xbox360 kiosk + CoD2 - FSAA - Aniso + Trilinear

[Junkstyle]

Call of Duty2 demo was running with no FSAA and Trilinear filtering...looked like crap if you are a PC Gamer. Does anyone know why they dont use Anisotropic Filtering at least? Is it performance or something else?

[Junkstyle]

sorry i posted this in the wrong forum topic

[Chalnoth]

Might have been the hardware that they were running, but I shudder to think of the implications if they're not using final hardware yet.

Other than that, I thought that Microsoft was "mandating" 720p with 4x FSAA, and that the Xenos could do 4x FSAA at that res with no penalty?

[Junkstyle]

Might have been the hardware that they were running, but I shudder to think of the implications if they're not using final hardware yet.

Other than that, I thought that Microsoft was "mandating" 720p with 4x FSAA, and that the Xenos could do 4x FSAA at that res with no penalty?

There might be some pixel effects like HDR that messes with FSAA. I"m not sure if the same effects mess with Anisotropic filtering. The main thing that bothered me was the trilinear filtering. But all that PR stuff about FSAA "for free" is nice but worthless if the games don't use it. The frame rate seemed pretty smooth. I am kindof doubting they turned off both FSAA and aniso for performance reasons but maybe they did.

[Rys]

It's not penalty free by any means, rather the penalty can likely be hidden just like on a PC accelerator (do other stuff to hide the cost). Moving this to Console, too.

[Chalnoth]

It's not penalty free by any means, rather the penalty can likely be hidden just like on a PC accelerator (do other stuff to hide the cost). Moving this to Console, too.
Well, of course, a stance I've stated many times. What I meant was that the Xenos was supposed to have enough memory bandwidth that there is no penalty from the additional memory bandwidth impact that FSAA will require on the console.

And HDR can't be the issue, because the Xenos (like the X1k series) is supposed to support MSAA on FP16 (and FP10) rendertargets.

If MSAA was turned off for performance reasons, the most likely culprit would be memory space concerns. But that wouldn't explain why they'd turn off anisotropic filtering, which should have a pretty small performance hit.

[Shifty Geezer]

Might have been the hardware that they were running, but I shudder to think of the implications if they're not using final hardware yet.As these are demo kiosks and the hardware's being manufactured and boxed as we speak, that's extremely unlikely.

Could COD currently be on FP16 as opposed to FP10, seeing as it's a launch title? And if they didn't develop the predicated tiling as launch titles are unlikely too, with the added tiling cost of FP16 perhaps the hit for AA was too much?

[Carl B]

It's already been mentioned in a couple of threads that the majority of the 360 launch games are forgoing the optimal AA tiling scheme and making due with more traditional methods for now. And in some cases that means little or no AA. Allard indicated that for a game to make optimal use of the eDRAM AA, the game engine must be built from the ground up with the tiling-scheme in mind.

[AlStrong]

It is kind of too bad there isn't enough eDRAM for 720p + 2xAA even... CoD2@60fps would have looked even a lot nicer with 4xAA. :(

[Mefisutoferesu]

Hmm, I'm confused, I thought the Xbox 360 couldn't support FSAA? Or perhaps it's only restricted to MSAA when HDR is being used in some form? Or is that wrong as well?

[scooby_dooby]

Also keep in mind the demo's for these games are not certified, and they are not the final games.

What's wierd is, many people playing COD on the kiosks complain of some slowdown, hwoever in 1UP's in-depth hands on with a copy of COD they have in their office, they specifically noted it never once suffered from any slowdown.

So obviously there are different versions out there, and the ones on the Kiosks seem to be older, at least COD2.

Really seems stupid though, why even release playable demo's if they are going to leave a sour taste in people mouths, dumb dumb dumb....

[Shifty Geezer]

Hmm, I'm confused, I thought the Xbox 360 couldn't support FSAA?Huh?! XB360 support FSAA (full-screen antialising) with the multisampling method (MSAA) in all framebuffer types AFAIK. That's FP10, FP16, 2xAA, 4xAA, etc. The only limit is how well the game performs. There's no hardware restrictions to using certain format combinations.

[Mefisutoferesu]

Bah, well, I'm fool then. Thanks Shifty.

[BlueTsunami]

Over at GAF there was a thread stating that the Walmart reps do not know how to set up an Xbox360. This being the case, there was a kiosk with only 480i enabled (Locked) on a 720p native Flat Panel. You can imagine what the game must have looked like :lol:

[valioso]

according to major nelsons blogcast, he said that the MS representatives are still going around trying to optimize the kiosks.

[Mefisutoferesu]

Oh, that should explain some of the comments floating around that the games looked fuzzy and such. Well, most people already thought so, but at least now there's confirmation.

[Shifty Geezer]

A 480 output upscaled to a 720p native LCD will look pretty rough I imagine. Though how'd they fluff the setup? Surely the console is already set for the 720p display when the display kit is sent out, and MS are supplying both console and display? Likewise how'd Walmart fluff up the cables when surely MSonly provide the right cables for HD output?

[SteamedRice]

according to major nelsons blogcast, he said that the MS representatives are still going around trying to optimize the kiosks.

does this mean when we get the xbox360 that we need an MS rep to "TRY" and opimize ours too? -_-

[valioso]

A 480 output upscaled to a 720p native LCD will look pretty rough I imagine. Though how'd they fluff the setup? Surely the console is already set for the 720p display when the display kit is sent out, and MS are supplying both console and display? Likewise how'd Walmart fluff up the cables when surely MSonly provide the right cables for HD output?

stupid people are everywhere.

[expletive]

A 480 output upscaled to a 720p native LCD will look pretty rough I imagine. Though how'd they fluff the setup? Surely the console is already set for the 720p display when the display kit is sent out, and MS are supplying both console and display? Likewise how'd Walmart fluff up the cables when surely MSonly provide the right cables for HD output?

Widescreen 480p uses about 1/3 the pixels of 720p. 4:3 480p uses even less and would cause the display to stretch the image. Depending on the display, i think its pretty safe youll lose quite a bit of detail at 480p. Depending on the display, the scaling solution inside could also add to the problem.

Of course the absolute disaster is someone setting it up to run at 480i, 4:3.

EDIT:agree though that this process should have been completely 'on rails' leaving no room for human error. This is could turn out ot be a mess, especially if these are the same kiosks going EVERYWHERE.

[Tap In]

I'm sure it's just a mater of going around making sure the right cables were used by the Wal-Mart employees (Component) and that the dashboard is set to output at 720p.


no biggie

[Junkstyle]

Microsoft trusted mininum wage employees at Walmart to set up their kiosks? Whoops! The kiosk I saw at EBGames had a widescreen attached to it all one piece sorta deal. It didn't seem like there was anyway to screw it up.

[expletive]

Microsoft trusted mininum wage employees at Walmart to set up their kiosks? Whoops! The kiosk I saw at EBGames had a widescreen attached to it all one piece sorta deal. It didn't seem like there was anyway to screw it up.

How COD2 look on that one?

[Junkstyle]

How COD2 look on that one?

Was 720 widescreen fine. I actually thought the FPS were smooth. The big detractor for me was the trilinear filtering. I just dont know why they didn't use Anisotropic. I mean this is ATI hardware we are talking about, anisotropic should be fast with little performance hit.

[PG2G]

Don't demos normally get submitted months in advance? I'd be suprised if the kiosk demos were anything near the final builds.

[expletive]

Was 720 widescreen fine. I actually thought the FPS were smooth. The big detractor for me was the trilinear filtering. I just dont know why they didn't use Anisotropic. I mean this is ATI hardware we are talking about, anisotropic should be fast with little performance hit.

How can you tell it is trilinear? I'd be surprised if it wasnt using aniso as well, maybe the Displays scaler is not doing such a great job?

[Tap In]

Microsoft trusted mininum wage employees at Walmart to set up their kiosks? Whoops! The kiosk I saw at EBGames had a widescreen attached to it all one piece sorta deal. It didn't seem like there was anyway to screw it up.


supposedly they were suposed to wait for an MS rep.

The Wal-MArt ones are not self contained, they go into the display replacing the old Xbox units.

[expletive]

supposedly they were suposed to wait for an MS rep.

The Wal-MArt ones are not self contained, they go into the display replacing the old Xbox units.

That makes sense. Alot of the pictures seem to be rigged up in the existing case. Are they supposedly replacing the old displays as well or is it up to Wal mart to deal with that?

[assen]

looked like crap if you are a PC Gamer

If you are a PC gamer, or if you are a obsessive aniso-quality freak frequenting forums like Beyond3D willing to spend weeks on debating the relative merits of the aniso optimizations in two sets of drivers :-)

[Junkstyle]

How can you tell it is trilinear? I'd be surprised if it wasnt using aniso as well, maybe the Displays scaler is not doing such a great job?

There were these 2 invisible lines that moved in front of you changing blurry textures into focused textures. It was pretty obvious on walls.

[Junkstyle]

If you are a PC gamer, or if you are a obsessive aniso-quality freak frequenting forums like Beyond3D willing to spend weeks on debating the relative merits of the aniso optimizations in two sets of drivers :-)

lol guilty. You have a good point in putting this in perspective though.

[scificube]

There were these 2 invisible lines that moved in front of you changing blurry textures into focused textures. It was pretty obvious on walls.

Trillinear blurs those lines no? At least I think it does...just saying that sounds like bilinear if you can still see precisely where the transitions are.

