considering Agni's Philosophy runs at 60FPS, should be running something like 240FPS but when you take a look at benchmarks they're getting like 40FPS which is worse than what this demo is giving despite looking 10x better. Considering that, do you really believe that console optimisation bringing massive performance benefits is near an end?
APZonerunner
Member
Obviously the problem here is there's no game running beneath this; it's a glorified cutscene.
RE Asset generation: One interesting thing about this is that they told me at E3 (interview here) that the idea is that they can reuse assets from CG.
With FF13, for instance, the assets in the opening were generated twice - one CGI version of Hanged Edge for the actual pre-rendered opening, one in-game version. With this demo, they generated a CG version first over at Visual Works (unreleased, but I saw it as part of our E3 session) and reused a lot of the texture assets on the real-time version of the demo. Some of them are compressed, but some, like the backgrounds/skybox, are identical.
If this'll actually work in a real development environment, and how well, remains to be seen.
RE Asset generation: One interesting thing about this is that they told me at E3 (interview here) that the idea is that they can reuse assets from CG.
With FF13, for instance, the assets in the opening were generated twice - one CGI version of Hanged Edge for the actual pre-rendered opening, one in-game version. With this demo, they generated a CG version first over at Visual Works (unreleased, but I saw it as part of our E3 session) and reused a lot of the texture assets on the real-time version of the demo. Some of them are compressed, but some, like the backgrounds/skybox, are identical.
If this'll actually work in a real development environment, and how well, remains to be seen.
yurinka
Member
So if PS4 is rumored to have a 7970, I assume that X720 is gonna have a 680? Or they use it because it's the main reference of this gen of GPUs?
I also see a lot of RAM usage, but I think that makes sense for early tech demos. With optimization and reducing some textures and other stuff then I can think that it can run on consoles with 8GB. Let's hope they don't end having 4GB.
Not really needed, the Vita has its own CPU/GPU and works well as cross crontroller with PS3, they just need to optimize the Remote Play a bit and enable it for all games.
They don't need to copy anything, they already did it before WiiU release. Just with the extra horsepower of PS4 and some tweaks would be perfect.
Hitman is poorly coded for PC, there is nothing in that game that is that impressive ....... it's just a poorly coded console port.
A 680 / 670 should never choke on that game, it's technically inferior to many PC games out there but runs worse.
Because FC3 seems rushed (in terms of optimisation) and AC3 is a badly done console port.
BF3, The Witcher 2 etc look better than those games and run brilliantly on PC hardware.
Horse Armour
Member
BF3 and Witcher 2 still don't run at 60FPS on a GTX 680 and they don't look anywhere near as good as Agni's.
Risk Breaker
Member
And still, it runs much better than Witcher 2 on my laptop, specially at 1080p, no matter the settings. Looks a lot better as well :/
Anyway, yeah, I think this could run on the rumoured PS420 specs more or less, dunno if 60fps or 30fps with MSAAx2/4
BF3 runs at 60fps on a 680 no problem ....... what are you talking about? ....... have a 670 on stock clocks running at 1080p, ultra, SSAO vsynced at 60fps.
As does the Witcher 2.
I am was referring to you pointing out a badly done console port (AC3) running badly as not be indicative of the ability of current PC hardware.
A well coded and optimised engine like that behind Agni can run that well and look that good on a card that has over / around 2 teraflops of performance.
I'm pretty certain, as the interview posted by APZonerunner shows, that they can achieve way way better performance with those techs with compression and such.
The thing that makes that demo so impressive to me is the directing, the facial animations, the whole post processing effects to make it like a movie, and especially the cloth simulation.
I'm pretty sure that will be impressive enough with smaller assets. I would be more worried that some of those effects won't look as good in game situation where they won't be planned perfectly.
The thing that makes that demo so impressive to me is the directing, the facial animations, the whole post processing effects to make it like a movie, and especially the cloth simulation.
I'm pretty sure that will be impressive enough with smaller assets. I would be more worried that some of those effects won't look as good in game situation where they won't be planned perfectly.
Horse Armour
Member
I'm pretty sure a 670 can't run BF3 60FPS locked with HBAO and 4xMSAA.
Huh, I played through BF3 on a 570 and was getting 60FPS. I'm currently playing Witcher 2 and it may not always be 60 but it still never drops below 40 on my 570. And that's with a weakass i5 750...
Can't run what? ...... BF3?
HBAO and 4xMSAA was not the point, rather you stated a 680 could not run BF3 at 60fps ...... which is obviously wrong.
