Can the PC compete with Next Gen consoles?

[arjan de lumens]

I would like to point out that there are a bunch of misconceptions floating around here about the VIA C3:

• Early C3's ('Samuel' and 'Ezra') didn't have CMOV; later C3's based on the 'Nehemiah' core do have it, though.
• The branch predictor of the C3 processors is actually quite sophisticated, using a gshare+agree predictor which reaches about the same prediction rates as the predictors in, say, an AthlonXP processor.
• Despite it being called 'Cyrix III' for a while, it is NOT based on any architecture that Cyrix ever developed - instead it is based on a desgn by Centaur, which was bought up by VIA around the same time as Cyrix was.

The reasons for the dismal per-clock performance of the C3 core are completely different:

• The FPU it has is non-pipelined and in some models run at 1/2 clcok speed.
• It has only 1 integer ALU (whereas e.g. the Athlon has 3)
• It is in-order, so that it cannot reorder/schedule instructions across jumps or L1 cache msses or potentially-exception-generating instructions or high-latency instructions the way OOO processors can.

 

[DeanoC]

The problem with the batch processing idea is that it contary to how most code is written. Very few objects are self-contained, they usually point to a few dynamically allocated objects. So everytime you send one of these off to a SPU you have to chase its pointers and upload that data as well... And of course you have a whole sync issue (what if multiple SPU modify the same object at the same time).

All of this is possible to work out but by doing so you would likely slow the system down so much as to be not worth it.

Finding work for the SPUs is hard! There simple aren't that many problems that can be stuck on them without completely changing the way you develop. I'm sure we will get the hang of it but easy it ain't.

For games where we are willing to trade code maintainabilty for speed (to a certain degree) maybe its worth it but for most fields you simple don't need the speed that much. Its more important for dev costs to be low and this is where PC like architectures kick arse, we forget how well current x86 run crap code.

 

[Frank]

The problem with the batch processing idea is that it contary to how most code is written. Very few objects are self-contained, they usually point to a few dynamically allocated objects. So everytime you send one of these off to a SPU you have to chase its pointers and upload that data as well... And of course you have a whole sync issue (what if multiple SPU modify the same object at the same time).

Inheritance. Good point, I didn't think of that. So, you have to split the data sets once again into independent blocks that can be uploaded to the SPU. Every object has to be self-contained, and not use all the underlying ones.

And limiting the data sets in such a way, that they all contain a limited amount of data, independent of all the objects in the scene you are rendering, would require you to build them dynamically, within specific size limits. Hm.

On the other hand, that is mostly a matter of resource management. If you could batch smaller objects that all share as much of the resources as possible to the same unit, the amount of state changes could still stay small, although the number of individual objects would increase quite a bit.

As the focus with objects is generally with the code reuse, instead of the changes in the data model for each new object, that would take some getting used to, I think.

All of this is possible to work out but by doing so you would likely slow the system down so much as to be not worth it.

Where would be the main overhead in that? Just in the different model to use for the developers, or do you mean it would require too much overhead on the hardware?

Finding work for the SPUs is hard! There simple aren't that many problems that can be stuck on them without completely changing the way you develop. I'm sure we will get the hang of it but easy it ain't.

For games where we are willing to trade code maintainabilty for speed (to a certain degree) maybe its worth it but for most fields you simple don't need the speed that much. Its more important for dev costs to be low and this is where PC like architectures kick arse, we forget how well current x86 run crap code.

Do you think it would be worth it to learn to use this new model for the skills needed in the future? I still think it is a better one than just lumping multiple large threads together to run on multi-core CPU's. That would suffer quite a bit from diminishing returns in the long term.

Is it easier to write multi-threaded applications for multi-core platforms? Both require a new way of thinking.

 

[Diplo]

Every generation the PC becomes more crippled by backwards compatability. The x86 architecture is looking downright ancient compared to what Sony/IBM/Toshiba can dream up, free of the constraints of legacy hardware compatability. The Windows operating system is also another hugely clunky system that again, due to having to support legacy software, is riddled with hacks and poor design. PCs have been winning the console battle not by virtue of elegance but by pure brute strength - the kind of brute strength you only get by throwing money lots of money at a problem.

The fact is you can buy ALL the current generation consoles together (including a handheld) and it still works out cheaper than buying a top-end PC graphics card. Microsoft claim the XBox 360 GPU is equivalent to two 6800 Ultras in parallel and yet will cost a fraction of the price. How is the PC, burdened by years of ancient hardware held togther by an bloated OS, going to be competitive with that?

Whilst I'm somewhat sceptical of some of Sony's claims, the fact is they have shown some absolutely breath-taking footage and categorically stated it's real-time generated. Frankly this blows away anything I've seen on the PC or even imagined would be possible on the PC soon. The performance gap is narrowing whilst the price gap is widening (and not in favour of the PC). Unless a revolution in PC architecture happens quickly then console will overtake PCs.