Then again...I've not seen pure billinear or trillinear filtering without AF since I played Unreal 1!

I just can't believe AF is not being used by default with X360 games...I gotta see this for myself somehow. (My Walmart won't put the X360 on display for some reason even though they say it's "in the building" :()

[london-boy]

I think some people need to remember that the fact that a game is running on next gen hardware shouldn't mean that that game will look perfect, "next gen", or use all the next gen hardware features.
Like expecting Army Men games to look good, they looked like PS1 games on PS2... :???:

Next gen hardware is not a free get out of jail card. If the software is crap, next gen hardware aint gonna magically make it look better by default.

By the same token, a specific hardware shouldn't be judged on those games that quite obviously do not take advantage of its power, for a reason or another.

[Shifty Geezer]

There were these 2 invisible lines that moved in front of you changing blurry textures into focused textures. It was pretty obvious on walls.If they're invisible, how come you could see them then?


:p

[scooby_dooby]

I just can't believe AF is not being used by default with X360 games...I gotta see this for myself somehow. (My Walmart won't put the X360 on display for some reason even though they say it's "in the building" :()

Maybe they're waiting for an MS rep to come set it up properly?? :razz:

[scificube]

Maybe they're waiting for an MS rep to come set it up properly?? :razz:

I wish they'd let me set it up! ...in my house :twisted:

I'm a stand up guy they can trust I'd bring it back. (after Nov. 22 ;))

[c0_re]

Yea that sounds pretty bad, I mean the hardware in the koisks should be the exact same hardware people will pick up on launch day.

I can't belive M$ isn't including a DVI\HDMI if they are using digital flatpanel display. I think I would take VGA over component to be honest for a flatpanel.


There should have been NO chance for any employess to set these up koisks improperly wallyworld or not.

[expletive]

Yea that sounds pretty bad, I mean the hardware in the koisks should be the exact same hardware people will pick up on launch day.

I can't belive M$ isn't including a DVI\HDMI if they are using digital flatpanel display. I think I would take VGA over component to be honest for a flatpanel.


There should have been NO chance for any employess to set these up koisks improperly wallyworld or not.

Anyone know how many locations of walmart there are across teh US? I think target has a similar setup, with the roprietary game kiosks too.

[Guden Oden]

There were these 2 invisible lines that moved in front of you changing blurry textures into focused textures. It was pretty obvious on walls.
That's not trilinear interpolation. If you have this feature enabled and functioning properly, it will actually fade (interpolate, as the name suggests) between MIP levels without leaving a visible seam. The drawback is that since it uses a fixed size/shape of the texture sample pattern, it also produces blur when the angle between camera and polygon is small.

[Wunderchu]

http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000890064780

[Junkstyle]

That's not trilinear interpolation. If you have this feature enabled and functioning properly, it will actually fade (interpolate, as the name suggests) between MIP levels without leaving a visible seam.

Ouch! The seam was there and moved as i moved-- Bilinear? This better be some kindof "demo" issue and not in the real shipping game.

[expletive]

Widescreen 480p uses about 1/3 the pixels of 720p. 4:3 480p uses even less and would cause the display to stretch the image. Depending on the display, i think its pretty safe youll lose quite a bit of detail at 480p. Depending on the display, the scaling solution inside could also add to the problem.

Of course the absolute disaster is someone setting it up to run at 480i, 4:3.

EDIT:agree though that this process should have been completely 'on rails' leaving no room for human error. This is could turn out ot be a mess, especially if these are the same kiosks going EVERYWHERE.

http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000890064780

"When Nick arrived at the kiosk he was shocked to find the output settings locked on 480i resolution (4:30 screen ratio)—on a 720p native LCD (it’s ugly, folks). Not exactly the way to attract consumers… Microsoft had better straighten out their reps—and give Wal-Mart employees a crash course while they’re at it! "

My worst fears realized. :(

[fearsomepirate]

There were these 2 invisible lines that moved in front of you changing blurry textures into focused textures. It was pretty obvious on walls.

That sounds like poorly done mip-mapping, but maybe I'm just full of crap.

[one]

Anyway - what did it get by turning off FSAA? Framerate?

[Chalnoth]

That sounds like poorly done mip-mapping, but maybe I'm just full of crap.
No, it sounds like just normal bilinear filtering.

[Junkstyle]

I got a chance to play the other 2 games on demo: King Kong and Kameo. Both didn't have FSAA. Kameo had FSAA only for the cutscenes and intro. Looks like Xbox360 games are going to be a jaggyfest 3/3 games displayed no FSAA. What gives? kameo was also trilinear filtering not Anisotropic. And CoD2 bilinear.

[Titanio]

Looking at screens for a while now, I've wondered about filtering. Oblivion X360 shots seem to display a great lack of texture filtering, those were what initially stuck out at me.

Dave's article on Xenos mentions:

Each of the filtered texture units have Bilinear sampling capabilities per clock and for Trilinear and other higher order (Anisotropic) filtering techniques each individual unit will loop through multiple cycles of sampling until the requested sampling and filtering level is complete.

The hit for trilinear or ansio can't be that great, can it?

[Chalnoth]

The hit for trilinear or ansio can't be that great, can it?
You wouldn't think so. There's nothing on paper that differentiates the texture units of the Xenos from those of ATI's R3xx or R5xx lines.

[seismologist]

heh I honestly didn't think they were THAT ugly. I run my PC games on medium so that's about what I'm used to seeing. I know you PC guys love to nitpick though.

I posted a thread here a while back about how AA wasn't noticeable at high enough res and got murdered for it. :)

[Nite_Hawk]

heh I honestly didn't think they were THAT ugly. I run my PC games on medium so that's about what I'm used to seeing. I know you PC guys love to nitpick though.

I posted a thread here a while back about how AA wasn't noticeable at high enough res and got murdered for it. :)

As well you should have. ;)

Nite_Hawk

[Mintmaster]

Other than that, I thought that Microsoft was "mandating" 720p with 4x FSAA, and that the Xenos could do 4x FSAA at that res with no penalty?
The current theory is that because you need to do tiling for 1280x720 w/ FSAA (the eDRAM is only 10MB), the devs simply haven't got around to fiddling with that aspect of XBOX 360 yet.

[Junkstyle]

The current theory is that because you need to do tiling for 1280x720 w/ FSAA (the eDRAM is only 10MB), the devs simply haven't got around to fiddling with that aspect of XBOX 360 yet.

At E3 there was all this preaching about how 4x FSAA is virtually "free", but I guess they didn't tell the full story. I would really be interested in a real interview with Allchin or some other xbox360 rep and have them answer real questions like why all the demos aren't FSAA'ed, instead of "what is your favorite Xbox360 faceplate".

[scooby_dooby]

The 4xAA is still virtually free, but only if the game engine is built to take advantage of Xenos.

They may have been slightly misleading, since it's not free 4xAA for all game engines across the board.

But that doesn't change the fact the hardware does have the abilitiy to implement free 4xAA.

[Titanio]

The 4xAA is still virtually free, but only if the game engine is built to take advantage of Xenos..

i.e. build your engine to work around what penalties it does incur...? Some of the stuff, like the duplicate vertex work on tile edges, I'm not sure how you'd get around it without reducing vertex complexity. But I guess there is a certain level of penalty you'd be willing to accept, and I guess that may be within the bounds of what you might consider to be "virtually free" (whatever that means).

[Tap In]

it's been said time and again, "free AA" was/is referring to the typical bandwidth penalty.

Ultimately though someone always wants to argue the definition of "free". ;)

[scooby_dooby]

i.e. build your engine to work around what penalties it does incur...? Some of the stuff, like the duplicate vertex work on tile edges, I'm not sure how you'd get around it without reducing vertex complexity. But I guess there is a certain level of penalty you'd be willing to accept, and I guess that may be within the bounds of what you might consider to be "virtually free" (whatever that means).

I don't see how it's a workaround. It's more about taking advantage of the hardware, i.e. using it to it's full potential.

Well, as Dave has said it changes from being a Bandwidth hit, to being a geometry hit.

ATI has stated at 3 tiles, you can expect 3-5% performance hit which is precisely what everyone means by "virtually" free

[Titanio]

I don't see how it's a workaround. It's more about taking advantage of the hardware, i.e. using it to it's full potential.

Taking advantage of the hardware often entails that (minimising "problems", maximising strengths, in this case, maximising the bandwidth strength at cost elsewhere). But that's my point, really.

ATI has stated at 3 tiles, you can expect 3-5% performance hit which is precisely what everyone means by "virtually" free

That's where definitions break down though. It is being picky, as said above, there'll always be someone who wants to argue the definition of "free" in 3D. But the biggest sticking point here is that you can't just cover the penalty with one figure (or a range like that) - as discussed previously it'll vary from game to game. In fact it'd vary from frame to frame. The ATi figure is a neat soundbite, their expectation perhaps, probably a realistic one in most cases, but ultimately it's the numbers devs see with their games that matter, and that'll be different for everyone, and perhaps more critical for some than others (even taking 3 or 5%, that could make all the difference in the world for one game, for example, in terms of reaching an acceptable framerate, or going from 30fps to 60fps even).

[Laa-Yosh]

I got a chance to play the other 2 games on demo: King Kong and Kameo. Both didn't have FSAA. Kameo had FSAA only for the cutscenes and intro. Looks like Xbox360 games are going to be a jaggyfest 3/3 games displayed no FSAA. What gives? kameo was also trilinear filtering not Anisotropic. And CoD2 bilinear.

