*spin-off* Console Hardware Holding Back PC Graphics?
- Thread starter djskribbles
- Start date
- Status
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Any console game? The animations in Crysis (PC exclusive) is being held back due to consoles? I can name console exclusives that do a MUCH better.Most exclusive are better techwise and visually it is just they are ignored by some for obvious reasons and only the best of the best is "targeted", that is Crysis or Warhead or Crysis Wars (3 games btw!). But looking at what PC's are capable of in realtime with Crysis games and then compare to any console game or multiplatform (or what has been shown of CE3 so far) it is jarringly obvious PC visuals for multiplatforms are held back [strike]quite a lot[/strike] tremendously. Even compared to several exclusives (anno1404 vs Red Alert or other multiplatform RTS, or Clear Sky etc etc) However nowdays several devs are adding more than usual graphical tech for visual increase in multiplaforms however those games are not released yet.
The same goes for several other areas. Clearly, there are gaping holes your theory.I wish this was true but its not
proof?
just check the newest valve hardware survey, 10.95% of gpu are directX 8 level + below!
You have to remember that lots of Steam games are casual games being played on laptops and workstations with IGPs. Lots of office workers playing Peggle and the like on their lunch breaks
Any console game? The animations in Crysis (PC exclusive) is being held back due to consoles? I can name console exclusives that do a MUCH better.
I can name PC games that do other stuff much better (like AI for example) than X console game and we could "dance" around like this for some days. However this is not the thread for it and despite some flaws in Crysis animation system it still is on par with the best especially considering it's procedural nature for lots of movements and dynamic scenery to adapt to. And btw it would be completly flawed to compare a games ingame animations done in realtime on the fly vs cutscenens.. especially pre-rendered cutscenes..
I still stand my thoughts that consoles killed DX10 and its adoption rate
And here I am reading a presentation on DICE's Frostbite engine 1.x that supports PS3, 360 and DX10, and the 2.x engine their working on PS3, 360 and DX11. Now the interesting bit is that they mention things that they can do with the PS3 and 360, that they couldn't do on PC until DX10 allowed them to. It underlines a discussion we've had before - the consoles aren't tied to DX9 or whatever, they can be programmed on a much lower level than on PC and that has benefits that shouldn't be underestimated. In fact, they even give an example of something they could do on consoles but couldn't do on PC until DX11.
That's not to say that there aren't things you could do on the PC and not on the consoles, but don't underestimate PCs limitations in having to deal with so much variations of hardware.
Apart from that though, there's nothing stopping developers now to limiting their market and making a niche product that appeals and sells only to high-end PC users. It generally doesn't happen too much when a new generation of consoles has just been released, but as time goes on the average gaming PC will gain strengths at least in some areas way beyond what the consoles can do and it will become cheaper and cheaper to do something with those strengths versus an increasing amount of people who can also run that software. Not to mention that when the next generation of consoles comes into the picture, modern PCs will be considered a training exercise and research ground for developing both art and algorithms for the next console generation. The only other way I can think of in which consoles hold back PC, is that because it's fairly cheap to do a PC version of most games that also release on the current consoles, the market is more or less flooded with these ports, leaving less room for niche titles that specifically target modern PC hardware but have smaller development budgets than the console competition. Eventually though that changes the curve following what I described above a little, but not by that much I think.
I 100% agree, I don't bite at all in all this console holding back PC games.
So far I've heard nothing obvious and I'm actually waiting for detailed griefs about the way console specifically affect pc games. I thank about it and didn't find anything my self.
First in regard to CPU power, software makes an awful use of the power available to modern multi-core cpu. Directx11 will pretty much change this and will change the way cpu adress the gpu. Basically they will catch up with what the 360 is already doing (Ms own words). The extra power available to phenom, core 2 and nehalem will start to be more obvious. In any cases I would not put that on the backs of consoles.
Then is the GPU, several evolution ahead of the ones in our consoles. But due what I would call several software issues it mostly only shows in term of raw throughput, basically rendering more pixels, applying more AA and better texture filtering. Evolution of the GPU have bring more flexibility, GPU have to support more formats (floating, etc.) at various precisions, it's possible to retrieve information at any point within a shader, you can have longer more complex shaders, more constants, etc. That's the hard part, point is that this power is limited by the API. For example vista slow adoption have a huge impact here, devs know that end users may run any directx between 9c and 10.1. Quiet an overhead to rewrite every shaders for every renditions of directx because you're allow for more longer shader or you can do cleverer stuff using more constants, etc.(even-though the actual hardware could run any of these codes...). Split user base is a pretty huge issue in this regard, even if devs do actually the aforementioned jobs I think that optimizations are pretty much clearly out of the picture... (actually I think that resolution has a effect too but to a lesser extend).
On top of it Nvidia didn't dare to implement directx10..1 for its GPU, some others nice features say...goodbye...
Then if we speak of making the most of PC GPU and make a clear difference with consoles with have to think about GPGPU use of the GPU, case is clear till directx 11 there is no way to implement this without breaking compliance of the software with one of the two main GPU manufacturers.
Overall I can't see how consoles could take the hit for this. Once again the difference will grow if directx 11 hit its stride quickly.
