I was wondering when someone would point that out. A nice touch, to be sure, but not real-time reflection and certainly nothing noteworthy.
Never said it was note worthy from a tech standpoint - just said it's a nice touch.
I was wondering when someone would point that out. A nice touch, to be sure, but not real-time reflection and certainly nothing noteworthy.
Yeah, but the polygons man!
It's all about the polygons.
Polygons, polygons, polygons.
Those are theoretical polygon throughputs. Having *that* and actually outputting them being very different things.
120 million polygons per second were the high end polygon pushing norm, really.
But in forward rendering, if you're using multiple-passes for each light, you will render an object each as many times as lights are on the scene. In other words, if you have 3 objects and 3 lights, then you will render those 3 objects 3 times each, so it's the same as rendering 9 objects.are there games today that really need to draw more than a million polygons on screen per frame? I mean it sounds like Xbone and PS4 main characters aren't even 100k total, and a large amount of those will always be occluded anyway..
Side note: Anyone notice the reflection of the world in the gold flag topper? Nice touch.
I think Forza dudes will grab all the polygons they can at any given circunstance and put them into cars.are there games today that really need to draw more than a million polygons on screen per frame? I mean it sounds like Xbone and PS4 main characters aren't even 100k total, and a large amount of those will always be occluded anyway..
But in forward rendering, if you're using multiple-passes for each light, you will render an object each as many times as lights are on the scene. In other words, if you have 3 objects and 3 lights, then you will render those 3 objects 3 times each, so it's the same as rendering 9 objects.
I think Forza dudes will grab all the polygons they can at any given circunstance and put them into cars.
Other than that, no... not really; most devs are not really focusing on polygon count anymore.
My point though, was that even if theoretical throughput is the same efficiency texturing and the like probably isn't; the less bottlenecked the platform the closest it can come to it's calculated capacity. I don't think Wii U is gonna be anywhere past 250 million polygons per second on a normal basis, but perhaps it can hit 200 no problem. I'm throwing numbers here, but I really think seeing some games out there than it can have a palpable polycount edge to it; not huge but certainly noticeable.
In regards to the million polygon question, some PS3/X360 games draw 3/4 million polygons per frame @ 30 fps. We're easily past the 1 million mark per frame on a normal basis.
Yes, yes, that's absolutely true. But in terms of third party support I think that the forward renderers may still be of a great importance since most games are still developed on past-gen engines.I thought things were starting to move toward deferred rendering. I think there was some discussion on that earlier in the thread; wsippel I believe said he thinks Wii U's setup lends itself more to deferred rendering than forward.
Dead Rising 1 claimed 4 million polygons peak per frame, and Lost Planet 1 claimed up to 3 million per frame; those being 30 frame per second games.
Not many developers use that metric openly, but 4 million @ 30 fps and 2 million @ 60 fps seem to be the achievable limits of the X360, more than that is not really feasible IMO.
That amounts to 120 million polygons per second on both (30 and 60 fps) accounts.
I can't speak for the development team but I can trace the source for it:and these are unique, visible polygons? not multiple draws of the same ones or unoptimised occlusion culling?
Source: http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20070131/3dlp.htmMain character [in Lost Planet] is about 10.000-20.000 polygons. The VS Robot is about 40.000-30.000. Background is about 500.000 polygons. That amounts to about 3 million polygons per scene and every frame including the rendering cost that is invisible to the naked eye like shadow generation.
(...) "On the other hand, Dead Rising is about 4 million polygons [per frame].
gaf -> internet -> gaf?
I think Forza dudes will grab all the polygons they can at any given circunstance and put them into cars.
Other than that, no... not really; most devs are not really focusing on polygon count anymore.
My point though, was that even if theoretical throughput is the same efficiency texturing and the like probably isn't; the less bottlenecked the platform the closest it can come to it's calculated capacity. I don't think Wii U is gonna be anywhere past 250 million polygons per second on a normal basis, but perhaps it can hit 200 no problem. I'm throwing numbers here, but I really think seeing some games out there than it can have a palpable polycount edge to it; not huge but certainly noticeable.
In regards to the million polygon question, some PS3/X360 games draw 3/4 million polygons per frame @ 30 fps. We're easily past the 1 million mark per frame on a normal basis.
Dead Rising 1 claimed 4 million polygons peak per frame, and Lost Planet 1 claimed up to 3 million per frame; those being 30 frame per second games.