Way to go, judge all future games based on 2 multiplatform titles and a Nintendo conversion, that are all launch games as well...

[fearsomepirate]

No, it sounds like just normal bilinear filtering.

Well, since I dont' know, can you explain why bilinear filtering has that abrupt line? I've seen it in games like Serious Sam and source ports of Doom 3, but I don't recall seeing it in Quake 2 or the majority of current-gen console games I've played (haven't played much PS2, so that's Xbox and Cube).

[fearsomepirate]

Well, since I dont' know, can you explain why bilinear filtering has that abrupt line? I've seen it in games like Serious Sam and source ports of Doom 3, but I don't recall seeing it in Quake 2 or the majority of current-gen console games I've played (haven't played much PS2, so that's Xbox and Cube).

Since I'm too stupid to figure out how to edit my own posts, can you explain in terms of the mathematics? My field is scientific computing, so while I don't know everything about graphics-specific algorithms and hardware, I'm quite comfortable with dot products, scalar multiplication, matrix products, linear and spline interpolation, etc.

[AlStrong]

Since I'm too stupid to figure out how to edit my own posts, can you explain in terms of the mathematics? My field is scientific computing, so while I don't know everything about graphics-specific algorithms and hardware, I'm quite comfortable with dot products, scalar multiplication, matrix products, linear and spline interpolation, etc.


There is a certain postcount and maybe reputation required before edit becomes possible...


Anyhow, I found this on Google that may help explain the algorithm/calculations.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Bilinear_Filtering

[expletive]

Taking advantage of the hardware often entails that (minimising "problems", maximising strengths, in this case, maximising the bandwidth strength at cost elsewhere). But that's my point, really.

Considering that 'taking advantage of the hardware" in this case refers to tiled rendering, a method thats been used before Xenos was even an idea on paper, i dont think we're "minimizing problems" here. Its simply a matter following best practices to get the most out of the hardware feature set. Doesnt NOT using a tiling method make the 360 no worse off than any other graphics chip?

[Chalnoth]

Well, since I dont' know, can you explain why bilinear filtering has that abrupt line? I've seen it in games like Serious Sam and source ports of Doom 3, but I don't recall seeing it in Quake 2 or the majority of current-gen console games I've played (haven't played much PS2, so that's Xbox and Cube).
That line is where it's switching MIP maps. Bilinear filtering only samples from one MIP map, so you will see the seam between clear and blurry. Trilinear solves this problem by sampling from the two nearest MIP maps and interpolating between them, for a smooth transition between MIP maps.

[fearsomepirate]

OK, so the lines are due to where the mip levels are set, which is what I thought initially. Trilinear filtering and AF makes those lines go away, but they're due to mip mapping, which is done to make bilinear look better, not due to the actual bilinear computation itself (you can do bilinear w/o mip-mapping. Just play some crusty game on early Voodoo hardware).

[fearsomepirate]

And you know, I always wondered what trilinear did. I figured it was just like bilinear with maybe an extra level of interpolation, so I never knew what to look for when turning it on and off. You know, there's something to be said for putting a little more explanation in the plethora of "Graphics Options" in your typical PC game. Heck, I've heard of AF, but I have no idea how to turn it on. I never see it in any options menus.

[Chalnoth]

OK, so the lines are due to where the mip levels are set, which is what I thought initially. Trilinear filtering and AF makes those lines go away, but they're due to mip mapping, which is done to make bilinear look better, not due to the actual bilinear computation itself (you can do bilinear w/o mip-mapping. Just play some crusty game on early Voodoo hardware).
Right right. MIP mapping is used so that you don't get undersampling, to dramatically reduce texture aliasing. It also has the nice effect of improving texture cache coherency, which in turn improves performance.

[scooby_dooby]

Taking advantage of the hardware often entails that (minimising "problems", maximising strengths, in this case, maximising the bandwidth strength at cost elsewhere). But that's my point, really.

My definition of a workaround is when you have to do extra work in order to get the same result. This is not that. This is doing extra work in order to get much better results, it's work well worth it, rather than a typical workaround, which is just work..

[Mefisutoferesu]

Definition of Workaround:

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/w/workarou.htm

Now, you know...

...AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!!

[Junkstyle]

And you know, I always wondered what trilinear did. I figured it was just like bilinear with maybe an extra level of interpolation, so I never knew what to look for when turning it on and off. You know, there's something to be said for putting a little more explanation in the plethora of "Graphics Options" in your typical PC game. Heck, I've heard of AF, but I have no idea how to turn it on. I never see it in any options menus.

Once you do find out how to enable Anisotropic filtering, there is no going back...

[Shifty Geezer]

And you know, I always wondered what trilinear did. I figured it was just like bilinear with maybe an extra level of interpolation, so I never knew what to look for when turning it on and off. You know, there's something to be said for putting a little more explanation in the plethora of "Graphics Options" in your typical PC game. Heck, I've heard of AF, but I have no idea how to turn it on. I never see it in any options menus.This is all info for me too. I always thought (as was true AFAIK) that bilinear filtering was referencing the algorithm used in texture filtering, for smoother textures instead of pixelated textures. And then they go use the same term for a different process. How rude is that! And they don't bother to explain it either!

[fearsomepirate]

Seriously, it's like you have to immerse yourself in Arstechnica and Tomshardware articles to even know what half the crap even does in the options menu. I go into options, see "Enable Widgetary Isomorphing," and I'm just like...WTF? I think that's one appeal of console gaming to me...optimized or not, I don't feel this compulsion to dick with setting I don't understand for an hour every time I play the game. I know I don't physically have to; it's just this impulse I've had ever since Quake 2 allowed me to screw with various settings. What's worse is when options have to be enabled on your driver settings somewhere in control panel, and I never trust those things to do what they say they'll do correctly, plus, if it screws up the game, I have to shut down the game and screw with setting all over again.

PC gaming can be seriously maddening if you don't know what you're doing.

[london-boy]

PC gaming can be seriously maddening if you don't know what you're doing.

I agree, but in the end it doesn't take THAT long to learn all the things you can change in a PC game and how they affect the look (and performance) of the game. Once you get your head around it, it even kinda gets interesting in a geeky sort of way... err...

[fearsomepirate]

Yeah, but you've got to keep with the times, because this stuff just accelerates. Back in 1997, I knew just about everything about everything about those raycasting engines and the latest, polygoniest technology. I took a hiatus for a couple years, came back, and now I'm in over my head. It's like you have to be disciplined about it, at which point for me it's more work than it is fun. There's definitely a barrier to entry with PC gaming that just gets higher every year.

[pjbliverpool]

I've heard of AF, but I have no idea how to turn it on. I never see it in any options menus.

Its in the graphics options of a few modern game (increasingly so) like Farcry, Serious Sam 2, CoD 2 etc...

However people usually activate it through the drivers which you access via your desktop - display properties/settings/advanced.

From there you get to your GPU's drivers and things will look different depending on what make of card your using.

For me, its that very compulsion to mess with the graphics settings that makes PC gaming more interesting than console gaming. If your brains telling you to mess with the settings when you don't have to then you must be getting some pleaseure from it ;-)

[london-boy]

Yeah, but you've got to keep with the times, because this stuff just accelerates. Back in 1997, I knew just about everything about everything about those raycasting engines and the latest, polygoniest technology. I took a hiatus for a couple years, came back, and now I'm in over my head. It's like you have to be disciplined about it, at which point for me it's more work than it is fun. There's definitely a barrier to entry with PC gaming that just gets higher every year.

Yeah i know what you mean. If you keep out of the loop for even a year, there are always so many new things to learn...

[Pozer]

Local EB had a 360 koisk setup. I watched some meathead play COD2 for 10 mins. I was impressed at the quality and the framerate. I thought it looked beautifu especially for a rushed PC-port launch game. especiall compared to the performance of the demo running on a high-end PC. The gun textures looked alot better than the PC demo. I didn't notice that many jaggies at all. Enviro textures ranged from good to awsome. I guess thats the 512 ram limitation though. Framerate really was super smooth. Colors looked very vibrant on that samsung lcd.

[pjbliverpool]

Local EB had a 360 koisk setup. I watched some meathead play COD2 for 10 mins. I was impressed at the quality and the framerate. I thought it looked beautifu especially for a rushed PC-port launch game. especiall compared to the performance of the demo running on a high-end PC. The gun textures looked alot better than the PC demo. I didn't notice that many jaggies at all. Enviro textures ranged from good to awsome. I guess thats the 512 ram limitation though. Framerate really was super smooth. Colors looked very vibrant on that samsung lcd.

The performance on the optimized final PC version running at 720p could easily exceed 100fps on a top end PC (Xfire X1800XT) with FSAA and AF.

Thats well in excess of the X360's 60fps.

[czekon]

The performance on the optimized final PC version running at 720p could easily exceed 100fps on a top end PC (Xfire X1800XT) with FSAA and AF.

Thats well in excess of the X360's 60fps.

not so sure


The unfortunate thing is that the game can chug very badly in some key spots, reducing frame rate to 15 or less. For the most part, it ran well on our primary test system, a Pentium 4 2.4GHz with 1GB of RAM and a GeForce 6800 OC with 128MB.

[london-boy]

Well that's the usual problem with PC games, there is a MUCH lesser focus on having stable framerates than on consoles. A PC game can go from 150fps to 15fps easily. On consoles that's just not acceptable.

[Arun]

128MB videocard, duh.
Anything else that doesn't seem obvious? heh.

