Xbox 360 Case Study: Reasons why 2nd generation console titles will excel

[Acert93]

Every console launch I can remember has demonstrated a significant disparity between the quality of launch titles, and more importantly, between the best looking launch titles and 2nd and 3rd generation software. This thread is being created for your feedback, pro and con, on this disparity in graphic quality. Since the Xbox 360 is almost here and X05 has given us a good idea of what to expect from the launch software I felt it was a good time to take a jab at this subject. The 360 will be my personal main focus, but feel free to broaden your own comments *within the scope of this topic*.

Feel free to add your reasons or post explainations why certain reasons are not valid because correcting them wont result in better looking titles.

1. Developers are being Rushed.

a. Like most launches developers are contrained to a specific a fairly short timeframe and must have their games out within a couple months buffer period to make a launch. When you add in...

b. Beta Kit issues, well, this is a problem. As IGN noted (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/655/655273p1.html)in their special last week, the Beta Kit situation did not go as MS planned. Final dev kits were not received until Augest, and even then there were rumblings about underclocked packages.

c. It does not help that the Xbox 360 has developers tieing their head around a new CPU. Xbox1 and PC devs have been spoiled with large OOO chips with significant amounts of cache at high frequencies. Now they are being asked to multi-thread on an in-order CPU that has 1MB of cache to share. There is also a transition from the x86 ISA to the PPC one. Oh, and you don't get to touch the CPU until at most 6 months before launch. So all those ideas of experimenting, testing, and designing new code ideas to deal with the transition? Forget it, you get a couple months to clean up your code and make the game playable.

d. Devs also get to bang their heads against a new GPU. Yes, they get a thin DX-like API. But with eDRAM and a significant shift toward Shaders and away from fixed function hardware and heavy TMU use it requires a new line of thought to exploit the potential of the chip. Yet this requires having access to the hardware to test shader code and see what works. Not only have developers not been working on GPUs without Unified Shaders and eDRAM, they have been working on GPUs without SM3.0 support, no HDR effects, no hardware tesselation, no HOS, no MEMEXPORT, no vertex texturing, no dynamic branching, etc. Devs were given SM2.0 cards (9800/X800) and while many titles look great this limitation shows pretty clearly.

=> 2nd and 3rd gen titles wont be pushed by a launch date and will have the luxury of having working development kits from day 1.

2. Ports.

a. Current Gen Console ports. A number of titles like Gun, King Kong, BF2:MC, FFXI, NFSMW, etc are Xbox1/PS2 ports with some additional graphical bells and whistles in HD.

b. Xbox1 upgrades. Kameo, PDZ, etc. These titles started life on the Xbox1. Their art design was concieved within the limitations of the Xbox1 and many of their art assets and rendering engine betray this.

c. PC ports. Quake 4, Prey, CoD2, Oblivion, etc. All good looking games, but also games that are designed to be compatible with DX8 (and older!) GPU architectures.

=> Games designed for next gen consoles or the Xbox 360 (like Gears of War with UE3 and PGR3) really demonstrate the gap between even a 1st gen next gen game and porting over an existing franchise/engine/assets. As developers draft design concepts with the hardware in mind and build their art assets and engines accordingly we should see a significant change.

3. Transition away from DX7/DX8 fixed function design.

a. As being discussed in the X1600XT thread we are seeing the limitations of tossing current rendering engines/techniques at Shader-centric hardware. To roughly summerize, the R530 has 12 PS units (pixel shader) but only 4 TMU units (texture mapping). The result? In games with DX7/DX8 class hardware in mind for redundancy the X1600XT acts, for the most part, like a 4x1 GPU at 590MHz. In shader heavy code the X1600 excels amazingly.

Xenos is in the same boat. It has 16 TMUs @500MHz. This is basically the same as the X800XT (16 @ 500MHz). The difference being that the X800XT has a 1:1 ration between PS and TMUs whereas Xenos has a (total) Shader ratio of 3:1.

b. Similarly, Xenos has 8 ROPs. While being on the eDRAM and designed for 4xMSAA @ 720p indicates they are fairly powerful for that task, it must be noted that the X800XT has 16 ROPs. In certain circumstance Xenos, where certain ROP tasks are heavily leaned upon amd were the bottleneck, Xenos would be no faster than an 8 pipe GPU.

Since Shader performance is Xenos' forté game designs that favor heavy ROP or TMU usage wont benefit in the same way a design focused on Shaders will.

c. The concept of shaders can be frustrating because we use the term "programable shaders" but what is the end result in games? I know frequently I think of shaders as the hardware that allows normal maps, specular highlights, bump mapping, displacement mapping, subsurface scattering, and so forth. Some of those are run of the mill effects that build on features already seen in DX7 class cards, others have been unusable due to the lack of shader power and/or important features (e.g. USA and vertex texturing should make displacement maps a reality). So what is the big deal? The recent Toy Store slides (http://www.noticias3d.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo=527&pag=10)give a good idea of how shaders can be used in a real game design to give a graphic punch so far not seen in games. Without seeing the slides I would have thought such a design was very CPU intensive, but almost all the effects are Shaders. Of course this type of design could never be done if one was looking for DX7/DX8 fallback.

=> DX9 hardware has been on the market since fall of 2002 (Radeon 9700/R300 launch). Low end PC GPUs are finally getting decent DX9 performance with the X1300. On the PC end DX9 will soon be the "bare minimum" and with millions of Xbox 360s and PS3 sold developers will have even more reasons to base their minimum featureset on DX9 and focus on shader heavy code. As the R530 and Xenos show there is a shift away from ROPs/TMUs toward shader units and over time this should bear fruit.

4. Under utilized / un-used features.

a. We already covered the launch "crunch". The impact is that a lot of features are currently under utlized and even un-used. HOS, hardware tesselation, SM3.0 (e.g. geometry instancing, dynamic branching), FP16/10, vertex texturing, alpha-to-mask, and so forth. Since the Alpha Kit hardware either did not support many of these features or were hacks it was difficult to test the final hardware and design with these features in mind. And therefore many of these features are un-used or slapped on ala "lens flares".

b. XeCPU<>Xenos cache lock. One of the neat "streamlined" features of the Xbox 360 is the ability to lock the cache and stream data directly to Xenos without touching the system memory or memory bandwidth at over 10.8GB/s (not including the 2:1 compression). Since many of the titles are ports from other platforms and none of them had access to this ability until to late it is understanble that it has gone un-used. But XeCPU is designed with some graphical work in mind (e.g. the beefed up VMX units with 128bit registers and 1 Dot Product per cycle). With almost 40GFLOPs of peak performance per core, it seems that using a CPU core as an aid to rending was always in the plan (maybe as the Xbox 360 equivalent of a geometry shader?). Offloading certain rendering techniques to the CPU should further push the graphical abilities of the Xbox 360.

=> 2nd and 3rd gen titles will have the advantage of building engines with these features in mind. The un-used features should allow a significant jump in graphical fidelity, and certain features being used as last minute slap patch jobs will look much better when part of the initial concept art focus.

5. Up coming 3D Engines--UE3, id Software, CryTek, Offset, etc--are aimed at the new consoles.

=> With a base featureset close to the 360's spec these new engines should allow development teams using these development tools to quickly get a handle on the advanced features in the console and allow the creation of art assets, from day 1, with the features and focus of the hardware in view. These are, for the most part, not upgraded DX7/DX8 engines like Source, CryTek, and Doom 3. While they wont be as good as a native engine because they are cross platform and have some redundancy, the ability to work on art assets from day 1 is a huge advantage compared to working with out dated technology.

6. As multi-core goes, performance shall follow.

=> Only a couple development teams are using more than 1 CPU core in the Xbox 360 due to the obvious timeframe constraints. Interestingly, the titles that use more than 1 core appear to be running very smoothly. e.g. CoD2 is running at a solid 60fps on the Xbox 360 and is using 1 core for particles and effects. The X1800XT (R520) @ 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF runs at 55fps (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1867128,00.asp); taking into account the need to sync with the TV (either 30Hz or 60Hz) it is unlikely that the X1800XT could be stable at 60fps @ 720p. This demonstrates the advantage of multithreading, but it also gives a glimpse of Xenos on newer software. While CoD2 was not designed specifically with Xenos in mind (it is a PC title with DX8 support and it does not use many of Xenos' features like HDR) it gives us a small hint that Xenos is not the reason many Xbox 360 games do not overwhelm us graphically or many titles struggle to hit 30fps. CoD2, one of the best looking Xbox 360 launch titles, can run at 60fps then that is a good indication that future Xbox 360 specific titles should not only run smoothly but also look really good.