 

[Gubbi]

The problem with the batch processing idea is that it contary to how most code is written. Very few objects are self-contained, they usually point to a few dynamically allocated objects. So everytime you send one of these off to a SPU you have to chase its pointers and upload that data as well... And of course you have a whole sync issue (what if multiple SPU modify the same object at the same time).

Inheritance. Good point, I didn't think of that. So, you have to split the data sets once again into independent blocks that can be uploaded to the SPU. Every object has to be self-contained, and not use all the underlying ones.

No, not really inheritance (object members are still stores in one big chunk), but rather dynamic structures like lists and trees. SPEs are ill suited for data structures with no upper bound on size.

I wonder why Sony chose to put one PPE and 8 SPEs (7 of which are functional) in one CELL chip. Do they really believe that stream (or fixed size block)-type workloads outnumber general purpose ones 7 to 1? Especially given the fact that it no longer has to do vertex shading.

Ditching 6 SPEs would have allowed a 2SPE and 3 PPE CELL system (together with a big fat chunk of shared level 2 cache) , which would make much more sense. All IMO.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Frank]

The problem isn't with the hardware, it's with the programming model. Most applications, and especially games, are totally serial and single-threaded.

Your typical game is just a singe loop that collects input, modifies the player avatar, runs some scripts to update the actions of the mob's, checks collisions, updates the final states, emits sound, collects the objects to be rendered, transforms and skins them where needed, updates the logic for the GPU, sends all the bits that make up the scene to it, and starts all over again.

With the exception of making sound and collecting input, the general way to handle other devices is to upload the commands to them, and wait for them to finish. And the same goes for multi-threading.

For starters, what are you going to split and spawn? Sound. That one is easy. The GPU driver. Check. And what else? Hm. Tracking free-moving objects, like bullets? The synchronization would be hard. The AI? Same problem. Hm. Optical mesh-related objects that are visual only and have no impact on the flow of the game logic, like hair, water and clothes? And explosions and such if you can get feedback on them. Those are good possibilities.

So, how are you going to run those things independently? Use a separate CPU to do it? Nah. Way too slow. You want something that is massively SIMD, can run multiple different tasks at the same time (multiple independent units) and handles vectors for that, otherwise just don't bother.

But if you are going to off-load the calculation of meshes in the first place, why not let them transform all the objects / vertices you would calculate on the CPU in the first place? And if you do that, there are plenty of cycles left for the CPU, so who cares if it waits for the tasks to finish?

On the other hand, if you have multiple CPUs, what are you going to use them for? You cannot just chop up your game loop and run those pieces in parallel. Because the actions have to take place in sequence. So, the first thing you have to do is throw away the free-running model, eat a few frames latency and go trigger sub-tasks timed and in sequence. And hit your head when one of them takes longer than expected.

You have to take the things out of the main thread that can run independent, and are certain to finish in a short while, so you don't mess up your scedule. That means that timing the spawns is out. And that leaves the same tasks that you would really want to run on something massively SIMD, and can handle multiple tasks at the same time.



So. Any way you look at it, batching stuff is the only way to grow the current single-loop programming model into something that benefits greatly from multiple units. And the tasks that are best suited for that are all the vector calculations when building the scene.

Using multiple CPUs leaves you wanting in the raw power department and creates a lot of synchronizing headaches. While batching objects to multiple SIMD units leaves the central controller with enough free time, so that it doesn't really matter if it is idle for quite a bit.

Another way to do the same things, is by making the vector units of the GPU more general purpose. Which amounts to exactly the same thing as having other multi-purpose SIMD vector units on one of the chips in the system. Only the location changes. But having them close to the CPU, with a really fast datapath removes the large penalty for collecting any results the game logic wants to know.



If the programming model isn't changed, the total power of each console will be determined by which one has a single fastest CPU, because all the other units won't be used in any case. Alternatively, the best console will be the one that has the largest amount of developers that do change the model and make the best use of all the other units.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I know this forum is filled with a lot of experts in various hardware & software. I was looking at the very impressive spec sheets of each console. I was just wondering if for Gaming the PC can compete still? Graphicall, computationally?

I would like to know if the architecture of the PC is ideal for a game system? As far as northbridge/southbridge PCi-Express cards etc...
Can a better gpu always be made for PC in due time or will there come a time when this architecture can go no further?


What do the PC's have to do to compete? Dual AMD, 2 Next Gen GPu's in SLI, Ageia PPU(had to throw it in, I know the ageia talk iritates certain People, X-FI audio SB
would that put next gen hardware wise to shame?
Wy dont PC's get embedded ram etc...

thanks for all the responses. i really enjoy hardware talk. Its ver interesting stuff.