Uttar

[pjbliverpool]

Well that's the usual problem with PC games, there is a MUCH lesser focus on having stable framerates than on consoles. A PC game can go from 150fps to 15fps easily. On consoles that's just not acceptable.

Thats doesn't often happen, if you look at benchmarks with both average and minimum framrates, an average of 150 would rarely go below, say 80.

And you can cap high performing PC games aswell - vsync. With say an 85Htz refresh and a 110 fps average you are looking at almost a perfectly solid 85fps with perhaps the odd dip ~60.

And console games can dip too. if you lock a 42fps average game at 30 fps it doesn't stop it dipping to 25 now and then. The difference from average to minimum is no different in PC's and consoles.

[scooby_dooby]

Sweet so I should buy a X1800XT for $550 so it can be surpassed by the X360 in less than 6 months. Sounds like a great plan.

[Chalnoth]

Sweet so I should buy a X1800XT for $550 so it can be surpassed by the X360 in less than 6 months. Sounds like a great plan.
Right, because the X360 is going to run at 625MHz and have a 256-bit dedicated memory bus at 1.5GHz.

[scooby_dooby]

No, it'll just have 10x's the developer support and be a close system that's all.

[Chalnoth]

No, it'll just have 10x's the developer support and be a close system that's all.
Then don't compare it to a graphics card. God, if you prefer consoles just stick to consoles and leave PC parts out of it.

[pjbliverpool]

Sweet so I should buy a X1800XT for $550 so it can be surpassed by the X360 in less than 6 months. Sounds like a great plan.

Oh what a suprise. Yet another idiotic argument for next gen consoles being more powerful than the best PC's is wiped out and a console fan starts preaching about prices. I never saw that one coming.

[scooby_dooby]

What a surprise, a troll from PC vs Console is here to defend his precious PC.

This thread is about the X360 version of COD2 btw.

[pjbliverpool]

What a surprise, a troll from PC vs Console is here to defend his precious PC.

This thread is about the X360 version of COD2 btw.

Tell that to the guy who first mentioned the PC version running slower than the X360 version. All I did was correct him. What do you have against the truth?

[Junkstyle]

Local EB had a 360 koisk setup. I watched some meathead play COD2 for 10 mins. I was impressed at the quality and the framerate. I thought it looked beautifu especially for a rushed PC-port launch game. especiall compared to the performance of the demo running on a high-end PC. The gun textures looked alot better than the PC demo. I didn't notice that many jaggies at all. Enviro textures ranged from good to awsome. I guess thats the 512 ram limitation though. Framerate really was super smooth. Colors looked very vibrant on that samsung lcd.


That's interesting you didn't notice many jaggies because there was no FSAA at all.

[scooby_dooby]

Well for everyone who doesn't have a 1800XT is is running slower is it not?

Many people are complaining about alot of slowdown in COD, especially when going through the smoke, however the X360 is smooth as silk (so I hear)

[pjbliverpool]

Well for everyone who doesn't have a 1800XT is is running slower is it not?

Many people are complaining about alot of slowdown in COD, especially when going through the smoke, however the X360 is smooth as silk (so I hear)

Yes COD2 is slow on the PC if you turn the graphics up to high for your GPU. Why is that a suprise?

The original xbox could run COD2 faster than the PC if that PC was running a GF4MX. Does that mean we can say "the PC is slower than the original xbox"?

Not without explicitly stating that your not talking about any PC, your talking about an older one. Same with the X360. This game can run slower on the PC, but if you really want it to, it can also run faster than the X360 version. Of course it will cost more, but then you always expect that with a PC.

[AlStrong]

Yes COD2 is slow on the PC if you turn the graphics up to high for your GPU. Why is that a suprise?

The original xbox could run COD2 faster than the PC if that PC was running a GF4MX. Does that mean we can say "the PC is slower than the original xbox"?

Not without explicitly stating that your not talking about any PC, your talking about an older one. Same with the X360. This game can run slower on the PC, but if you really want it to, it can also run faster than the X360 version. Of course it will cost more, but then you always expect that with a PC.


But the point is that at the same level of graphics and resolution, the common PC will suffer.

[fearsomepirate]

If your brains telling you to mess with the settings when you don't have to then you must be getting some pleaseure from it ;-)

Yeah, you're probably right. But right now, I'm trying to figure out how to write SSE code, because I have this feeling that it could help out my program and that g++ isn't making the necessary optimizations. Assembler = teh suck, and we have NO hard documentation around this place.

Um yeah. X360 COD needs some FSAA, darn it! I have this suspicion that COD2 isn't going to be the most technically competent next-gen title.

Edit: Sweet, I can edit my posts now!

[pjbliverpool]

But the point is that at the same level of graphics and resolution, the common PC will suffer.

At the same level of resolution and graphics, the common PC would struggle against a Gamecube.

Its hardly fair to compare the average PC to the highest end console if your discussing the technical merits of the two. Compare the average PC to the average games console or the highest end PC to the highest end games console.

Obviously not taking into account cost.

[Chalnoth]

It's very hard to compare the two. What is high-end vs. high-end when the costs don't compare at all? But with most PC's out there today, you can typically invest in a $50-$60 graphics card upgrade that will boost its performance past that of any modern console. The same will be true of the next-gen consoles within a couple of years after their release.

[scificube]

I don't think there is a fair comparison to be found.

A race where one car is streamlined and where no expense has been spared on the other is not a fair race.

A race where one car is from a generation ahead of the other car is not a fair race.

A race where one car's mechanics have been given time to fine tune it while the other car goes out like it came stock is not a fair race.

We have to ignore fairness and accept that there are advantages and disadvantages in this when it comes to comparing consoles and PC's.

For the money there is no better performance to price ratio than can be found in consoles.
For the money (if you have it) no console can compete with a high end PC's on raw power.
PC hardware cannot hope to used to as close to it's full potential as hardware found in closed box systems.

There are pros and cons...lots of them, but who cares? If a platform gives you what you desire for what your willing to expend to get it who give a fark what anyone else thinks about it. I get what's best for me and on some days or even generations that's on PC on others what's best for me is on consoles. I could care less whether x,y, or z floats someone else's boat as long my own boat is sitting pretty above the water line....more power to em' I say.

[fearsomepirate]

The performance on the optimized final PC version running at 720p could easily exceed 100fps on a top end PC (Xfire X1800XT) with FSAA and AF.

Thats well in excess of the X360's 60fps.

You don't know what the X360 version could run at. The fact is there's no point to leave the framerate uncapped. I suppose the most that might happen if you did is get some frame tearing. Turn VSYNC on with a 60 Hz monitor, and now your Xfire X1800XT XX Edition X still runs the game at 60 fps.

I'm not saying Son of XGPU is more powerful than 2 X1800XT's; I'm just saying that you can't say "ah, it's only running at 60fps" and conclude that the chip's power is maxing out.

[Chalnoth]

Nah, typically I'd say, "ah, it's only running at 720p," and conclude that the chip's power is maxing out.

[pakotlar]

There is really very little to discuss on the console issue. Consoles are more efficient in terms of hardware utilisation, and can offer great gaming at a low price point. PC's are [for the most part in a generational cycle] more powerful, but games don't reach the hardware mettle. PC's are superior for certain genres (currently), especially if you have the resources to buy cutting-edge high-end parts.

To me, PC's will always rule because of the level of customization they offer. I love tweaking my setup to just the way I want it. I love having my speakers positioned just right, close to me in front and behind. I love being able to set FSAA levels and AF levels, as well as the ability to not only play games, but also check out tech demos like ATI's Toy Store. My PC connects me to the outside world, and I quite frankly feel lonely without it (aim, news, science articles, computer websites, etc). But consoles have their place, and as I get older I realize that the gaming that I want to do is fulfilled better on consoles than on PC's. For every FEAR and HL2 I play on my PC, there are dozens of A-class titles I can play on my console. I used to shy from consoles due to the poor 3d models, poor textures, and low output resolution. But with the Xbox360 and PS3, I can hook them up to my 24" Sony Widescreen CRT or my 37" Plasma HDTV, and enjoy DD 5.1 surround sound from the comfort of my couch. This is a great sell to me. All at the relatively low cost of $400 +games. My computer room is set up like a lounge. It has a fouton opposite the computer screen, a good HT system with 2 nice bookshelf fronts, a 4 mid-woofer + 1 tweeter center, 2 rear bookshelf speakers, and a 10" downward firing sub, all within 4.5 feet of me whether im sitting in the chair or the fouton; an art-deco lounge chair, soft lighting, oriental rugs and tapestries round out the picture. It is a comfortable and relaxing place for me. Now that I can hook up the xbox360 directly to my computer monitor, I can relax here and play great looking, next gen games, reclined in the fouton, feet up on the chair. Now I can enjoy good resolution, high end gameplay, relaxing in my comfortable room, at a cheap price. And the selection of games is much wider, allowing me to cater to my tastes. This is my view.

[Chalnoth]

PC's are superior for certain genres (currently)
And they always will be, due to the input interfaces, the output, the market, and the hardware. Just as consoles will always be superior for other genres.

[pixelbox]

hey pjv and fearsomepirate, what the hell are you doing here? take your fanboi crap and leave.

[ihamoitc2005]

At the same level of resolution and graphics, the common PC would struggle against a Gamecube.

Its hardly fair to compare the average PC to the highest end console if your discussing the technical merits of the two. Compare the average PC to the average games console or the highest end PC to the highest end games console.