I could give more reasons but I think I will stop there and allow other people to add their own comments :grin:

For me, the conclusion seems obvious: The Xbox 360 is being under utilized by launch titles. And not by a small margin. I think we are seeing the paradigm shift and the old paradigm of 3D engines is not jiving well with the future. We are seeing a lot of "solar flares" and "bloom" type patch jobs and really are not experiencing what the hardware can really do.

I fully expect 2nd and 3rd generation titles to look degrees of magnitude better than the best launch titles. I believe GOW and PGR3 are just the tip of the iceberg. 18-24 months from now, when the first software reaches store shelves that has been designed from day 1 with a beta kit in hand will really contrast with the titles we are seeing at launch. Especially for the developers who are doing launch titles, who have already knocked on the hardware some, I think they will have a pretty good vision of what the hardware can do and will really take the time to sit down with their design staff and craft a game concept that will graphically accent the closed box's strengths.

And I am excited to see what fall 2007 brings! (On a side note I expect PS3 devs to go through a similar process, although I believe their alpha-kit situation is far superior to that of the Xbox 360 developers so I have big hopes for the PS3 come fall 2006).

[pegisys]

I agree with everything you said, but all systems have this problem. thinking back to the dreamcast it had a bunch of n64 ports(rayman, armymen) and pc ports(quake 3, unreal tournament, and halflife) and a couple of good looking games that some what took advantage of the hardware, it's to be expected when you have the first nextgen console

[Johnny Awesome]

I generally agree with your points.

I would sum it up as follows: IMO the Xbox was probably 40% utilized from day 1, whereas the PS2 was only 20% utilized at launch. The PS2 stuff improved dramatically and the Xbox stuff got better (Ninja Gaiden being a nice example), but not as dramatically.

This time around I think the X360 and PS3 are going to be 20-25% tapped at launch. The PS3 is more complex, but devs will have more time than X360 devs had. The improvements late in the cycle will be pretty substantial.

[seismologist]

Im not really feeling any of the 360 games shown so far.

Sure there will be small improvements over time but so far, nothing has made me say WOW like the launch games of the last two gens have.

I think the biggest contributing factor is #1. This launch has been rushed like no other.

[Acert93]

Sure there will be small improvements over time but so far, nothing has made me say WOW like the launch games of the last two gens have. Of course this is subjective, but I would would go as far as saying the 6 major console releases of the previous 2 generations (N64-SS-PS & GCN-PS2-Xbox) only 2 launch titles from all 6 consoles were "wow" by any degree and those were Mario 64 and Halo. And of all the launch titles, those two included, I still think this is true: Every console launch I can remember has demonstrated a significant disparity between the quality of launch titles, and more importantly, between the best looking launch titles and 2nd and 3rd generation software. Titles post Mario/Halo were much better looking on their respective platforms.

So what launch titles from the last two generations made you go wow?

I cannot say any Xbox 360 titles will be titles with the impact Mario 64 of Halo had (Especially without playing them), but it appears to be the most solid launch I have seen and a couple titles (PGR3 namely) have wow potential, at least in my book ;)

[Tap In]

great post Acert93.

Judging what this system is capable of from these launch games is a joke.

your points regarding the under-utilization of the hardware and the features as they have been envisioned by the engineers are right on.

[Inane_Dork]

At first glance, the only thing I disagree with is the fixed function part. And I mostly just disagree with the name, not the body. For the longest time, if an Xbox game had shaders at all, oohs and ahs were sure to follow. But with launch X360 titles we're already seeing SM3.0 in several games. I think the transition in paradigm from fixed function to programmable came and went.

The issue of tuning shader demand to match hardware supply is worth bringing up, though.

[mckmas8808]

great post Acert93.

Judging what this system is capable of from these launch games is a joke.

your points regarding the under-utilization of the hardware and the features as they have been envisioned by the engineers are right on.

And that's one HUGE reason why I never understood why people would say the forbidden game (made by Sony and rhymes will Hilltone) is impossible. Both Xbox360 and PS3 will have games that look like the Hilltone video. I think that's what Acert93 wants to get out too.

[AbbA]

This time around I think the X360 and PS3 are going to be 20-25% tapped at launch. The PS3 is more complex, but devs will have more time than X360 devs had. The improvements late in the cycle will be pretty substantial.

I'm not agree, Cell need a big research to perform decent result for its abilities and at the start i think nobody use Cell for 'esotic' task.
For me only after two years, second-third software's generation, we will have decent utilization of Cell processing and parallel capability.

[Rur0ni]

Fantastic post. Really nailed it. I'm really looking forward to mid gen. :)

[Platon]

5. Up coming 3D Engines--UE3, id Software, CryTek, Offset, etc--are aimed at the new consoles.

I wonder though how tweaked those engines are going to be to the consoles. As you have mentioned there are many things that separate the xbox360 from the PC and many things will require a new way of though to get the best performance. I would really like to see the game engine makers really tweak their engines to perfection to make them as effiecient as possible but I don't really expect it...

[flick556]

Short term I think this will lead to 360 1st gen being inferior to ps3 1st gen on average. This may cause people to draw early conclusions about 360.

Long term I think 360 has better gpu and ps3 has better cpu. Both will be great but one will win, not sure which.

Things may be rushed but i like the 360s chances better this gen than the last.

[hey69]

The X1800XT (R520) @ 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF runs at 55fps; taking into account the need to sync with the TV (either 30Hz or 60Hz) it is unlikely that the X1800XT could be stable at 60fps @ 720p.


why do you mean actually ?
i believe 1280x1024 is higher in resolution then 1280x720 (720P)
and why compare 4xAA with 8xAF on R520 @1280x1024 with
(i dont know the exact AA and AF aplied but surely not 4X ?) 720p on xenos?

[Shifty Geezer]

I wonder though how tweaked those engines are going to be to the consoles. As you have mentioned there are many things that separate the xbox360 from the PC and many things will require a new way of though to get the best performance. I would really like to see the game engine makers really tweak their engines to perfection to make them as effiecient as possible but I don't really expect it...I imagine these engines will become heavily optimized over time. They will be competing with each other afterall. If the Offset engine starts outperforming UE3 say, people will buy into the better engine. As long as the engine developers keep pushing them forward and competing wtih each other it should make the most of the hardware (as well as a generic engine can).

[wco81]

Titles will always be pressured to make deadlines, some more than others. If development costs are so much higher than this gen, maybe developers won't have quite as long a leash to take 2 or 3 years to build something, with few exceptions.

A lot of people underwhelmed by Madden and other sports games for example think it will be vastly different next year, that with more time, they will really improve the graphics and feature sets.

But in fact, sports games developers will have less than a year to crank a new version out after the X360 launch. And the typical pattern is, they don't make drastic changes to the product unless they're so hurting in marketshare that they need to come out with a new game and branding, like MVP replacing Triple Play.

[czekon]

great post Acert

[mckmas8808]

A lot of people underwhelmed by Madden and other sports games for example think it will be vastly different next year, that with more time, they will really improve the graphics and feature sets.

But in fact, sports games developers will have less than a year to crank a new version out after the X360 launch. And the typical pattern is, they don't make drastic changes to the product unless they're so hurting in marketshare that they need to come out with a new game and branding, like MVP replacing Triple Play.


You are wrong on this one. Everyone knows that Madden 2007 will be the first true Madden. It's being built from the ground up as a next-gen title. This year was more of a port than next year will ever be.

[Dr Evil]

Every console launch I can remember has demonstrated a significant disparity between the quality of launch titles, and more importantly, between the best looking launch titles and 2nd and 3rd generation software.

Great post Acert, but I think that DOA 3 almost tapped Xbox at launch!, it's one of the better looking games even today, but it is an exception, so basically your statement is very true.

[expletive]

You are wrong on this one. Everyone knows that Madden 2007 will be the first true Madden. It's being built from the ground up as a next-gen title. This year was more of a port than next year will ever be.