MikeE21286
Member
I thought that the opposite was true.
IIRC when this was released Square gave the impression that it was not really optimized at all.
Horse Armour
Member
What? A 680 can't run BF3 at 60FPS locked absolutely maxed out, that was my point, you can't just take effects out of the equation and still say it does.
drkOne
Member
Do we have an actual number on how much of that it was using? Seems kind of weird that a game needs that much.Not sure 32gb of ram kinda scary
Can probably be fixed by a good streaming engine.
WAR recon zero
Banned
i'm worried about development cost.
That is one year job for 4 minutes. Sure, engine is pretty much ready, and maybe it took 4 months to produce, but it's still 4 minutes only
Now imagine a 6 hour game
Now imagine a 20 hour game
Now imagine skyrim looking like that
That is one year job for 4 minutes. Sure, engine is pretty much ready, and maybe it took 4 months to produce, but it's still 4 minutes only
Now imagine a 6 hour game
Now imagine a 20 hour game
Now imagine skyrim looking like that
Does anyone know what resolution was the rendering at?
Anyway, here's my take. It may be possible on a console if:
I heard that 3x680 rumour was dismissed.
Anyway, here's my take. It may be possible on a console if:
- The resolution is not 1920x1080p. Either 720p or dynamic 1080p resolution (1280x1080 to 1920x1080)
- Reduction in framerate to 30 fps
- Opting for a less resource intensive AA. Perhaps only FXAA
I heard that 3x680 rumour was dismissed.
Skyrim memory management with that level of detail would make PCs explode.
But not that camera, hoo boy...
Pretty shaky indeed but i'm sure it helps making it impressive, at least by hiding things
JordanLMiller
Member
32 GB of ram? My laptop whimpers.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Yeah, that's the one that got dismissed. I look for a link.
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/e3-2012-star-wars-1313-uses-second-fastest-nvidia-graphics-card-ever-created/
Given that this article is dated before yours, there is a chance that yours could be right but we don't know anything for certain.
dragonelite
Member
Game development doesn't work like that...
Cant extrapolate cost of making games given on a run time basis.
Content development should become easier for the top teams.
InfiniDragon
Member
Nope. I don't think 720/PS4 will run it either without major compromises though.
What we'll likely get on 720/PS4 is something that looks kinda like this in 720p from far away, then when you start nitpicking you notice stuff that got axed to make it work for an actual game.
Didn't Square confirm it's very scalable? Didn't they also want to bring it to Wii and 3DS?
http://sknygy.blogspot.ca/2011/08/square-enixs-luminous-engine-wii-u3ds.html
http://sknygy.blogspot.ca/2011/08/square-enixs-luminous-engine-wii-u3ds.html
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Just make it 30, who cares about 60 fps when the game looks this good. I actually hope there aren't that many 60 fps games next-gen save for the standard 60fps genres (racing, sports, fighting). I want to see devs push the new hardware as far as it can go visually.
I don't agree. I think we'll see it @ 1080p and 30 fps. It'll be at worst very, very close.
I don't agree. I think we'll see it @ 1080p and 30 fps. It'll be at worst very, very close.
32GB will not become standard for pc gaming anytime soon, but developer need that much ram because of their tools. Square has integrated their engine with full Maya support, live previewing and all.
16GB will be more than enough for first waves of nextgen multiplatform games on PC.
Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed runs on 3DS. I would hardly call it a facsimile of the PS3/360/Wii U version. If Sony and MS are going for 2.5 teraflop systems, it will be a very difficult task to get the Wii U version up to snuff.
krameriffic
Member
RAM is remarkably cheap these days. You can get 8GB of decent stuff for around $40.
I mean Square confirmed Luminous is scalable to tons of things, for example even iPads, as for Agni's it will probably have to be scaled down by an amount for WiiU/PS4/720.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/356105/luminous-engine-scalable-from-next-gen-to-ipad-square/
GhostRidah
Member
Most consoles don't even see a profit, its all in the software.
Retail costs are irrelevant for console prices. GTX 680 costs Nvidia around 130-150$ to produce, that's together with expensive GDDR5 and cooling.
metalslimer
Member
That's still extremely expensive for just one component of the system. And obviously Nvdia or AMD (who is the rumored party) won't sell at cost even if Sony gets a good deal. So then if you're trying to sell at 400 (which I assume they are) you have one components eating over half the entire cost of the system. Then again, that is now, who knows what will happen by early 2014.