Obviously not taking into account cost.

It is not useful to discuss technical merit when ignoring cost no? Every system is designed around cost target, even super. Best architecture is best (performance/cost).

From view of consumer, console is much superior to PC because at certain cost has superior graphics or to see another way, has same graphics at much lower cost.

Therefore comparing $400 console with $400 PC is fair.

[Chalnoth]

No, because the PC is used for many things besides just games. So more important than the absolute cost of the PC is the marginal cost of upgrading it to play games.

For example, do you ever bother to wrap the cost of the TV into the cost of the console? What about a home theater system? Or a TV stand?

[fearsomepirate]

Nah, typically I'd say, "ah, it's only running at 720p," and conclude that the chip's power is maxing out.

Does anyone know if 360 will be able to do 1080i or 1080p? I'm just curious; I don't even have an HDTV.

[Powderkeg]

Yes, it can do both resolutions.



And the Console vs. PC debate is really old and stupid. I think the people who partake in these debates are more concerned about their penis size than the games, because the last thing you ever hear is how PC gaming is more fun than console gaming, or visa versa. It's all about the hardware, and no one gives a damn about the games.

[scooby_dooby]

Does anyone know if 360 will be able to do 1080i or 1080p? I'm just curious; I don't even have an HDTV.

It doesn't outpur 1080p to my knowledge.

However, that's not a problem since 99% of the 1080p TV's on the market use a 1080i input signal.

[Chalnoth]

But that won't matter because games are going to be designed for 720p.

[scooby_dooby]

But that won't matter because games are going to be designed for 720p.

You're wrong.

720p is a minimum, just like 480p was last generation. That's not to say they won't design for higher resolution of the game can support it.

The Incredible Hulk, MVP Baseball 2005, FIFA 2006, NBA Live 2006, Tony Hawk Underground 1 & 2, Total Overdose, X-Men legends 1 & 2 are all good games that supported 720p last generation, despite 480i/p being the minimum.

[Powderkeg]

It doesn't outpur 1080p to my knowledge.


It can output 1080p, but it's not currently implemented because it's not seen as important by MS.

If MS were to see a need for it, they could put out an update on their game disks that would add that functionalty.

[Nemo80]

Then again...I've not seen pure billinear or trillinear filtering without AF since I played Unreal 1!
()

I've seen it, e.g. Ghost Recon 3 - on the Xbox 360, as well...

[Shifty Geezer]

It can output 1080p, but it's not currently implemented because it's not seen as important by MS.

If MS were to see a need for it, they could put out an update on their game disks that would add that functionalty.I remember this discussion from before. As I remember it, all the hardware supports 1080i. That's the limits of output chip they use. MS mentioned about 1080p and from the peculiarities of the quote, some took that to mean 1080p was supported. But from everything we have from MS and ATi, I see no reason to think the hardware in XB360 can render to and output a 1080p image; to support a 1080p output you would need hardware changes.

[Tap In]

I remember this discussion from before. As I remember it, all the hardware supports 1080i. That's the limits of output chip they use. MS mentioned about 1080p and from the peculiarities of the quote, some took that to mean 1080p was supported. But from everything we have from MS and ATi, I see no reason to think the hardware in XB360 can render to and output a 1080p image; to support a 1080p output you would need hardware changes.


I don't have a link handy Shifty, but I remember an MS mouthpiece saying, yes Xenos can render 1080p but that the output chip (scaler?) was implemented to output only up to 1080i.

As you say, I doubt any changes are happening to that unless MS release a future version with new scaler and output hardware. Allard has alluded to the fact that the product would evolve depending on demand, so drastic market (HD) changes could allow for all sorts of scenarios. :D

[ERP]

I remember this discussion from before. As I remember it, all the hardware supports 1080i. That's the limits of output chip they use. MS mentioned about 1080p and from the peculiarities of the quote, some took that to mean 1080p was supported. But from everything we have from MS and ATi, I see no reason to think the hardware in XB360 can render to and output a 1080p image; to support a 1080p output you would need hardware changes.

Since you can tile your framebuffer, it can render to pretty much any resolution you want, given memory limitations.

The issue is whether or not the scaler/output chip can turn that into a useful signal. And to be honest I have no idea, all I know is that MS claim the upconversion is of high quality.

[ihamoitc2005]

No, because the PC is used for many things besides just games. So more important than the absolute cost of the PC is the marginal cost of upgrading it to play games.

For example, do you ever bother to wrap the cost of the TV into the cost of the console? What about a home theater system? Or a TV stand?

PJB comment was regarding graphics performance and technical comparison.

You make a good point about marginal cost but that only is good for computer owners who have good computer already no? For most cmoputers, only graphics card upgrade is not enough to get good graphics performance and if RAM needs to be upgraded, that reduces $ available for graphics card, and if CPU also needs to be upgraded then even less $ left for graphics card etc. So in the end, for most computer owners, they are replacing most components and maybe also getting new components like computer DVD drive, which all together cannot be done for $400 with satisfactory results.

As for Xbox360 output, there is no HD digital output for high end monitor.

Q: All those connections (composite, component, s-video and VGA) have one thing in common: they carry the video signal in an analog format. What about digital connections such DVI or HDMI? Will there be A/V packs with DVI and/or HDMI connections? If not, will you consider offering that in the future?

Todd Holmdahl: Xbox 360 will support HD component video output, which is compatible with nearly every HD-ready TV on the market today. We’re poised to hit the sweet spot of the HD market at launch and as the market matures, and we will provide an HDMI for our customers when it makes sense. The reality is, you don’t need HDMI for HD gaming.

You can upscale any game resolution to any available output resolution so may be same for DVD viewing.

The game developer can create their game in any resolution. The consumer can request any output resolution (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i). The Xbox 360’s advanced video scaler will scale the game’s native resolution to the end consumer’s requested resolution with extremely high quality output.

No 1080P:

[/QUOTE]Xbox 360 does not support 1080p at this time. It’s an incremental improvement at an astronomical expense, and we don’t see consumers clamoring for 1080p TVs yet. We will continue evaluate the market and deliver the capability when and if customers want it.
[/QUOTE]

[pjbliverpool]

You don't know what the X360 version could run at. The fact is there's no point to leave the framerate uncapped. I suppose the most that might happen if you did is get some frame tearing. Turn VSYNC on with a 60 Hz monitor, and now your Xfire X1800XT XX Edition X still runs the game at 60 fps.

I'm not saying Son of XGPU is more powerful than 2 X1800XT's; I'm just saying that you can't say "ah, it's only running at 60fps" and conclude that the chip's power is maxing out.

True, but my only point was that the claim that the PC version was running at 30fps vs the X360 version at 60fps was BS.

The PC version at max detail and X360 image quality (assumed to be 720p + 4xFSAA/8xAF - which frankly, is unlikey) can probably exceed 100fps by the time the X360 is available to the public.

One thing is certain, 100fps average is more than enough for a "60fps game" so if the X360 version has less than equal graphics plus 4xFSAA/8xAF at 720p then its not the equal of the PC version.

[pjbliverpool]

PJB comment was regarding graphics performance and technical comparison.

You make a good point about marginal cost but that only is good for computer owners who have good computer already no? For most cmoputers, only graphics card upgrade is not enough to get good graphics performance and if RAM needs to be upgraded, that reduces $ available for graphics card, and if CPU also needs to be upgraded then even less $ left for graphics card etc. So in the end, for most computer owners, they are replacing most components and maybe also getting new components like computer DVD drive, which all together cannot be done for $400 with satisfactory results.

As for Xbox360 output, there is no HD digital output for high end monitor.



You can upscale any game resolution to any available output resolution so may be same for DVD viewing.



No 1080P:

Xbox 360 does not support 1080p at this time. It’s an incremental improvement at an astronomical expense, and we don’t see consumers clamoring for 1080p TVs yet. We will continue evaluate the market and deliver the capability when and if customers want it.


Ok, lets say im rich and the odd thousand here and there doesn't matter to me. I want the most powerful gaming system in the world, what do I buy?

Exactly. So please stop telling people who want to buy PC's that they are wrong because PC's are too expensive. Yes PC's are expensive, just like sports cars are expensive, but if you want the best, you pay for it. Why is that a problem?

[AlStrong]

Ok, lets say im rich and the odd thousand here and there doesn't matter to me. I want the most powerful gaming system in the world, what do I buy?

Exactly. So please stop telling people who want to buy PC's that they are wrong because PC's are too expensive. Yes PC's are expensive, just like sports cars are expensive, but if you want the best, you pay for it. Why is that a problem?


If I were a developer, I would want the majority to experience the game at its best visual quality. The X360 is a much more economical means to that end. More people would have a much better chance at experiencing the game at such high detail.

100fps at CoD2 at max details by the end of this month you say? Is that a locked fps or are you counting the multitude of drops common with most games? How much are you going to have to spend just to brag?

[Chalnoth]

100fps at CoD2 at max details by the end of this month you say? Is that a locked fps or are you counting the multitude of drops common with most games? How much are you going to have to spend just to brag?
I believe he was talking about average fps, since he also stated:
One thing is certain, 100fps average is more than enough for a "60fps game"

[AlStrong]

I believe he was talking about average fps, since he also stated:

Average is hardly indicative of a consistent frame rate or the mode of a set of numbers. :wink:

edit:
take the average of: 30,40,50,70,80,90
take the average of: 60,60,60,60,60,60

This "average" stuff is being extensively discussed elsewhere on the forum, so I'll stop here.