This is actually incorrect. On every interview with EA, unless they were blowing PR BS up our collective a$$e$, they have stated that the 2006 version of Madden for the 360 was built from the ground up for next gen and was an entirely different team developing it. Unfortunately the compressed timeframe may not bear out all that it could have been so 2007 will be the first 'true next gen madden without being rushed.'

J

[expletive]

And that's one HUGE reason why I never understood why people would say the forbidden game (made by Sony and rhymes will Hilltone) is impossible. Both Xbox360 and PS3 will have games that look like the Hilltone video. I think that's what Acert93 wants to get out too.

I dont think that all people thought the graphics werent possible, but just the entire package of AI, physics, etc ,etc. If you read the impressions form the major online publications they bring everything into question, not just the grfx.

J

[pegisys]

You are wrong on this one. Everyone knows that Madden 2007 will be the first true Madden. It's being built from the ground up as a next-gen title. This year was more of a port than next year will ever be.

for some reason I don't think so, I think they will keep the same graphics and add a feature or 2 and do the same each year. That may have been the reason they are releasing a stripped down version this year so they will have something to add to the game in the next few versions and blame it on the switch to new hardware.

The reason I say this is because Madden has had pretty much the same graphics since 2001 even though NFL 2K updated every year

[Acert93]

why do you mean actually ?
i believe 1280x1024 is higher in resolution then 1280x720 (720P)
and why compare 4xAA with 8xAF on R520 @1280x1024 with About the closest resolution I could find with decent benchmarks for the R520 (frequently when you go lower other limitations, like the CPU, come in).

Also it bears in mind that many PC games have minimum framerates 50% or even less than their average. To hit a *solid 60fps* on a TV you have to have a fairly high minimum framerate as well. e.g. A typical game that averages 60fps could look jerky at 60Hz due to it dropping down to 30fps off an on. e.g.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-x1800/fear_candy.gif

Note how the X1800XT averages 41 FPS, but has drops as low as 7fps :shock:

Looking at it another way, note this SC:CT benchmark below for the X1800XL. Note that while it averages almost 45fps that the game actually spends ~60% of its time well under 45fps with a number of dips below 35fps and even 30fps. If you were able to "lock" this game at 45fps to sync with a 45Hz refresh rate this game would be VERY jerky.

So an "average framerate" of 45fps in a game like SC:CT does not tell the whole story, neither does the max/min (33fps/96fps), although that is more helpful. It is pretty clear, to me at least, to get a really solid 60fps you will need to have the majority of your frames ABOVE 60fps. This does not mean there cannot be dips, but if you are averaging 60fps with as many frames below 60fps as above then this will not seem as fluid.

This is why an X1800XT averaging 55fps would not be a good canidate for 60fps and why the Xbox 360 running at a solid 60fps is impressive--it indicates the average frame rate is either higher or that they were able to fine tune the game (probably a bit of both). We know Xenos has a lot more shader power than the R520, so this should not be a surprise.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1128280140ABTiXJphEC_13_3.gif

(i dont know the exact AA and AF aplied but surely not 4X ?) 720p on xenos? Xenos ROPs are designed to do 4x MSAA with no perforance hit. The performance issues we have seen are based on design (e.g. early Z pass in a renderer) and the limited time devs have had with the final dev kits. But this does not seem to be universal. Some games are not having as many issues as others. It is too early to say whether all games will face the same trouble getting MSAA to work in launch titles.

That said a few media sources have noted how the 360 version looks great (even a few indicating it was better than the PC, although this may have been a reference to the particle effects). Obviously we need to wait for the final game to see how it compares to the PC, but based on the developer comments about the hardware he seemed pretty excited about its performance and features in relation to the PC.

[jvd]

Also don't forget to mention that this is a world wide launch. We normaly have a good 6-8 months between japanese launch and american / europe launches .

6 months makes a huge diffrence. See tekken for the ps3 japanese launch to american launch to see it .

[mckmas8808]

I dont think that all people thought the graphics werent possible, but just the entire package of AI, physics, etc ,etc. If you read the impressions form the major online publications they bring everything into question, not just the grfx.

J

But even that should not be said. How do we know if a game can't have what that video showed? In 1999 I wouldn't have believed that a lot of games on the PS2 were possible. MGS3, SOTC, RE4, GOW, etc take your pick. Hell even Burnout looks like something I would have questioned in 1999 compared to the Gran Turismo video. It's a little premature to just randomly say this or that is not possible. Grfx or the entire package.


for some reason I don't think so, I think they will keep the same graphics and add a feature or 2 and do the same each year.


I say that because if you know your Madden history you would know that in the late 90's Madden didn't upgrade to 3D polygons the same year Gameday did. Madden waited until Madden 99 to upgrade to 3D polys while Gameday 98 already had them. Madden 98 was still using 2D sprites.

[expletive]

But even that should not be said. How do we know if a game can't have what that video showed? In 1999 I wouldn't have believed that a lot of games on the PS2 were possible. MGS3, SOTC, RE4, GOW, etc take your pick. Hell even Burnout looks like something I would have questioned in 1999 compared to the Gran Turismo video. It's a little premature to just randomly say this or that is not possible. Grfx or the entire package.

I think thats a fair statement. I just wanted to clarify that a lot of people werent just saying we'll never have those kind of 'graphics', just that we'll never have that kind of 'gaming experience', which expands it into all facets of the games desgin.

J

[mckmas8808]

I think thats a fair statement. I just wanted to clarify that a lot of people werent just saying we'll never have those kind of 'graphics', just that we'll never have that kind of 'gaming experience', which expands it into all facets of the games desgin.

J

Well to be honest people were saying that those graphics were impossible. But I see what you are trying to say and we agree what people basically meant so cool.:cool:


PS: If you what me to pull the old comments I can.

[seismologist]

Of course this is subjective, but I would would go as far as saying the 6 major console releases of the previous 2 generations (N64-SS-PS & GCN-PS2-Xbox) only 2 launch titles from all 6 consoles were "wow" by any degree and those were Mario 64 and Halo. And of all the launch titles, those two included, I still think this is true: Titles post Mario/Halo were much better looking on their respective platforms.

So what launch titles from the last two generations made you go wow?

I cannot say any Xbox 360 titles will be titles with the impact Mario 64 of Halo had (Especially without playing them), but it appears to be the most solid launch I have seen and a couple titles (PGR3 namely) have wow potential, at least in my book ;)

I didn't mean that every console launch was impressive. But usually the "first mover" for the generation has something of a WOW factor since the technology is new and cutting edge.
If you think back to the Dreamcast launch, I dont know about you but at the time I was blown away by the graphics quality. It was pretty far beyond anything we'd seen before even on the PC.
The 360 seems to be nothing but excuses dating all the way back to the first PDZ screenshots in March. First it was "30% alpha kits" next "only using one core" then "70% clock speed", and now here we are today with this thread.
Really, the games should speak for themselves. If we having to keep coming up with reasons why things aren't looking so hot then there's definitely a problem.
Throughout the course of the console lifespan there will be some improvement but it's nothing like the kind of leap that the 360 needs right now to appear "next gen".
Considering XNA and the superior dev tools this shouldn't be the case.

So with that I'll add one more excuse to your list. "Diminishing returns". Which is what could be witnessing now. Though it's hard to imagine that's the case considering the quality seen in the PS3 concept videos. I'll guess we'll know more once we start seeing footage of actual PS3 games.

[PG2G]

I think the only reason people aren't impressed is because of the effect that PC Gaming and hardware is having. PC GPUs wasn't nearly as impressive back around the time of Dreamcast and PS1 releases. Today's GPUs are nearly equivalent to the hardware in consoles we are getting 2-12 months down the line. We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

[Tap In]

I didn't mean that every console launch was impressive. But usually the "first mover" for the generation has something of a WOW factor since the technology is new and cutting edge.

go and see PGR3 in a couple of weeks on an HD X360 kiosk. :D


I think there will be a WOW factor there even with the limitations listed above by Acert93.

[pipo]

I think the primary reason people are not impressed has a lot to do with the move to HD too. X360 in SD would be a different picture (sorry) altogether...