Not many developers use that metric openly, but 4 million @ 30 fps and 2 million @ 60 fps seem to be the achievable limits of the X360, more than that is not really feasible IMO.
That amounts to 120 million polygons per second on both (30 and 60 fps) accounts.
I can't speak for the development team but I can trace the source for it:
Source: http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20070131/3dlp.htm
Translation cleared up a little, but it's representative.
Lost Planet is using 2.5 motion blur, hence, the "invisible to the eye" claim is most likely in accordance to that fact, Wayne model is 12.392 polygons but the game adds it all the way up to 17.765 polygons in order for the 2.5 motion blur effect to work.
Those polygons are not visible, outside of the effect (this gets explained by images in the source, it's pretty interesting actually) anywho, said effect is not limited to the main character but applies to other things as well; they're having that into account with their 3 million per frame polygon projections.
They're not all necessarily visible although the result of them being there is (it's the motion blur) as for being unique... I think so, they aren't rendering a character twice like some games do for things like reflections, the thing they're doing is essentially 2D vector manipulation on top of the 3D models (hence the term 2.5D motion blur). They're byproducts of the characters, yet they're different (2D silhouettes, basically); I believe that that's as far as it goes in regards to "multiple draws", and I'll assume the game is using culling properly, but I really don't know; but regardless their count would be still taking into account every single polygon drawn, that much is evident.
This said, I remember tinkering with this source several years ago, as of now I only glanced over; I might be stepping on some mine in regards to very specific details in there. The translated part is accurate though.
posted that a while back.... nothing to get from the site.
gaf -> internet -> gaf?
gaf -> internet -> gaf?
If it's from Gaf, why has it got 320 SU.
Thought the "GAF figure" was 128 or something?
If it's from Gaf, why has it got 320 SU.
Thought the "GAF figure" was 128 or something?
That's the USC figure. we don't know the exact figure yet.
I think Forza dudes will grab all the polygons they can at any given circunstance and put them into cars.
Other than that, no... not really; most devs are not really focusing on polygon count anymore.
My point though, was that even if theoretical throughput is the same efficiency texturing and the like probably isn't; the less bottlenecked the platform the closest it can come to it's calculated capacity. I don't think Wii U is gonna be anywhere past 250 million polygons per second on a normal basis, but perhaps it can hit 200 no problem. I'm throwing numbers here, but I really think seeing some games out there than it can have a palpable polycount edge to it; not huge but certainly noticeable.
In regards to the million polygon question, some PS3/X360 games draw 3/4 million polygons per frame @ 30 fps. We're easily past the 1 million mark per frame on a normal basis.
So it's not "GAF > Internet > GAF"
So where have these figures come from and why are they being dismissed?
They left out a couple MBs of eDram didn't they? Isn't it 32+2?I dont know, but its being tossed around like its a fact:
They left out a couple MBs of eDram didn't they? Isn't it 32+2?
3 Separate Blocks of memory:
1 Block of 32MB of eDRAM,
1 Block of 1MB of SRAM - Possibly used in "Wii mode",
1 Block of 2MB of eDRAM - Also likely used in Wii compatibility mode
Yep
Though I dont understand the need for the different blocks for "Wii-mode".
But then what else could these two other blocks offer in benefits?
Yep
Though I dont understand the need for the different blocks for "Wii-mode".
But then what else could these two other blocks offer in benefits?
I dont know, but its being tossed around like its a fact:
So it's not "GAF > Internet > GAF"
So where have these figures come from and why are they being dismissed?
That's what I've been trying to figure out myself. If they were pulling these numbers out of thin air, you'd think they'd do the same for other details they are unsure of, or give estimations. I'm guessing they have some sources(devs) that were willing to share some of their 'discoveries' made thus far. That's probably another reason why they didn't blow it up, but flew under the radar with it. I think I'll try to contact them for a responce on that matter.
Still, it's not a confirmation, just highly likely info that we should keep an eye on. It's real shame no one seems interested is investigating this matter, after months and months of almost fruitless discussions and derailments . Oh well...
You wish ;pI think the problem is that most people who both cared and were knowledgeable left the thread after so many derailments.
You wish ;p
The issue with that Latte linked spec that you and OryoN discussed is that it has a serious flow in its numbers WRT the VLIW5 rumors: by the quoted numbers, Latte cannot be a VLIW5.