[Chalnoth]

Well, duh, but you can expect that most of the time the framerate will be above 60 fps if the average is 100 fps.

[BTOA]

Well, duh, but you can expect that most of the time the framerate will be above 60 fps if the average is 100 fps.
I agree with Chalnoth, an average 100FPS means you will be getting a constant frame of over 60FPS. So I'll gladly take an average 100FPS game over a constant/average 60FPS game when both run at the same level of details and resolutions.

[pjbliverpool]

If I were a developer, I would want the majority to experience the game at its best visual quality. The X360 is a much more economical means to that end. More people would have a much better chance at experiencing the game at such high detail.

What does that have to do with which system I choose to buy? Anyway, even with the same core graphics the PC version of any X360 game can look and play better due to superior image quality and more FPS.

If I want to play all my games at 1900x1200 with 6x Adaptive FSAA/16x Quality AF at a solid 60+ fps, is the X360 going to let me do that?

Besides, after a year or two devs start implementing extra graphical features into the PC versions of games anyway so clearly most don't agree with your reasoning. Why deliberatly hobble a game on the PC when mainstream PC's are capable of so much more?

100fps at CoD2 at max details by the end of this month you say? Is that a locked fps or are you counting the multitude of drops common with most games?

Of course its an average, who talks about PC framerates in terms of what they are locked at? Do you have some proof that the X360 version of the game never falls below 60fps? How do you know thats not just an average aswell?

How much are you going to have to spend just to brag?

What does that have to do with it? I already stated above - assume I have the money to buy such a PC and spending that amount of money on a PC is not a problem for me. So its not for you to question my spending habits since it could be easier for me to purchase a high end PC than for you to purchase an X360 (im talking hypothetically here by the way - I don't have that kind of money and thats why im getting an X360). What matters is the end result - which provides the better experience.

[expletive]

What does that have to do with which system I choose to buy? Anyway, even with the same core graphics the PC version of any X360 game can look and play better due to superior image quality and more FPS.

If I want to play all my games at 1900x1200 with 6x Adaptive FSAA/16x Quality AF at a solid 60+ fps, is the X360 going to let me do that?

What does that have to do with it? I already stated above - assume I have the money to buy such a PC and spending that amount of money on a PC is not a problem for me. So its not for you to question my spending habits since it could be easier for me to purchase a high end PC than for you to purchase an X360 (im talking hypothetically here by the way - I don't have that kind of money and thats why im getting an X360). What matters is the end result - which provides the better experience.

A lot of this comes down to where and what kind of games you play. Microsoft talks a lot about the '10 foot experience' where a system is designed to be utilized from the couch (or at least from 10 feet if yuo sit on the floor). This experience is not improved a whole heck of a lot by adding things like 16xAAF or 1920x1200 resolution (especially becuase theres less than half a percent of people that have displays which could leverage such an output).

Problem with the PC game is that its about an 18" experience and you can see EVERY detail and every bump in AAF, AA, resolution improves the experience.

Clearly, the 360 has been designed from the ground up for the 720p/10 foot experience. What really needs to be compared is the PC at 18 inches and the 360 at 10feet because thats what they were designed for. From a price/performance perspective, the 360 blows the PC out of the water. You would need to spend $300 on just the video card to get 720p.

IF you take price out of it and focus on what you PREFER, there ARE things that the 360 just cant replace which is the MMORPG experience, the preferred KB/Mouse FPS control scheme. But sports games, on Live, on a 110" DLP procjector, well thats just awesome. :)

There is no real answer here. We can argue it but it ends up coming down to the experience YOU want, how you play, what you can live with, and your budget. I dont think anyone can question that a 360 is a tremendous value though.

[Chalnoth]

You would need to spend $300 on just the video card to get 720p.
No way. I played at 1280x960 with 2x AA and 16-degree AF in nearly all of my games just fine on a 6600 GT. A few newer games force me to go lower, but this is only a $140 card, which is far below the $300 limit you set.

[AlStrong]

Well, duh, but you can expect that most of the time the framerate will be above 60 fps if the average is 100 fps.

I agree with Chalnoth, an average 100FPS means you will be getting a constant frame of over 60FPS. So I'll gladly take an average 100FPS game over a constant/average 60FPS game when both run at the same level of details and resolutions.


Well, I'd rather have a consistent frame rate than one that jumps all over the place. I don't care if it jumps from 60 to 140fps during the course of the game, I'd still notice frame rate drops and it's annoying. :wink: And therefore, not the best experience (for me). Sure I could enable V-sync on an LCD (for 60fps), but that defeats the purpose of arguing for hardware that can do 100fps does it not? You spend the money to get that high performance, or at least the ability to see that performance at some high resolution that you don't see on the console.

If you meant that with 100fps average, you're guaranteed 60fps all the time (and enabling V-Sync does help me), then....say so. (I am not going to assume what you "really" meant, so please be precise).

What does that have to do with which system I choose to buy?
Anyway, even with the same core graphics the PC version of any X360 game can look and play better due to superior image quality and more FPS.


Nothing, I was just making a statement.


Besides, after a year or two devs start implementing extra graphical features into the PC versions of games anyway so clearly most don't agree with your reasoning. Why deliberatly hobble a game on the PC when mainstream PC's are capable of so much more?


That's funny you mention PC versions because usually the PC enthusiasts complain night and day about crappy ports with the few exceptions. And now you're talking about mainstream and extra graphical specs? Most mainstream users have cards that are less capable than the console at this time, probably even for another couple years yet. If you hadn't realized it yet, Xenos is beyond SM3.0 spec.

Why hobble a game? You've got to have a higher state of quality in the first place to hobble the game. The "best" the developer decided on going for is the best you'll see. It is also a balance between how much money they are going to spend on the target audience. As I said in my statement previously, the targets are the majority of users, and there is no denying that most users on PC will not be experiencing the game at max detail and decently high resolution at a good framerate compared to the Xbox 360's value here.


Of course its an average, who talks about PC framerates in terms of what they are locked at? Do you have some proof that the X360 version of the game never falls below 60fps? How do you know thats not just an average aswell?


Exactly, on PC the framerates fluctuate wildly unless you throw a crazy amount of hardware specs at it. :wink: Usually on consoles, developers who say 30 or 60fps mean constant. It's a different lingo/expectation. So, no I do not know for sure because I have not played the Xbox 360 version. All I have is a direct feed video, which does not drop frames at all.


What does that have to do with it?

The thing is that you are removing the problem with PCs by stating that you have no qualms about spending money. Everyone has problems getting to such a high level of computer hardware specs. Cost is a critical factor when comparing PCs and consoles by nature.

Previously, you mentioned comparing best console to best PC barring price. The thing is that there will be millions more users of the best console compared to the highest end graphics chips in conjunction with high end CPUs because of the price. (All talking within 1-2 years of launch, by then you get into the advantages of PC: waiting for new tech).

If money were no object, of course you could spend enough money to buy yourself an IMAX and enough computing hardware to display games at whatever resolution you want for the best experience possible. By removing price, you are now able to go to the extreme. I might as well remove the free-space limit for the speed of light just so I can travel faster (which I can actually).

[BTOA]

Well, I'd rather have a consistent frame rate than one that jumps all over the place. I don't care if it jumps from 60 to 140fps during the course of the game, I'd still notice frame rate drops and it's annoying.

How can you be complaining about a game running an average 100FPS? A game running an average 100FPS should dip between 80-120FPS, not 60-140. Besides, people wouldn't notice that much of a different when a game runs at 60FPS+.

I just don't see how you complain about games that run at a 60FPS+ rate, its just retarded. Now maybe if it was an average 30-45FPS game then I would agree with you.


If you meant that with 100fps average, you're guaranteed 60fps all the time (and enabling V-Sync does help me), then....say so. (I am not going to assume what you "really" meant, so please be precise).
You should already know an average 100fps game would have a frame rate of about 80-120FPS. Even if so, you shouldn't notice that much of a difference when a game runs at 60FPS+.

[Chalnoth]

That's funny you mention PC versions because usually the PC enthusiasts complain night and day about crappy ports with the few exceptions. And now you're talking about mainstream and extra graphical specs? Most mainstream users have cards that are less capable than the console at this time, probably even for another couple years yet. If you hadn't realized it yet, Xenos is beyond SM3.0 spec.
Night and day? Hardly. PC enthusiasts like the PC for a reason: we like PC games. And we typically prefer games that are not ports. The vast majority of the games I play are not available on a console at all.

Why hobble a game? You've got to have a higher state of quality in the first place to hobble the game. The "best" the developer decided on going for is the best you'll see. It is also a balance between how much money they are going to spend on the target audience. As I said in my statement previously, the targets are the majority of users, and there is no denying that most users on PC will not be experiencing the game at max detail and decently high resolution at a good framerate compared to the Xbox 360's value here.
Most PC ports today have slight graphical improvements. The complaints of bad ports are typically with respect to low performance for the graphics (compared to other PC games), or poor controls.

Exactly, on PC the framerates fluctuate wildly unless you throw a crazy amount of hardware specs at it. :wink: Usually on consoles, developers who say 30 or 60fps mean constant.
God. This is only because PC users typically run at much higher refresh rates, and often will even run with VSYNC disabled (this is the default for most games, actually). With any game, no matter what, you're going to have high fluctuations in framerate if vsync is disabled. It's simply unavoidable, because sometimes there's more stuff on the screen than at other times.