[hey69]

We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

in resolution and gfx cards yes , but not really in games.
if that where the case, we should have seen games like GT4
TEKKEN5, Dead or alive etc... many years ago on pc

cards in pc are always 1- 2 generations ahead of the games.

what good is it if only you get the same fps but just on higher resolution (or just faster FPS)

the games look almost the same between 2-3 generation of cardds on pc
yes, they are developed to be massmarket compatible.
thats the advantage on consoles and thats why you can't compare them.


remember ONI in the launchdays of the ps2 ? that game was made by BUNGIE.

http://img2.kult-mag.com/photos/00/00/04/71/ME0000047161_2.jpg

just look at it! omg how dated.
and compare that to GT4 , TEKKEN5, GOD OF WAR.
those are al made on the same hardware. you dont see these kind of advancements on PC gfx.

[Mordecaii]

I think the primary reason people are not impressed have a lot to do with the move to HD too. X360 in SD would be a different picture (sorry) altogether...


Not to derail the subject, but at some point SD just isn't good enough to make the games look good... For example, Fable on PC looks a lot better IMO just because of the better resolution. I think my Xbox games look fuzzy (and I'm hooked up to my TV with high quality component cables).

Personally, while no games blew me away so far, games like GoW and Kameo look really good to me and I'm rather impressed. Although having a high-end PC makes the jump to new consoles a little less drastic from my point of view. :)

[pipo]

Not to derail the subject, but at some point SD just isn't good enough to make the games look good...

Sure. I just meant to say a lot of power is 'wasted' on the extra HD pixels. If we were still on SD with x360 the gap with the current generation might look bigger.

E.g. Bizarre stated that PGR3 on SD runs with 4xAA.

[scificube]

Excellent post Acert93!

I particularly like the observation that devs have had very little time with HW comparable to the what the X360 is and this is not so true with the PS3. IIRC devs received "beta" kits before from Sony before MS had beta kits available. This in conjunction with having more time until launch gives Sony devs a distinct advantage. They do have "some" time to at least play with the HW beyond simply grabbing all the low hanging fruit. I also agree that looking at launch titles (barring a wild disparity in quality) may lead to some forming opinions about these two consoles on the wrong grounds. I think on can form an opinion on things now and a much better one when we have info about RSX but by looking at the launch titles alone in vacuum one is not making an informed judgment of things.

Again...excellent post.

[scificube]

I think the only reason people aren't impressed is because of the effect that PC Gaming and hardware is having. PC GPUs wasn't nearly as impressive back around the time of Dreamcast and PS1 releases. Today's GPUs are nearly equivalent to the hardware in consoles we are getting 2-12 months down the line. We've been looking at 'next gen' games for the past year or so...

I'd disagree. I don't think we've remotely seen a next gen game yet. On PC or otherwise. That includes MGS4 which was still just a real-time demo that displayed nothing of how physics could be used in a game or any of the "cool" new graphical things that are possible....and it still looks better than most anything else I've ever seen running in realtime other than perhaps ATI's recent Toy shop demo.

[Shifty Geezer]

Considering XNA and the superior dev tools this shouldn't be the case.I'm not sure XNA is helping yet. Last I heard, months back, XNA was a rebranding of MS's existing tools. There were to be improvements and I remember MS announcing I think it was a project management tool, but AFAIK the tools for XB360 are currently the same as for XB. Maybe a dev, ERP perhaps, can say if things have advanced any in XB360's toolset over the past year?

[scificube]

Sure. I just meant to say a lot of power is 'wasted' on the extra HD pixels. If we were still on SD with x360 the gap with the current generation might look bigger.

E.g. Bizarre stated that PGR3 on SD runs with 4xAA.

It's not wasted it's an exchange. If the dev see fit to do this exchange and it meets their needs then it is a good one. I happen to think time has been the greatest factor here and that these systems were designed with HD and much more in mind. The problem is that MS wishes to be out the door first...and this has it's consequences.

Let's be fair here. Take a look at Mass Effect, Too Human, PGR3, or GOW. The jump seems quite good to me and this is still at a point in time when devs haven't come to terms with the HW.

We need to remember the learning curve here is HUGE and if not the greatest in video-game history it's certainly up there. This coupled with very little time nets you less than stellar results unless you are indeed a fast learner and/or very intelligent. Forgot the bandaid...ahem...'IMO.' There all better.

[MechanizedDeath]

This is nothing new. Launch software is always rushed. No system has ever been pushed hard from launch, so I don't see any reason to panic or worry. 2nd gen software will be better, and 3rd gen better still, and so on. It'll plateau eventually, but that's just normal. PEACE.

[blakjedi]

Acerts post only makes me think one thing:

PS3 graphic quality is closer to its potential than x360's is.

x800 and xenos are miles apart in terms capability, shaders, power etc. rsx and 7800 is MUCH closer.

Visually 7800 was more impressive than x800 due to effects based on SM3.0 spec. Xenos is well beyond SM3.0 spec so the quality of effects should be that much greater than SM3.0 part.

I used to think that PS3 would outstrip 360 visually toward the end of their lifecycles... now i doubt it...

[overclocked]

Acerts post only makes me think one thing:

PS3 graphic quality is closer to its potential than x360's is.

x800 and xenos are miles apart in terms capability, shaders, power etc. rsx and 7800 is MUCH closer.

Visually 7800 was more impressive than x800 due to effects based on SM3.0 spec. Xenos is well beyond SM3.0 spec so the quality of effects should be that much greater than SM3.0 part.

I used to think that PS3 would outstrip 360 visually toward the end of their lifecycles... now i doubt it...

You can do almost everything on a X800 compared to say a 6800, if it where these chips in this closed boxes i dont think the difference would be either bigger or smaller than what it seems to be now. You can for ex have "real" HDR with AA on BOTH these cards, look at Valves "Lost Cost" level for ex.

[Carl B]

Blakjedi I think you're getting ahead of yourself with those assertions - especially since we know Cell is being underutilized at this point, but that aside I just have to say great post Acert - two thumbs up!

[Neeyik]

Thread closed due to pointless tit-for-tat arguing. I can see several people getting temporary bans from the console section soon.

Edit: Okay, thread has now be reopened having had time to remove the junk from it.

[pipo]

It's not wasted it's an exchange.

That's why I said 'wasted' < note quotes. ;)

Let's be fair here. Take a look at Mass Effect, Too Human, PGR3, or GOW. The jump seems quite good to me and this is still at a point in time when devs haven't come to terms with the HW.

But this is true for the launch of every platform.

We need to remember the learning curve here is HUGE and if not the greatest in video-game history it's certainly up there.

How do you figure that? We've gone from 2D to 3D and it's not like it's the first time there is more than one processor to battle too...

FWIW: I do feel there is a lot of potential left in the X360 design, and I'm looking forward to the procedural stuff, but I don't see any revolutions yet.

[Karma Police]

Along the lines of increasing graphical effects from launch title to gen 2, what would be an example of a change from within the same engine? The cores would be better utilized, so better physics of course (Rain, hair, skin, water). Better shaders too. Smoother AA perhaps (I can see 6xAA in some circumstances).

But what would be the visual end-result of better utilization of the overall architecture? Can anyone give a specific example (besides physics) of what improvements to look for in Gen 2 titles compared to what we see in launch titles for the X360? Or have I answered my own question? ;)

[AlStrong]

Smoother AA perhaps (I can see 6xAA in some circumstances).


Xenos does not support 6xAA.

[Thegameman]

This happen with all consoles,but don't spec and earth to moon jump,few games give DOA 3 a run for its money and it was and xbox launch game,we also remember how Halo on E3 2001 was full of jagies and slow down,cuz the xbox was also rush to the market.


All consoles will improve with time from Xbox 360 to the revolution.

[blakjedi]

Blakjedi I think you're getting ahead of yourself with those assertions - especially since we know Cell is being underutilized at this point, but that aside I just have to say great post Acert - two thumbs up!

Truth is we know ALL CPUs are being underutilized at this point. :!:

But we also know that the 7800/RSX in PS3 will be HIGHLY utilized when we first see it because of developer familiarity with its "normal" rendering process, while Xenos is barely if at all being used right now in the way that makes it unique... which is really what Acert was saying would comprise the jump between generation 1 x360 and generation 2 x360.

