• 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)

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,152
8
0
Australia
Samaritan level visual fidelity should be quite achievable on the PS4 and XboxWhatever then, especially if some devs insist on the whole "keep at 720p cos DVDs lol".
 
Dec 11, 2010
34,635
0
0
Lol at the title change.

I have a feeling that there are other factors at play, and that a simple GFLOP comparison will end up low-balling what is actually needed to run it effectively.
 

Lagspike_exe

Member
Feb 10, 2009
9,798
0
960
Belgrade
1280x1080 would be a nice resolution, halfway from 720p to Full HD, which would require 6x-7x jump from X360. Did someone mention AMD 6670?
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
No wonder they want ten fold increases.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why is there a UE4 coming when UE3.whatever is questionable in it's ability to run on the next systems?
 

iamshadowlark

Banned
Jun 22, 2011
8,718
0
0
Lol at the title change.

I have a feeling that there are other factors at play, and that a simple GFLOP comparison will end up low-balling what is actually needed to run it effectively.
Ram would be the only that comes to mind. Any modern Gpu would have the poly power. Bandwidth might be a issue too.
 

Zombie James

Banned
Dec 28, 2005
46,217
3
0
I think that should be achievable next-gen, never mind the software and efficiency improvements that'll be made throughout the generation, too.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,046
4
0
7970 ha performance of 3.8TFLOPS I think. Not sure about 7950 specs.
More B3D info: average power draw of 7970 @ crysis 2 is ~163W [it can go up to ~189W].

^ These are not theoretical highest power draw numbers, this is in real gaming situations.
 

Krilekk

Banned
Jul 21, 2011
2,924
0
520
I'd be pretty happy if every next gen game uses 1080p/30 as the standard and runs at 720p/60 if I want frames over resolution. Cause I do. Not sure if this needed a new thread, it's already been (without Powerpoint) in the other two threads. And Xbox 360 has proven to have up to 355 Gigaflops.

Did anyone ever seriously doubt that next gen consoles would be able to run Samaritian-like graphics? We're talking about Epic, they live from selling their engine. Of course they show tech demos that are realistic for next gen consoles.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
The idea is that Unreal Engine 4 is built to run more efficiently on them.

Like, Unreal Engine 3 is only capable of using 2 CPU cores very effectively.
Makes sense. It'd be really bizarre if they're building a UE3.5 game for PS480, but they skip the WiiU till they make a sequel on UE4. If I understood your post, that's vaguely possible I imagine.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Oct 25, 2011
28,719
1
0
i would prefer a samaritan quality game at 720p with flawless image quality to samaritan at 1080p with ropey image quality, if it comes to talking about tradeoffs
 
Makes sense. It'd be really bizarre if they're building a UE3.5 game for PS480, but they skip the WiiU till they make a sequel on UE4. If I understood your post, that's vaguely possible I imagine.
To my understanding, Samaritan was only demoed on UE3 because UE4 wasn't ready yet.

It was a demo made in about 2 months by 12 people.

UE4 however is unveiling this year, and whatever their actual next game will be will probably be demoed on it, since they said they were unveiling another new IP this year as well.
 

Krilekk

Banned
Jul 21, 2011
2,924
0
520
Will 720p really be the most common resolution next gen?

Or will we have most games running somewhere between 720 and 1080.
Look at Carmack/Rage. Game runs at 60 fps at 720p. Carmack says Doom 4 will look thrice as good because it runs at just 30 fps. It's similar with resolution these days because of the massive amount of per pixel processing. Developers will always try to get more detailed worlds instead of high resolution because the price for that is high. 720p will be what the majority of AAA titles go for, no doubt about that. You have to use all the processing power you can get instead of wasting it on 1080p.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
To my understanding, Samaritan was only demoed on UE3 because UE4 wasn't ready yet.

It was a demo made in about 2 months by 12 people.

UE4 however is unveiling this year, and whatever their actual next game will be will probably be demoed on it, since they said they were unveiling another new IP this year as well.
Seems odd they'd add all that tech to UE3 when the current systems can't use it, and UE4 will be there to replace it when the new systems come.

It's kind of irrelevant to the discussion, but I can't wait to see that new IP, assuming The Samaritan is basically a sneak peak at it, and it seems very likely given it's similarities to Prototype, and the Prototype dude being the lead on the new IP.
 

Derrick01

Banned
May 9, 2011
34,663
0
0
Will 720p really be the most common resolution next gen?

Or will we have most games running somewhere between 720 and 1080.
You'll have most devs pushing for the most detail possible...so 720p.

I don't see why that's a bad thing either given how consoles aren't PC and therefore you're stuck with what you got for 5+ years. I'll take more detail and (hopefully) a stable 30fps over 1080p.

My PC will pick up the slack, but it can't make the actual games prettier if they decide to sacrifice graphics for 1080p/60 fps on consoles.
 

Lagspike_exe

Member
Feb 10, 2009
9,798
0
960
Belgrade
Default resolution next gen is a big question mark due to several things:

1) We don't really know how powerful will the next gen be. A tenfold increase in performance will probably mean that the amount of sub-HD games will be reduced compared with this gen.

2) 3D penetration. 3D has a performance overhead compared with 2D, so games that aim to fully utilate 3D usually end up with higher resolution 2D modes (for example, Super Stardust HD or Motorstorm: Apocalypse, running at 1280x1080).

3) Performance differences between major consoles. If one console gets significantly ahead of the others, while not becoming the market leader, we could end up with a situation where games are designed for weaker consoles and then get up-ported to the stronger one via resolution increase, as it doesn't require much work and provides relatively good results. Similarly, we could see down-porting, where games on weaker consoles end up with lower resolution (whether that's sub-HD or just HD depends on factors mentioned above).

The one big advantage that this gen has brought us is the creation of new antialiasing methods (MLAA, FXAA etc.), that significantly decrease the amount of bandwith required to perform anti aliasing, allowing for higher resolution instead.

Realistically, with a tenfold increase in performance we can expect that games move towards to 720p and above. Even today, sub-HD games aren't exactly a majority. They may indeed appear next gen, but in slower numbers and I bet that the number of games with resolution greater than 720p will significantly increase.
 

brain_stew

Member
Feb 20, 2007
19,261
1
1,215
I always expected both Sony and Microsoft to come in around the ~2 teraflop level. So Samaritan at something like 1440x1080 with a native 1080p HUD, sounds about right. I'm confident Sony are still aiming for that ballpark but all the recent Microsoft rumours are shaking my confidence on whether MS will also be competitive.
 

StudioTan

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Apr 5, 2011
7,588
0
0
i would prefer a samaritan quality game at 720p with flawless image quality to samaritan at 1080p with ropey image quality, if it comes to talking about tradeoffs
I agree and there was a large thread about this. I have a 720p projector and HD movies still look stunning and sharp on it. 720 vs 1080 isn't as important to me as better IQ, anti-aliasing and texture resolution.

Or realize how good 1080p looks with the right amount of AA and AF in comparison.
When I was buying my projector I A-Bed 720p and 1080p versions and at 10-13 feet the difference in sharpness was negligible.