If you prefer to enable VSYNC and get constant framerate, that's going to be quite possible on a PC, but you may need to run at a slightly lower resolution.

The thing is that you are removing the problem with PCs by stating that you have no qualms about spending money. Everyone has problems getting to such a high level of computer hardware specs. Cost is a critical factor when comparing PCs and consoles by nature.
Sure it is. And if you want to have a high-end PC for other reasons (for me those are research and video encoding), then the marginal cost to make it into a great gaming PC can be relatively small (it's just a video card, basically).

And due to the nature of PC's, they are much more incremental in their improvements. So you typically expect a brand-new console to be better than the PC at release, but start to look worse within a year of introduction. Now we have PC's that are going to remain better than the X-Box 360 at the 360's launch, but they will cost a lot. In a year, we'll have much cheaper PC's that will be better than the X-Box 360, and likely have graphics cards in the $150 range that will beat the 360's.

Previously, you mentioned comparing best console to best PC barring price. The thing is that there will be millions more users of the best console compared to the highest end graphics chips in conjunction with high end CPUs because of the price. (All talking within 1-2 years of launch, by then you get into the advantages of PC: waiting for new tech).
And look at today. Today pretty much any store-bought computer that has anything but integrated graphics will do better than today's consoles at games. This has been the case for a couple of years now. And it will be the case again in a couple of years.

[blakjedi]

Now we have PC's that are going to remain better than the X-Box 360 at the 360's launch, but they will cost a lot. In a year, we'll have much cheaper PC's that will be better than the X-Box 360, and likely have graphics cards in the $150 range that will beat the 360's.

Thats a big, HUGE maybe. I dont see any PCs with a triple core SMT cpu that outputs 115 Gflops with three VMX units attached in the near future.

[Chalnoth]

Thats a big, HUGE maybe. I dont see any PCs with a triple core SMT cpu that outputs 115 Gflops with three VMX units attached in the near future.
Sure, but we'll have dual-core CPU's with similar processing capabilities. The powerpc core that these consoles are using isn't actually that great compared to PC CPU's.

[expletive]

No way. I played at 1280x960 with 2x AA and 16-degree AF in nearly all of my games just fine on a 6600 GT. A few newer games force me to go lower, but this is only a $140 card, which is far below the $300 limit you set.

A 6600 GT may be fine for some current games but if you tried running some the games that the 360 WILL be capable (e.g. the shader-intensive ones coming down the pike) of theres no way that card could do it. I have a 7800 GTX and F.E.A.R. makes it chug even at 1152x864 2xAA (and this is with an A64 3800+, 2G RAM).

[Deepak]

I think this time we may see PC games taking lot more time to overtake next gen console visuals, compared on this gen. But as major PC (FPS) titles start appearing on next gen consoles, the wait may even be longer.

[scificube]

so yeah...anyone played COD2?

(runs away)

[darkblu]

You should already know an average 100fps game would have a frame rate of about 80-120FPS. Even if so, you shouldn't notice that much of a difference when a game runs at 60FPS+.

pardon my interference, but your "knowledge" is astounding.
humor me, try calculating the average of the following sequence:

120, 120, 120, 120, 20

now let's try to relate that to reality. take 1 second, split it in equal parts of 200ms, imagine for the first 4 parts you watch a framerate of 120fps, i.e. 24 frames per 200ms, and for the last 1/5th of the second you see the whooping total of 4 frames. now, imagine you're playing a fps under those conditions where you're constantly moving your view. ..*wating for you to image*.. now, compare that to a steady 60fps. still not much of a difference?

[Chalnoth]

A 6600 GT may be fine for some current games but if you tried running some the games that the 360 WILL be capable (e.g. the shader-intensive ones coming down the pike) of theres no way that card could do it. I have a 7800 GTX and F.E.A.R. makes it chug even at 1152x864 2xAA (and this is with an A64 3800+, 2G RAM).
This is why I said it will take a couple of years before a mid-range graphics card will outperform the X360.

[Chalnoth]

now let's try to relate that to reality. take 1 second, split it in equal parts of 200ms, imagine for the first 4 parts you watch a framerate of 120fps, i.e. 24 frames per 200ms, and for the last 1/5th of the second you see the whooping total of 4 frames. now, imagine you're playing a fps under those conditions where you're constantly moving your view. ..*wating for you to image*.. now, compare that to a steady 60fps. still not much of a difference?
So the reality is, if you count the average framerate simply by taking the average of the framerates for each frame, you're doing it quite wrongly (for in-game benchmarks).

The proper way to find the average framerate for in-game benchmarks would be to take the total number of frames rendered, and divide by the amount of time it took to render them. This will give the proper behavior where one second at 100 fps and one second at 50 fps will average to 75 fps.

If you're doing a timedemo, however, it will be recorded at a constant framerate (typically 30Hz). So the proper thing to do is to actually take the average framerate for each individual frame (since each frame now represents a specific space in time, as opposed to normal play).

[darkblu]

So the reality is, if you count the average framerate simply by taking the average of the framerates for each frame, you're doing it quite wrongly (for in-game benchmarks).

the 'averages for each frame'? there's not such a thing. you sure you did not mean each second? if you meant that - i used just an arbitrary not too long timespan. i could've picked a minute for that matter. or an hour. but a second was more helpful to my point.

The proper way to find the average framerate for in-game benchmarks would be to take the total number of frames rendered, and divide by the amount of time it took to render them. This will give the proper behavior where one second at 100 fps and one second at 50 fps will average to 75 fps.

sure. i never said otherwise. you just jumped to conclusions.

If you're doing a timedemo, however, it will be recorded at a constant framerate (typically 30Hz).

not necesserily. depending on many things, the most important of them if the engine's physics is variable or fixed step.

So the proper thing to do is to actually take the average framerate for each individual frame (since each frame now represents a specific space in time, as opposed to normal play).

seems to me you're stepping into unfamiliar territory. in normal gameplay each frame represents a timespan too (regardless of whether it was displayed with or w/o motion blur), as it stays for a non-zero timespan on the screen. there's no fundamental difference between timedemos and gameplay in this regard (and gameplay can be at a constant framerate of 30Hz too)

[CMAN]

I think this time we may see PC games taking lot more time to overtake next gen console visuals, compared on this gen. But as major PC (FPS) titles start appearing on next gen consoles, the wait may even be longer.

For high end or low end cards? Because I see the exact opposite for high end cards, I think they'll be able to outrun the new consoles in a relatively short period of time.

[Chalnoth]

the 'averages for each frame'? there's not such a thing. you sure you did not mean each second? if you meant that - i used just an arbitrary not too long timespan. i could've picked a minute for that matter. or an hour. but a second was more helpful to my point.
Yes there is. The framerate for one frame is the inverse of the amount of time it take to render that frame.

not necesserily. depending on many things, the most important of them if the engine's physics is variable or fixed step.
Possibly. But for GPU limitation, it makes more sense to just look at the framerate in the way I described it (averaging over frames instead of times). CPU limitations may be different, of course. But since CPU limitations will merely cause this method of measuring framerate to result in too low an average, this isn't that much of a problem.

seems to me you're stepping into unfamiliar territory. in normal gameplay each frame represents a timespan too (regardless of whether it was displayed with or w/o motion blur), as it stays for a non-zero timespan on the screen. there's no fundamental difference between timedemos and gameplay in this regard (and gameplay can be at a constant framerate of 30Hz too)
Well, of course, but my point was that in a timedemo, each frame represents the same fixed timespan. This is not going to be the case in-game (and even if it happened to be due to very special circumstances, both methods will report the same average, so it's a mute point).

[Panajev2001a]

A hypotethical dual core 4 GHz Athlon 64 would peak at 32 GFLOPS.

4 FP ops/cycle(SSE/3DNow) * 4 GHz * 2 = 32 GFLOPS.

If we counted new instructions providing 4-way MADD's (doubling the number of FP ops per cycle) and we said there were two SSE units per core sure we would get to 128 GFLOPS beating the Xbox 360 CPU.

Somehow I do not see such an Athlon 64 coming out in a month or two ;).

[Chalnoth]

Peak performance is far away from real-world performance, though. You won't see any games make full use of the X360's CPU for some time to come. The rumblings I've been hearing on these boards are indicating that it will actually underperform current P4 and A64 CPU's for launch titles (titles not designed for the CPU from the beginning).

[darkblu]

Yes there is. The framerate for one frame is the inverse of the amount of time it take to render that frame.

again there's not such a thing as 'average [framerate] per a single frame'. just the same way as there's not an average number of Jon's per single Jon. yes, it's computable. no, it does not make it any more meaningful - it's a measure that measures nothing. furthemore, how you read that into my original post is beyond my comprehension.

Possibly. But for GPU limitation, it makes more sense to just look at the framerate in the way I described it (averaging over frames instead of times).

those frames you want to measure over take up a certain amount of time - whether you average framerate over n frames or over the time of those n frames is the same - it's a matter of convention.

CPU limitations may be different, of course. But since CPU limitations will merely cause this method of measuring framerate to result in too low an average, this isn't that much of a problem.

aha. and what was the relevance of you introducing timedemos in this discussion of framerate? you have n frames for t time (usually measured in 'frames per second') - where those come from is totally irrelevant (could be your vcr just as well).