[standing ovation]

Every console launch I can remember has demonstrated a significant disparity between the quality of launch titles, and more importantly, between the best looking launch titles and 2nd and 3rd generation software. This thread is being created for your feedback, pro and con, on this disparity in graphic quality.

I am not so sure this trend will continue actually. :oops:

By pushing more and more of the design burden on software developers, hardware makers are able to come up with new gadgets faster than they can be programmed -- optimally that is.

What this means is that tomorrow's innovations are decreasing the shelf life of today's hardware ... while software development cycles are increasing.

Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (and a host of CPUs and GPUs for the PC) should have less time to nurture a software evolution than their predecessors before being pushed into obsolescence.

Consequently, not only is the first software generation more likely to underutilize new hardware, but the dwindling generations that follow are less and less likely to be distinguishable from the first -- at least as profoundly as they were in the previous hardware generation. :idea:

Well that's my two cents anyway.

[mckmas8808]

By pushing more and more of the design burden on software developers, hardware makers are able to come up with new gadgets faster than they can be programmed -- optimally that is.

What this means is that tomorrow's innovations are decreasing the shelf life of today's hardware ... while software development cycles are increasing.


But standing ovation that's thing with consoles. The big advantage is they will be with us for five or more years. Devs have time to utilize their power. Consoles aren't like PCs were things change year to year and you have 15 different users to program for. The PS3 and X360 will probably be pushed years from now. PC gpu's won't.

[Johnny Awesome]

You're absolutely right mckmas8808 because consumers buy games, not flops or rendering passes. The problem with PC hardware power is that it never translates to the user experience in a timely fashion. It took 3 years for PC devs to catch up to Xbox graphics with releases of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, even though PC hardware was technically better about 6 months after the Xbox launch. PC gaming thrives mainly through gameplay (RTS, FPS, and MMORPG control advantages), not through technical advances. Even today PC devs are targeting the 95% of users that don't have the latest hardware, not the few that do.

[jvd]

You're absolutely right mckmas8808 because consumers buy games, not flops or rendering passes. The problem with PC hardware power is that it never translates to the user experience in a timely fashion. It took 3 years for PC devs to catch up to Xbox graphics with releases of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, even though PC hardware was technically better about 6 months after the Xbox launch. PC gaming thrives mainly through gameplay (RTS, FPS, and MMORPG control advantages), not through technical advances. Even today PC devs are targeting the 95% of users that don't have the latest hardware, not the few that do.

The problem this gen is that the graphic subsystems in these consoles are dx 9 . There have been dx 9 cards on the market for what 4 years now ? So the games are going to start catching up . Games in 2006 will be heavly targeting dx 9 for grpahics , the unreal 3 engine iwll hit on the pc and many games will take advantage of it .

We have powerfull cards now like the r520 that by itself has 512 megs of ram the full system ram . The main diffrence will be the cpus .But how much of a diffrence is there ? In the next year or so x86-64 will be very wide spread and dual cores will start getting market penetration . Developers will start targeting 3000+s and 1 gig of ram as the reccomended specs .

So how long do these consoles really have the graphics edge ? t may be a much smaller graphical lead than previous generations . Thats because as i stated they hit up the ihvs for chips at the end of a api generation .

[Black Dragon37]

Fantastic post. Really nailed it. I'm really looking forward to mid gen. :)
I second that. Great post Acert93! :D

[Acert93]

The problem this gen is that the graphic subsystems in these consoles are dx 9 . There have been dx 9 cards on the market for what 4 years now ? No, DX9 cards have been on the market 3 years, not 4. Fall 2002 saw the launch of the Radeon 9700Pro.

So the games are going to start catching up . Games in 2006 will be heavly targeting dx 9 for grpahics , the unreal 3 engine iwll hit on the pc and many games will take advantage of it . UE3 is a DX9 game, but it is targetting mainstream cards as the "baseline". As Epic has said themselves a 6600GT should play it fine. Further, Epic is aiming at a SM2.0 featureset as the baseline--that is pretty far behind what we are seeing now in the hardware.

And judging from Steampowered.com's user stats respectible GPUs are less common than the bottom feeding FX5200, 6200, 9600SE, etc type cards. The PC market is smaller and the majority of people are still using outdated hardware (features) that underperforms (performance).

And it is not as clear cut from a market penetration perspective that DX9 is "here" now. We have yet to see a major DX9-Only release. We should see that... in 2006 like you said. But we do not know how many games will require DX9 cards. But waiting almost 4 years after the API's release for a game the demands the minimum spec DX9 card :???: And below I will touch on how that is even behind the consoles below (Xenos/RSX are waaaaay ahead of SM2.0).

DX9 is not a monolithic API and acceptible performance from one or the other IHV has lagged behind each API release/update fragmenting the market and stalling it for a year or two. e.g. Only looking at flagship models (ignoring the mainstream bottoms feeders):

In late 2002 The first DX9 SM2.0 GPU was the Radeon 9700 (R300). NV "co-released" the FX 5800 (NV30) which are poor DX9 cards. This fragmented the market--you had GPUs that supported DX9 SM2.0 well (ATI) and GPUs that did not support DX9 SM2.0 well (NV).

More of the same in 2003 with the R360 (9800) and NV35 (FX5900). Solid SM2.0 support from ATI, poor SM2.0 support from NV.

In 2004 we saw the first DX9 SM3.0 GPU. With this card came API compatible Geometry Instancing, Flow Control & Branching, Vertex Texturing, and as a plus FP16 blending (along with other perks). SM3.0 also raised a lot of the limitations of shader code length and so forth. Branching is kind of poor in NV40 but it a fully compliant SM3.0 GPU--even if some SM3.0 features are not very usable in practical terms.

ATI's offering, R420 (X800), was still and SM2.0 card. No FP16 blending, no API supported GI, no Vertex Texturing, no branching or flow control.

Fall 2005 has seen GPUs from both vendors offering SM3.0 GPUs. G70 still has weaker flow control, but it is there. ATI's cards still don't do vertex texturing because they feel it is too slow.

Basically, these are neutered SM3.0 cards--the full spec is supported but it is slow in certain areas.

So from a developer perspective, on the PC, you are going to have to support SM2.0 unless you are doing a console game and don't care much about PC sales or don't have the time to redo a lot of shaders.

So we may see our first SM3.0 required game in 2007. Another 3 years after the API release :???:

And to tie this back in there are two key points:

Performance.

Features.

Performance: Xenos (and RSX) are definately ahead of the game in performance. Putting aside the closed box paradigm vs. the open platform (which is significant in the end product), ATI wont be releasing a GPU with the shading power of Xenos until 2006 and wont architecturally have a GPU as effecient until a year after the Xbox 360 launches. We are expecting 48 fragment shaders in R580 which should come out in the Spring. In certain situations the R580 should perform better (PS-limited tasks) but in vertex heavy games, bandwidth sensative games, etc... Xenos will *still* have a perfomance edge.

To contrast, the GF4 Ti series launched 6 months later with more performance and features than the NV2A.

Features. No contest. Xenos has all these features *standard*. So all 20-50M Xbox 360 units will have them. Hardware tesselation, HOS, FP10/16 blending, 3Dc, Vertex Texturing, Flow Control and Branching, MEMEXPORT, etc... Toss in the eDRAM and the bare Xenos spec is light years ahead of the standard PC game/PC API. DX9 SM3.0 and SM3.0 hardware are a bit behind in features (and the ability to perform those features in game).

Further we know Xenos does most of this really well.

Xenos is not a mainstream GPU, it is a flagship class GPU. Further it has a good couple handful of very useful features it does fast. We have not seen Displacement Mapping as a key feature in PC games. Why? Vertex Texturing is slow and is not on all SM3.0 hardware. Xenos is going to rock in this area with all 48 ALUs having vertex texturing support and having hardware tesselation. How about HDR+MSAA? Even the high end GPUs struggle with this and/or cannot do both at the same time. HOS? Not even on the radar.

A developer making a DX9 game right now may target something like a 6600GT as a baseline. It has 8 PS units and SM3.0 with poor branching and incapable of HDR in games due to bandwidth/ROP limitations. So basically you are looking at an SM2.0 game with Radeon 9800/GF 6600GT class performance. This is basically what UE3 targets.

Xenos gives it a smack down with 8x the performance and a ton more features that are usable. A game targetting the Xbox 360 or PS3's GPUs *as a baseline of development speed and features* is going to look a LOT better than a PC port.