Five CUs (compute units, AKA SIMD units) and 320 SPs (shader processors, AKA processing elements) means each CU should host 64 PEs. 64 is not a multiple of 5, and VLIW5 works with quintets of PEs. Not to mention the consensus is that there are 8 CUs on the die shot, and that's one of the few things there's a consensus about ; )
You wish ;p
The issue with that Latte linked spec that you and OryoN discussed is that it has a serious flow in its numbers WRT the VLIW5 rumors: by the quoted numbers, Latte cannot be a VLIW5.
Five CUs (compute units, AKA SIMD units) and 320 SPs (shader processors, AKA processing elements) means each CU should host 64 PEs. 64 is not a multiple of 5, and VLIW5 works with quintets of PEs. Not to mention the consensus is that there are 8 CUs on the die shot, and that's one of the few things there's a consensus about ; )
Compute unit =/= optimised for/explicitly related to "GPU Compute" tasks. Or rather, 'compute' doesn't necessarily refer to what's called "GPU Compute", "Compute Shaders" "GPGPU" etc, which is just the use of the GPU for tasks outside of pure graphics. Everything a processor is doing is some form of computation, whether it be a rendering a shader or running a physics simulation.Thanks Blu. Super noob stuff incoming...
Still something I'm confused about. The consensus have been that Latte is based on VLIW5 design. But, from what I understand, that design doesn't lend itself to "compute " in the traditional sense. Hence, the GCN architecture. But Latte isn't GCN based, as far as we understand. So how would those 8 shader blocks represent compute units? If AMD was asked to make customizations to those blocks for compute, wouldn't it just end up being a GCN design?
Orignially, I was wondering if the compute features of Latte could be tucked away in a totally separate block or two, (preferably one with lots of registers, and what's not) highly specialized for compute tasks only. Can that be ruled out entirely?
[/noob]
http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/project-cars-races-to-next-gen/“Project CARS has always led the pack in terms of insane detail. Whether that’s graphically in the craftsmanship of our cars and tracks, technically in the way we’ve approached weather and time of day, or emotionally in how each car feels and responds to your touch. These powerful new platforms allow us therefore to not compromise on the quality of our vision and ultimately that means players are going to experience something truly breathtaking when they get behind the wheel.”
Just thought this was interesting with all the recent "lol @176 GFLOPs" chatter.
That is; the fact that the team at Slightly Mad Studios apparently pulled the plug on the current gen version of Project Cars, but Wii U is still along for the ride. The fact that the small dev team opt out of targeting the massive consumer base on PS360, seems to indicate that those consoles posed technical challenges that the team felt wasn't worth the compromise in quality... certain challenges that they either never encountered on Wii U, or found an acceptable solution for.
http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/project-cars-races-to-next-gen/
Whether people consider Wii U one of those "powerful platform" or not, the fact is that it at least meets the minimum requirements for the quality and vision behind Project Cars. This is especially interesting since the console is still very young.
One other point that can be made is; having much more modern capabilities(and more RAM, of course) seems to dictate what games are technically possible on Wii U, more so than FLOPs alone, despite all the drama.
Another significant advantage would be that the developer responsible for the outstanding NFSMW U port is doing the CARS U backend.I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was made due to the RAM size alone. That's the one significant advantage that the Wii U definitely has.
You wish ;p
The issue with that Latte linked spec that you and OryoN discussed is that it has a serious flow in its numbers WRT the VLIW5 rumors: by the quoted numbers, Latte cannot be a VLIW5.
Five CUs (compute units, AKA SIMD units) and 320 SPs (shader processors, AKA processing elements) means each CU should host 64 PEs. 64 is not a multiple of 5, and VLIW5 works with quintets of PEs. Not to mention the consensus is that there are 8 CUs on the die shot, and that's one of the few things there's a consensus about ; )
Another significant advantage would be that the developer responsible for the outstanding NFSMW U port is doing the CARS U backend.
I don't get it. After months if speculating, debating over what may be in Latte, people are just going to strug off the details on the site as though we knew it all along? What's the matter, website not credible? Or did GAF confirm this already?(I may have missed that)
That's some pretty specific 'info' they've got there. Transistors count(Espresso should bring the total to slightly over 1 billion), # of shaders(the subject of countless debates), and even the number of compute units(which some insisted wasn't in Latte). Why aren't we discussing this? Did they pull it out of thin air? All the other info seems spot on. Someone please fill me in, cause I'm a bit confused.
well there are upcoming third party games for Wii U lets see how they perform.