Well, of course, but my point was that in a timedemo, each frame represents the same fixed timespan. This is not going to be the case in-game (and even if it happened to be due to very special circumstances, both methods will report the same average, so it's a mute point).

again, the relevance to my original post is nil. my original post was about 'average framerates vs stable/minimal framerates'. but hey, in case you're looking for an intellignet discussion open up a new thread on whatever topic amuses you and i promise to participate ; )

[rosman]

For high end or low end cards? Because I see the exact opposite for high end cards, I think they'll be able to outrun the new consoles in a relatively short period of time.

He said visuals. Sli 7800Gtx must have more raw power than RSX or Xenos but "visually speaking" i don't see many games to come reaching the graphical lvl of future good ps3/x360 games... ( and they can 2^32x antiliasing won't help a pc game to be good looking )

[rosman]

And except Fps, the other type of game on PC still look flat... The only fancy thing they have comparing to this gen console is higher res and AA. ( and texture res which is still crap )

[Chalnoth]

again there's not such a thing as 'average [framerate] per a single frame'.
I didn't say that. You did.

those frames you want to measure over take up a certain amount of time - whether you average framerate over n frames or over the time of those n frames is the same - it's a matter of convention.
No, it's not the same. It leads to different numerical results.

Consider the case I just outlined: one second at 100 fps, the following second at 50 fps.

If you average over time, you'll get a total of 150 frames rendered in 2 seconds, or 75 average fps.

If you average over frames, you'll get 100 frames rendered at 100 fps, and 50 frames rendered at 50 fps, resulting in an average of 83.3 fps.

aha. and what was the relevance of you introducing timedemos in this discussion of framerate? you have n frames for t time (usually measured in 'frames per second') - where those come from is totally irrelevant (could be your vcr just as well).
If we take as an assumption that the important thing with respect to measuring the average framerate is accurately averaging over the percentage of time that the user sees each framerate, then there is a distinct difference between timedemos and gameplay benchmarks.

That is to say, with a timedemo, since each frame represents a fixed amount of time, no matter what framerate it is actually rendered at, you want to average over frames. This gives the proper interpretation because when high framerate areas zip by quickly, they will leave much less of an impact on the final average.

[Chalnoth]

And except Fps, the other type of game on PC still look flat... The only fancy thing they have comparing to this gen console is higher res and AA. ( and texture res which is still crap )
As I've said before, if you personally prefer console games, fine, leave it at that.

But there are many game types available on the PC that are just not available on a console, or have a distinctly different feel on a console (examples: FPS, RPG, simulation, strategy, MMORPG's, modifyable games, to name a few).

[Shifty Geezer]

Peak performance is far away from real-world performance, though. You won't see any games make full use of the X360's CPU for some time to come. The rumblings I've been hearing on these boards are indicating that it will actually underperform current P4 and A64 CPU's for launch titles (titles not designed for the CPU from the beginning).Perhaps. I'm skeptical myself. Even so that's LAUNCH titles. What about 2 years down the line when the hardware's being better used? I think it's far too early to say an Athlon64 will trounce XeCPU comparing actual game performance. And of course there's also PS3 to consider as well in the PC vs Console debate which is even more of an unknown.

[Chalnoth]

Perhaps. I'm skeptical myself. Even so that's LAUNCH titles. What about 2 years down the line when the hardware's being better used? I think it's far too early to say an Athlon64 will trounce XeCPU comparing actual game performance. And of course there's also PS3 to consider as well in the PC vs Console debate which is even more of an unknown.
And what about two years down the line when PC hardware will itself be much advanced? Within two years I believe both AMD and Intel will have moved to their next generation architectures.

[Shifty Geezer]

And what about two years down the line when PC hardware will itself be much advanced? Within two years I believe both AMD and Intel will have moved to their next generation architectures.I don't. I don't think we'll see a desktop PC part with 200+ GFlops gaming performance from Intel or AMD for a good few years at best. They're not thinking that way, and so won't have the performance for top level physics. Which of course GPU's and PPUs will see about fixing, and maybe GPGPU will come to PC's aid, but it won't be anywhere near as well used. If a GPGPU came out next year that could perform certain functions, how likely are they to be used?
Plus wasn't the point of this conversation to say a PC is a better buy than an XB360 for those with the money, rather than a better buy in 2-3 years time when the technology's caught up (not that I was really paying attention. 'My x is better than your x' arguments are pretty banal IMO)

[Chalnoth]

No, what I've been attempting to say is that the PC can hold its own, and isn't going to be dramatically more costly than a console for those who already want an up to date PC. And yes, I do believe you're dramatically overestimating what game developers are going to be capable of doing with the X-Box 360's CPU.

[expletive]

No, what I've been attempting to say is that the PC can hold its own, and isn't going to be dramatically more costly than a console for those who already want an up to date PC. And yes, I do believe you're dramatically overestimating what game developers are going to be capable of doing with the X-Box 360's CPU.

You have to remember that PC developers dont develop for the best of breed gaming PC, the shoot for somewhere in the middle to bottom. VERY few will write code that uniquely leverages a dual core CPU to its fullest. The difference with consoles is that whatever is in the box is the highest/middle/lowest so it gets fully utilized. So IMO, you have to figure that in 2 years will the lowest common denominator CPU be more powerful as a gmaing CPU than the Xenon?

Also, in terms of cost, theres a good chance a 360 will be $199 in two years so take that into account.

[darkblu]

No, it's not the same. It leads to different numerical results.

Consider the case I just outlined: one second at 100 fps, the following second at 50 fps.

If you average over time, you'll get a total of 150 frames rendered in 2 seconds, or 75 average fps.

If you average over frames, you'll get 100 frames rendered at 100 fps, and 50 frames rendered at 50 fps, resulting in an average of 83.3 fps.


perfect. now show me exactly where i used this ingenious method of yours.

to reiterate that notorious example of mine:

..average of the following sequence [ed: of FPSs over 5 spans of 200ms]:

120, 120, 120, 120, 20


or in other words:


800 ms @ 120fps = 96 frames
+ 200 ms @ 20fps = 4 frames
=
1000 ms @ 100fps = 100 frames


so you must disagree with the above (otherwise your arguing with me is pointless) - please explain how/why you disagree. and please, i don't want to listen about 'timedemos vs gameplay'.

when i said:

those frames you want to measure over take up a certain amount of time - whether you average framerate over n frames or over the time of those n frames is the same - it's a matter of convention.

i meant exactly this - whether you measure 100 frames and find out they span a second or you measure frames for a second and you find they're 100 - it's a matter of convention.

k?

ps: did you consider my advice to open a separate topic of your own where you can argue to no end?

[Chalnoth]

So IMO, you have to figure that in 2 years will the lowest common denominator CPU be more powerful as a gmaing CPU than the Xenon?
No, but the PC market is different. The GPU is more important in the PC market, and in two years, there will be a lot of market penetration for GPU's that can exceed the performance of the Xenos.

[Chalnoth]

Darkblu, if you're not going to bother to read and understand my posts, please don't bother to reply either.

[darkblu]

Darkblu, if you're not going to bother to read and understand my posts, please don't bother to reply either.

first, i don't remember my original post being directed at you. second, if you can't explain exactly what's wrong with my original post please don't bother commenting on it.
have a good night.

[Chalnoth]

first, i don't remember my original post being directed at you. second, if you can't explain exactly what's wrong with my original post please don't bother commenting on it.
have a good night.
It doesn't matter whether it was directed at me or not. Your original post was based upon some very wrong assumptions about framerate averaging.

And I already have explained what's wrong:
Averaging the framerate on a per-frame basis is different from averaging per time.

[Shifty Geezer]

And yes, I do believe you're dramatically overestimating what game developers are going to be capable of doing with the X-Box 360's CPU.Well I'm not overestimating anything because I'm sitting on the fence on this one. Not working with either next-gen CPU myself I can't really say at all what they are capable of. My point was that's it's probably too early to say with confidence PC's will be just as quick, when they work in a fundamentally different way. But from the paper details, if XeCPU can't manage a lot more than PC CPU's for a while, it's a terrible waste of potential and a badly designed processor that leaves it's FPU capabilities crippled by other limitations and sitting under-used. I don't think IBM and MS are that inept.

[Guden Oden]

Averaging the framerate on a per-frame basis is different from averaging per time.
Why would you want to average on a per-frame basis? It just leads to lots of extra work, since most of the time each frame takes (sometimes a hugely) different time to render, and in the end what you come up with is a frames per time number anyway. It's just a lot more cumbersome method (and more prone to rounding errors I'd say).

[jvd]

Just a few things .


IF your playing a game with a framerate that changes sometimes drasticly in a second its going to be an unpleasent experiance.

I don't want to be playing a game at 180fps if within that second its going from 1- whatever fps .


Quote:
Originally Posted by expletive
So IMO, you have to figure that in 2 years will the lowest common denominator CPU be more powerful as a gmaing CPU than the Xenon?

No, but the PC market is different. The GPU is more important in the PC market, and in two years, there will be a lot of market penetration for GPU's that can exceed the performance of the Xenos.


Not only this but remember on the pc you have other hardware assiting the cpu.

Sound ? Got it covered with dedicated sound cards .

Physics ? Over the next few years we will most likely see physic add on boards and going from what ati is saying physics on our gpus

Not to mention that we get new gpus / refreshes every 6-12 months .

Look at the jump from the 6800ultra / x850 to the 7800gtx and x1800xt . We will see the refreshes of these products when the ps3 launches in japan .


Sure not all pcs have these things . But developers still program for them and of course as time goes on these things start to move into the low end

[Neeyik]

No offense to anybody intended but the last few pages have had nothing to do with the thread topic.