The good news is that the new consoles will be pushing the PC to advance. Developers will want to port their games over to the PC and so older PC stuff will be phased out due to the Console pressure.

The gap between the consoles and PCs is quite large right now. It took almost 3 years to get more advanced games on the PC. I expect that process to be repeated. The gap is further this time (Vista is the one thing that, IMO, will close the gap quicker).

We have powerfull cards now like the r520 that by itself has 512 megs of ram the full system ram . You ignore that the high end, for the PC, are "trend setters" and developers do not design with them as the minimum spec. 256MB cards are finally getting a decent workout in some new games yet the majority of products sold are 128MB cards.

Developers are not going to disregard over 50% of new 2005 GPU sales (i.e. the number of new 128MB cards sold) to support 512MB as a standard.

Consoles and PCs have reverse paradigms. PCs use the bottom feeder low end POS cards as the "baseline" features and performance--everything else is tacked on. Console design with the hardware in mind.

The main diffrence will be the cpus .But how much of a diffrence is there ? In the next year or so x86-64 will be very wide spread and dual cores will start getting market penetration . Intel dominates sales and the majority of their chips sold over the last 24 months have not been 64bit. Further, a lot of companies have seen no need to upgrade CPUs over the last 24-36 months due to the stagnent market. The CPUs hit a wall and software is not requiring more performance.

You may be surprised at how significant Celeron and Sempron processors are to the market. Less than 35% of the *gaming PC market* is above 3.0GHz class CPUs. A similar situatione exists for memory.

As a business man, a developer, you are nuts to cut off 60% of the gaming market. The market moves in baby steps on the PC front. We saw this with BF2. It required PS1.4 support and you should hear all the GF4 Ti owners, which is only PS1.3 capable, upset and swearing they will never buy another DICE game. Quite a few people just bought other games. True, some upgraded, but upgrades mean less money spent on games (a point you have made in relation to consoles; the more spent on the console is less spent on games).

In this respect UE3 is designed with DX9 as a base but it wont required SM3.0. Why? SM3.0 features are still weak on all but the newest GPUs and only compose less than 10% of the market install base.

SM3.0 is fast on the new consoles and is 100% of the install base.

Developers will start targeting 3000+s and 1 gig of ram as the reccomended specs . Eventually, but not in 2005 and probably not in 2006 for the memory. Doom 3 require 384MB ins 2004, BF2 required 512MB in 2005, yet most games will work with less. It is hard to imagine a lot of developers targetting 1GB when games can simply reducing memory size by lowering texture quality. And the fact the new consoles are 512MB systems will also figure into that targetting.

Thats because as i stated they hit up the ihvs for chips at the end of a api generation . 1. SM3.0 is just getting decent *flagship* hardware (forget that the mainstream still sucks eggs).

2. Xenos is, for all practical points and purposes, a DX10 class GPU minus redundant hardwired features, Avivo, etc. The only significant feature we know Xenos is missing is a Geometry Shader which, ironically, is not needed due to the fact Xenos can use Xenon as a slave. With cache locking, compressed vertex streaming, and a CPU with a Dot Product this feature was unnecessary.

So I don't get where MS is hitting ATI for an "at the end of a api" GPU.

It has rocking branching and flow control and has more features than any DX9 class GPU. To put it simply it performs better at shaders than any GPU on the market. And that is the baseline.

On the PC, even when R580 or R600 or G80 come out, the PC will be handicapped by the main stream and performance markets. The X1600 has 4 TMUs and 12 PS ALUs. Xenos has 16 TMUs and 48 USA ALUs.

It is going to be a while before PC devs start designing games with Xenos class GPUs as the baseline.

So IMO the gap between this generation of GPUs and Consoles is larger than the Xbox1/GF4 generation. Xenos has more performance and features compared to its contemporaries then that generation.

[Shifty Geezer]

Of course Acert's covered all the bases here, but I'll add my spot of 'anecdotal' evidence that I do in such cases. Hack'n'slash dungeon crawlers being my preferred genre this gen, I point back to CON on PS2, released 2004 on now 5 year old technology, and the latest genre release on PC, Dungeon Siege II, released a couple o' months ago.

CON
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/568/568803/img_1917892.html

DS2
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/569/569719/img_2759139.html

Visually they are comparable, but one's running on 5 year old tech, and the PC version is running on vastly more powerful hardware.

Whatever the future of PC tech, not every game harnesses it effectively. By my experience (which is very limited) PC tech is, in use, several years behind what it's capable of. So even with more powerful hardware than an XB360 or PS3, there's definitely the possibilty that your favourite genre (as long as it's not FPS which is a tech rolemodel for PC!) won't look any better on PC software.

[mckmas8808]

All I have to say is great post Acert. You need to start charging us to read this.:razz:



No j/k I don't have the money.

[wco81]

It is going to be a while before PC devs start designing games with Xenos class GPUs as the baseline.

So IMO the gap between this generation of GPUs and Consoles is larger than the Xbox1/GF4 generation. Xenos has more performance and features compared to its contemporaries then that generation.

We'll have to see.

I know that Madden 2002 on my PC, which was only 350 Mhz and had a 64 MB GF2MX card, looked better than the PS2 version.

No hardware T&L so probably more polys in the console version. But I could run at a modest 1024x768 and it looked way better. Not just because of the jaggies on the console version but because the higher resolution on a monitor made the outlines of the players standout better. Plus there were some lighting effects, as them simulated the sun breaking through a cloud cover.

Of course this time, we'll have resolutions comparable to PC and a lot more shader effects. But it wouldn't surprise me if there are PC gamers boasting about running Madden 2006 PC at 1600x1200 at some ungodly frame rates and it looking better than the X360 version despite the latter being a new engine.

[standing ovation]

But standing ovation that's thing with consoles. The big advantage is they will be with us for five or more years. Devs have time to utilize their power. Consoles aren't like PCs were things change year to year and you have 15 different users to program for. The PS3 and X360 will probably be pushed years from now. PC gpu's won't.

Console lifecycles ARE getting shorter. PlayStation was with us for more than a decade, PlayStation 2 for nearly as long. And PlayStation 3? Well, I doubt it will have the same longevity before being steamrolled by a successor.

Rabid innovation and competition are shortening hardware lifecycles. :wink:

What's more, tomorrow's gadgets are becoming profoundly more complicated than today's -- not only hardware but software too ... especially software. If this were an English class, then making games on PSone would be like writing 1-page book reports in middle school. Composition on PlayStation 3, however, sounds more like a doctoral thesis.

Think about it. If you're wrestling an opponent who is getting more complicated with each iteration, it will take you longer and longer to pin him. :mrgreen:

And looking further down the road, it's only a matter of time before software development for a single generation consumes the entire hardware lifecycle.

[Dave Glue]

Of course Acert's covered all the bases here, but I'll add my spot of 'anecdotal' evidence that I do in such cases. Hack'n'slash dungeon crawlers being my preferred genre this gen, I point back to CON on PS2, released 2004 on now 5 year old technology, and the latest genre release on PC, Dungeon Siege II, released a couple o' months ago.

CON
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/568/568803/img_1917892.html

DS2
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/569/569719/img_2759139.html

Visually they are comparable, but one's running on 5 year old tech, and the PC version is running on vastly more powerful hardware.
A rather silly comparison. To hand pick one game that is somewhat in the same genre and use that as a basis to judge hardware capabilities?

Especially when the game you're comparing has been (rightly, IMO) criticized for the fact that it's graphics barely changed from the original title years ago. DS2 looks like crap for a game released 2 years on the PC, let alone now - CON was always one of the PS2's most impressive titles visually and rightfully received raves for its graphics. How about the original Unreal Tournament on the PS2? PC's with TNT2 cards ran it better and more attractive - so I guess the PC wins then! OMG!!

That being said, I do agree with Acert that the hardware gap is likely bigger now than when the Xbox debuted, but I also agree that I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, as the PC has suffered lately due to the fact a lot of the tiles are console ports from the PS2/Xbox which barely utilized the PC hardware in the translation. Titles released in mid 2006 for the 360 may exhibit the hardware/software gap between the PC and the next gen certainly more prominently than the launch titles, so as I've said before from now until Vista it will be console heaven.