Then there are assets, well in regard to geometry the way rendering is handled on the CPU side prevents noticeable differences. In regard to environment / characters it may be different. For characters I don't think so, they are already based on pretty complex models (millions of polygons). For environments I could see an impact say the highest quality of the textures being a bit conservative in regard to available RAM space, but I could also be human/artists time limitation that hit back.
Overall I see nothing obvious except that PC world pretty much enlighten how software can hinder great hardware, for various reasons (others than consoles) modern GPU don't really deliver what they should or said in another way compatibility and the too long living directx9 should take the bullet not consoles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm, obviously, talking...gameplay.I can name PC games that do other stuff much better (like AI for example) than X console game and we could "dance" around like this for some days. However this is not the thread for it and despite some flaws in Crysis animation system it still is on par with the best especially considering it's procedural nature for lots of movements and dynamic scenery to adapt to. And btw it would be completly flawed to compare a games ingame animations done in realtime on the fly vs cutscenens.. especially pre-rendered cutscenes..
I don't think many would agree with you about the animations in Crysis being "on par" with certain console exclusives.But you wont get it at it's full glory or close to it. I mean even a 9800Pro 256MB from 2003 and a P4 2.0GHz can play Crysis. This all is much alike the Wii version of a game versus PS3/360 version. And not much difference from Far Cry PC/console version last year etc etc.
Crysis again ? please don't
BTW ,the problem of AI is generaly not so much related to hardware power ...
Well if generic scripted/limited AI is your definition of best/'top team' then go figure. However it remains amongst the top in all those areas but I did not say best just in the 'top team'. Though not much to discuss here as I would get served some random Playstation 3 game(s) and empty words made out of brand loyality without factual "meat" as for "best"... or visual feedback.
I'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm, obviously, talking...gameplay.
Well if they have played them all they would agree or partially agree. Those that dont would of course not know or just disagree for the sake of it. Regarding animations they have different highlights but end up in the same ballpark for final results and visual output. Though GTAIV has the best and most impressive animations and that game is multiplatform. Anyway this is going way offtopic and smells like a bait so I'll pass on that "dinner"..type!
Last edited by a moderator:
Not as we know it.
Consoles are not holding anything.
PC games are made to anchieve the average PCs, that are NOT more powerful than PS3 or 360 (gpu wise, not cpu... PCs will only catch CELL horsepower when we already have PS4 and CELL2... do NOT forget CELL is still 12x faster than your Intel QUADCORE).
Yeah, high end gfx borad in PCs are sweet, and produces better gfx than 360 or PS3, BUT "nobody" owns that, that´s the point. That´s why just a very few games are produced with that power in mind, and that´s why we have so much more better looking gamos for PS3 and 360 than to PCs. Because 95% of the PCs can´t hold a candle to PS3 or 360.
PC games are made to anchieve the average PCs, that are NOT more powerful than PS3 or 360 (gpu wise, not cpu... PCs will only catch CELL horsepower when we already have PS4 and CELL2... do NOT forget CELL is still 12x faster than your Intel QUADCORE).
Yeah, high end gfx borad in PCs are sweet, and produces better gfx than 360 or PS3, BUT "nobody" owns that, that´s the point. That´s why just a very few games are produced with that power in mind, and that´s why we have so much more better looking gamos for PS3 and 360 than to PCs. Because 95% of the PCs can´t hold a candle to PS3 or 360.
Indeed, Intel is currently filing a bankruptcy form for having losing all their contracts in the HPC space
We took this topic and discussed it in some detail in our public beta podcast:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54722&page=5
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54722&page=5
I doubt Crysis alone dictates the market however according to Cevat Crysis atleast broke even and Warhead was a financial success. R&D -> CryEngine 2 -> most feature filled engine -> high costs + Crysis development -> Engine already created -> Warhead -> Low costs. And inbetween some canned project(s). For me it is interesting to see how some of the biggest and most reputable game developer companies are what they are due to revenues on pretty much exclusively PC market. Heck they even buy up other dev houses (ex Crytek, CD Project RED etc etc)!
Wow feels like it is 2005 E3 all over again!
Really? I read it was 24x faster and then I read it was 2.4x slower than P4 2.4GHz... huhuhu... big biceps alone dont make an athlet!
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Huh? Please tell me you're kidding. Could you PM your GTAIV animation evidence to me or I will have to consider your claim to be completely unfounded. The visual gameplay evidence would suggest otherwise.Well if they have played them all they would agree or partially agree. Those that dont would of course not know or just disagree for the sake of it. Regarding animations they have different highlights but end up in the same ballpark for final results and visual output. Though GTAIV has the best and most impressive animations and that game is multiplatform. Anyway this is going way offtopic and smells like a bait so I'll pass on that "dinner"..type!
What does Intel HPC contracts have to do with the current topic? That post just seems off.Indeed, Intel is currently filing a bankruptcy form for having losing all their contracts in the HPC space
It's indeed off topic as it's a joke. It was a litle sarcasm after the "X12" statement of death
Basically I just mean that if the cell was overall t awelve time as performant as Intel offer, the latter may fill for bankruptcy, shortly I was kind of kidding
- Status
Similar threads