The difference now as opposed to when the Xbox launch is that MS seems to understand that keeping gaming on the PC is important, with the Xbox launch MS basically shuffled PC gaming into the corner and let it wither. There's just too many companies involved in PC gaming to sit by and watch Sony and MS get all the pie, and MS has always preferred to make their money off software and not hardware. DX10 is a good start, MS looks to be using their muscle to force compliance with the OEM's so hopefully in the future we can avoid the mess than Acert so aptly described in his last post. The PC needs to get more console-like in its operation if it is expected to warrant top-tier titles anymore, and I think MS "gets it".

[Dave Glue]

Console lifecycles ARE getting shorter.
This console generation was relatively short by comparison due to MS wanting to dump the billion-dollar losses from the Xbox. There's little information indicating publishers really wanted to move to a new generation now, if MS wasn't in the game or hadn't suffered such ridiculous losses for the Xbox I seriously doubt we wouldn't see the next gen hit the streets until sometime in 2007.

So no, I wouldn't say its a foregone conclusion that lifecycles are getting increasingly shorter, I think this past gen was a special case.

[scooby_dooby]

This generation's lifecycle was not short, it's spanned 1999-2005.

MS entered the market 2, arguably 3 years after the current cycle began(if you count dreamcast)!

It's not that they shortended the console life-cycle, just that they joined 2 years after it had already begun.

[mckmas8808]

Everybody has the count Dreamcast. It was this gen. And you're right MS just came into the game later than half of the competition.

[blakjedi]

It is going to be a while before PC devs start designing games with Xenos class GPUs as the baseline.

So IMO the gap between this generation of GPUs and Consoles is larger than the Xbox1/GF4 generation. Xenos has more performance and features compared to its contemporaries then that generation.

Might be your best post ever.

[Acert93]

I know that Madden 2002 on my PC, which was only 350 Mhz and had a 64 MB GF2MX card, looked better than the PS2 version. Overall I am not sure Madden is a good example. EA uses the "base platform" philosophy and cross ports heavily. I always thought Madden had the worse graphics of the football platforms. Fever had some very nice polish in many areas (weak models though) and VC always had spiffy graphics.

<rant>The fact I can play the PS2 version of Madden at Wal*mart and it is in the same league as my PC with a 6800GT does not make me too happy actually. The PS2 is 5 years old. If GF2 cards, as you were saying, could churn out comparable graphics WHY in the world are we still pretty much on the same engine with the PC?</rant>

I thought, give or take, the PS2 version has held up very well compared to the PC (less gaggies). I have only played the PS2 version in stores but I thought over the years it has done ok.

I did browse some pictures and I would say they seem fairly close.

PS2 (http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014286/img_1258686.html) 2001 far close (http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014286/img_1367473.html)
PC (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/015/015343/img_1432040.html) 2001 far (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/015/015343/img_1432066.html) close (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/015/015343/img_1432063.html)

PS2 (http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/620/620934/img_2248664.html) 2002
PC (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/016/016806/img_1386741.html) 2002
Xbox (http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/480/480939/img_1530743.html) 2003

PS2 (http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/620/620934/img_2248664.html) 2005
PC (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620937/img_2380644.html) 2005
Xbox (http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/620/620935/img_2249967.html) 2005

Looking at some benchmarks it seems in Madden 2004 (which like I noted above is not leaps and bounds better than the Xbox version) you need decent hardware to break 30fps at 1280x1024. Radeon 9600/FX5700 is not unreasonable, but even then these cards do not break 60fps (http://3dxtreme.org/index.php?id=albatronfx5700pturbo2) at that resolution. Considering those cards, at the time, cost almost as much as an Xbox alone it kind of puts it into perspective IMO.

Madden, imo, is not really a great example because I don't think it aims very high or uses the hardware well. Outside of resolution the Xbox version has been just as good, if not smoother, at times.

I do not on more cutting edge games Halo looked a lot better than the FPS on the PC market for a while. I cannot say much for many others games because I had a GCN which does not have a lot of overlap with the PC :oops:

[blakjedi]

The fact that the console market thrives on exclusives makes comparisons fairly difficult generally. Exclusives tend to be the only games which utilize the best knowledge of teh hardware at a given time.

Most ports are either common denominator built (dx 8 class GPU e.g.) or market share driven (PS2 with 70+ percent of the market).

Very few developers can or will take the time to port to a platforms strengths. Ubisoft has done and admirable job of thats this gen. EA less so. In the 16-bit heyday with only two real contenders developers did develop to the consoles strengths.

Examples include the MK series, Earthworm Jim, and some cross platform Capcom games. Then you had abetter benchmark from which to compare system strengths and weaknesses than you do now.

[dukmahsik]

i think what really sets it apart is the edram :)

[Black Dragon37]

i think what really sets it apart is the edram :)Not really - Xenos isn't the first to use eDRAM in its GPU.

I think it's rather the unified architecture that sets it apart from any other GPU... maybe even the RSX. ;)

[jvd]

No, DX9 cards have been on the market 3 years, not 4. Fall 2002 saw the launch of the Radeon 9700Pro.


It wasn't fall , i know i got my 9700pro in august when it first came out through thier website. So it would be summer 2002 so its been a little over 3 years your right . By the time the ps3 comes out it will be around 4 years depending on when its actually launched .

UE3 is a DX9 game, but it is targetting mainstream cards as the "baseline". As Epic has said themselves a 6600GT should play it fine. Further, Epic is aiming at a SM2.0 featureset as the baseline--that is pretty far behind what we are seeing now in the hardware.

Yes sm 2.0 is the base line . But 90% of what you can do in sm2.0 you can do in sm3.0 . Sm3.0 is mostly about speed and programing ease . Not to mentino that this engine will already have alot of work put into it for the ps3 graphic system which is based on dx 9 and the xenos graphics system based on dx 9. Both support sm3.0. Which i highly doubt epic would program features for these two gpus and not bring those features over to the pc version .

And judging from Steampowered.com's user stats respectible GPUs are less common than the bottom feeding FX5200, 6200, 9600SE, etc type cards. The PC market is smaller and the majority of people are still using outdated hardware (features) that underperforms (performance).



With the exception of the fx 5200 the other two cards can do dx 9 graphics at very respectable framerates at 800x600 . Not to mention that each year this low end changes and many can get a great jump in features

last year it was the x300s and 6200s , this year it will be 6600s and whatever it is from ati . Intergrated graphics went from nforce 2 video (geforce 2 graphics ) to the dx 9 graphics with the new ati igp .

Many people who have the fx 5200s and other games when they go to buy unreal 3 games will make an upgrade to whatever will play it at the res and feature set they want and when they do they will find powerfull sm3.0 card at the 100$ price point and lower .

That is the future .

And it is not as clear cut from a market penetration perspective that DX9 is "here" now. We have yet to see a major DX9-Only release. We should see that... in 2006 like you said. But we do not know how many games will require DX9 cards. But waiting almost 4 years after the API's release for a game the demands the minimum spec DX9 card :???: And below I will touch on how that is even behind the consoles below (Xenos/RSX are waaaaay ahead of SM2.0).


Requireing and taking full advantage of dx 9 are two diffrent things .

A game can be made from the ground up to run best on sm2.0 and sm 3.0 and still be able to run using fall back shaders and paths for dx 8 . I think u will see this happening alot next year .

So from a developer perspective, on the PC, you are going to have to support SM2.0 unless you are doing a console game and don't care much about PC sales or don't have the time to redo a lot of shaders.

So we may see our first SM3.0 required game in 2007. Another 3 years after the API release :???:


And there you are . However even with the splinter there are still common paths that can be run. A developer can target sm2.0 as thier base . write fall back shaders for sm1.1 and then write shaders for more speed in sm3.0 and support more features . That is the key to the pc . So yes you have splintered markets . But now in 2005 and esp in 2006 we will have enough cards that run sm2.0 well that it will be the new base line . with many games pushing sm3.0 features . Just like the previous engines that were largely targeted around dx 8 . Those like doom3 and half life 2 . They ran best on dx 8 and higher cards but still ran on dx 7 cards . The same will happen with the new engines . They will run best on dx 9 base cards like the 9700pro and higher but will still run on dx 8 just with less features and the gamers will upgrade to 9700pro lvl cards which can now be had for around a 100$ and are going to become only cheaper or at that price point more power than before .

Performance: Xenos (and RSX) are definately ahead of the game in performance. Putting aside the closed box paradigm vs. the open platform (which is significant in the end product), ATI wont be releasing a GPU with the shading power of Xenos until 2006 and wont architecturally have a GPU as effecient until a year after the Xbox 360 launches. We are expecting 48 fragment shaders in R580 which should come out in the Spring. In certain situations the R580 should perform better (PS-limited tasks) but in vertex heavy games, bandwidth sensative games, etc... Xenos will *still* have a perfomance edge.

To contrast, the GF4 Ti series launched 6 months later with more performance and features than the NV2A.



THe x1800 also has 512 megs of its own extremely fast ram . The pc itself has a ton more ram . The x1800 is also a fillrate beast compared to the xenos and supports higher and better fsaa modes and of course higher reses .

THe r580 will also have its own pool of 512 megs of ram along with everything else .

Features. No contest. Xenos has all these features *standard*. So all 20-50M Xbox 360 units will have them. Hardware tesselation, HOS, FP10/16 blending, 3Dc, Vertex Texturing, Flow Control and Branching, MEMEXPORT, etc... Toss in the eDRAM and the bare Xenos spec is light years ahead of the standard PC game/PC API. DX9 SM3.0 and SM3.0 hardware are a bit behind in features (and the ability to perform those features in game).




Yes the xenos has more features than the r520 but not many more . It also lacks things like ram foot print .

That is something your not going to get around . NOt to mention that ever 8-12 months we get a morepowerfull card .

However this is not my arguement . My arguement is in the games . Yes xenos can be more powerfull than the dx 9 cards on the market . But how much of a diffrence will there be visualy ? I think u will find that when the first real dx 9 engines come out the diffrences will be very small .

Xenos is not a mainstream GPU, it is a flagship class GPU. Further it has a good couple handful of very useful features it does fast. We have not seen Displacement Mapping as a key feature in PC games. Why? Vertex Texturing is slow and is not on all SM3.0 hardware. Xenos is going to rock in this area with all 48 ALUs having vertex texturing support and having hardware tesselation. How about HDR+MSAA? Even the high end GPUs struggle with this and/or cannot do both at the same time. HOS? Not even on the radar.


I wouldn't claim hdr+ msaa is slow on the r520 . at 720p it should be pretty fast . Vertex texturing is slow but how fast is it on the xenos .

You keep talking about the xenos advantage but really we have yet to see any tests done. How much of an advantage does the xenos have while doing this . Does it really translate into an advantage ?

Same goes with the rsx . We hear great things but there are no tests done .

You ignore that the high end, for the PC, are "trend setters" and developers do not design with them as the minimum spec. 256MB cards are finally getting a decent workout in some new games yet the majority of products sold are 128MB cards.

Developers are not going to disregard over 50% of new 2005 GPU sales (i.e. the number of new 128MB cards sold) to support 512MB as a standard.

Consoles and PCs have reverse paradigms. PCs use the bottom feeder low end POS cards as the "baseline" features and performance--everything else is tacked on. Console design with the hardware in mind.

You however ignore the fact that developers still target these features . Even though only a few people had sm3.0 cards farcry came out with patches for it , battle for middle earth came out and other games patched or came out with sm 3.0 support. Many games will instantly take advantage of the bigger ram footprint from higher quaity textures which are easy to release with a game , or with higher fsaa modes .
THat is the strength of the pc . They can enable features for those who have the hardware while still targeting a midrange or low end card of the time .

Eventually, but not in 2005 and probably not in 2006 for the memory. Doom 3 require 384MB ins 2004, BF2 required 512MB in 2005, yet most games will work with less. It is hard to imagine a lot of developers targetting 1GB when games can simply reducing memory size by lowering texture quality. And the fact the new consoles are 512MB systems will also figure into that targetting.


I said recommended not required. Two diffrent things. Doom 3 doesn't have it , but half life 2 does . Minimum system specs were 1.2ghz cpu , 256mbs of ram , dx 7 card , 4.5 gigs of hd space . Recommended was 2.4ghz processor 512 megs of ram , dx 9 graphics card .

As you can see there are big diffrences , double actually in the cpu and ram for recommended play. Both examples of ours are delayed games

Here is eq2 , a game from novemeber 2004 Requirements 1ghz cpu , 512 megs of ram , dx 8 card with 64 megs of ram or more .

Boom dx 8 required game ... hmmm Recomended 2ghz cpu , 1 gig of ram , dx 9 card with a 128 megs or more .

This is just the way its going to go . People will upgrade to dx 9 when the time comes or not play the games.


2. Xenos is, for all practical points and purposes, a DX10 class GPU minus redundant hardwired features, Avivo, etc. The only significant feature we know Xenos is missing is a Geometry Shader which, ironically, is not needed due to the fact Xenos can use Xenon as a slave. With cache locking, compressed vertex streaming, and a CPU with a Dot Product this feature was unnecessary.

So I don't get where MS is hitting ATI for an "at the end of a api" GPU.



This is far from the truth. Dx 10 will be much more than just unifed shaders. Dx 10 has been in developement since dx 9 came out 3 years ago .

This is just looking at video cards .


A pc will have

Dual core cpus
x86-64
Dedicated sound cards with thier own ram
512 megs of ram video cards
gig of ram or more system ram
Possibly physics cards .


There is alot coming down the pipe in an 2006 /2007 we will see vista with its new api come out which will once again allow the gpus to leap over the gpus in the new consoles .

Gpus that came out over 3 years ago now have many of the features of the xenos and rsx . For instance the r300 series can do g.i even though it wasn't part of sm3. 0 .

Then we have another crop of cards the nv40 and the r520 that can do sm3.0 and do 90% or more of what the xenos and rsx can do and the nv40 based cards have been in the market for over a year now and are already in the low end of the price spectrum .

[Shifty Geezer]

A rather silly comparison. To hand pick one game that is somewhat in the same genre and use that as a basis to judge hardware capabilities? I said it was anecdotal based on my own experiences, and not a perfect conclusive argument.

The point is, which stands, is that though the hardware is more capable, the software running on it isn't neccessarily any better, simply because developers don't write for the very best hardware but an economical best-fit, give or take a bit here or there (some games do push the envelope, mostly FPS's which is why I made mention of that genre). I gave one example. There's other games PS2 looks worse than comparable games on PC, and others where it looks better. BUT for 5 year old tech the fact that not every game on PC looks that much better is clear evidence that better hardware != better looking games, and that having the best PC hardware in 5 years time doesn't neccessarily mean your games are going to look better that what's on XB360 or PS3.

[mckmas8808]

Man reading that Shifty has got me excited again.

[jvd]

I said it was anecdotal based on my own experiences, and not a perfect conclusive argument.

The point is, which stands, is that though the hardware is more capable, the software running on it isn't neccessarily any better, simply because developers don't write for the very best hardware but an economical best-fit, give or take a bit here or there (some games do push the envelope, mostly FPS's which is why I made mention of that genre). I gave one example. There's other games PS2 looks worse than comparable games on PC, and others where it looks better. BUT for 5 year old tech the fact that not every game on PC looks that much better is clear evidence that better hardware != better looking games, and that having the best PC hardware in 5 years time doesn't neccessarily mean your games are going to look better that what's on XB360 or PS3.

YOur not comparing budgets though . The average pc game budget is lower than that of the ps2 budget .

Not to mention that most games that came out in 2004/2005 are better looking than the ps2 games in those genres in 2004/2005 .

[Johnny Awesome]

Who cares why though JVD? It's just a fact PC games don't target the high-end users and that it takes years for baseline PC games to catch console titles. The hardware isn't really relevant. Everyone here should also remember that UE3 will be surpassed on X360/PS3 by top developers, and that will probably be the baseline for PC development for a few years.

[Shifty Geezer]

YOur not comparing budgets though . The average pc game budget is lower than that of the ps2 budget .

Not to mention that most games that came out in 2004/2005 are better looking than the ps2 games in those genres in 2004/2005 .Which is one of the reasons PC tech may be superior, but the advantage in actual games isn't that much improved as the tech. It's still the case Better Hardware != Better Software. There's many other factors involved.