Of course it can. By the end of 2006 Dual Core PC CPU's will obliterate the Cell for general purpose code. While its huge vector power which is useful in games for pretty much physics will be exceeded by a PPU.

More system memory bandwidth? Yeah, physics calcs will gobble all that up. A PPU in a PC will have its own dedicated memory bus for those kinds of operations. That plus the FSB of the dual core CPU should be much faster than Cells system memory.

Then there is the X-Fi processor. Absolutely enormous audio processing power in hardware which the cell would need to replicate in software.

Memory size? Well efficiency issues or not we all know the PC has masses more and thus even with lower efficiency can have more effictive memory to use.

Then there is the obvious PC advantage: GPU. Nvidia has already specifically stated that there will be more powerful PC GPU's than RSX by the time PS3 is launched and thats not even considering SLI. A mid range R600 will likely be more than enough to outperform any next gen console so I won't even mention dual high end R600's.

On day one a top end PC will breeze past any of the consoles in raw power terms. Obviously that power won't be used as efficiently or comprehensively and the cost will be astronomical by comparison. But in pure hardware potential terms, there is simply no way a $300 machine can compete with e $2500 machine.

Here is the spec of a PC that on day 1 of X360's launch will breeze past it in performance potential:

Athlon X2 4800+
2GB DDR667
128MB PPU
2x 512MB R520's
Creative X-Fi Souncard

Will it cost you a months wages? Yes. Will it give you bragging rights that your machine lays the smackdown of your friends brand new console? Yes indeed.

 

[Frank]

Athlon X2 4800+
2GB DDR667
128MB PPU
2x 512MB R520's
Creative X-Fi Souncard

Will it cost you a months wages? Yes. Will it give you bragging rights that your machine lays the smackdown of your friends brand new console? Yes indeed.

Yes, as Diplo said, that would be about comparable with a single PS3, and cost about ten times as much money. Would you pay that just to have bragging rights? In that case, don't forget a perspex case and RAM with LED's on them.

 

[HVZ]

I know this forum is filled with a lot of experts in various hardware & software. I was looking at the very impressive spec sheets of each console. I was just wondering if for Gaming the PC can compete still? Graphicall, computationally?

I would like to know if the architecture of the PC is ideal for a game system? As far as northbridge/southbridge PCi-Express cards etc...
Can a better gpu always be made for PC in due time or will there come a time when this architecture can go no further?


What do the PC's have to do to compete? Dual AMD, 2 Next Gen GPu's in SLI, Ageia PPU(had to throw it in, I know the ageia talk iritates certain People, X-FI audio SB
would that put next gen hardware wise to shame?
Wy dont PC's get embedded ram etc...

thanks for all the responses. i really enjoy hardware talk. Its ver interesting stuff.

Of course it can. By the end of 2006 Dual Core PC CPU's will obliterate the Cell for general purpose code. While its huge vector power which is useful in games for pretty much physics will be exceeded by a PPU.

More system memory bandwidth? Yeah, physics calcs will gobble all that up. A PPU in a PC will have its own dedicated memory bus for those kinds of operations. That plus the FSB of the dual core CPU should be much faster than Cells system memory.

Then there is the X-Fi processor. Absolutely enormous audio processing power in hardware which the cell would need to replicate in software.

Memory size? Well efficiency issues or not we all know the PC has masses more and thus even with lower efficiency can have more effictive memory to use.

Then there is the obvious PC advantage: GPU. Nvidia has already specifically stated that there will be more powerful PC GPU's than RSX by the time PS3 is launched and thats not even considering SLI. A mid range R600 will likely be more than enough to outperform any next gen console so I won't even mention dual high end R600's.

On day one a top end PC will breeze past any of the consoles in raw power terms. Obviously that power won't be used as efficiently or comprehensively and the cost will be astronomical by comparison. But in pure hardware potential terms, there is simply no way a $300 machine can compete with e $2500 machine.

Here is the spec of a PC that on day 1 of X360's launch will breeze past it in performance potential:

Athlon X2 4800+
2GB DDR667
128MB PPU
2x 512MB R520's
Creative X-Fi Souncard

Will it cost you a months wages? Yes. Will it give you bragging rights that your machine lays the smackdown of your friends brand new console? Yes indeed.

and will the xbox360 still have by far the better looking games? yes indeed.

you are all foolish to think the pc can compete with xbox360 or ps3 in terms of graphics. even IF hardware does come out that surpasses said consoles, no games will take advantage of it because they will be coded for ancient hardware. far cry was the first game to offer graphics superior to the best of what the xbox had to offer. it came out nearly 3 years after xbox.

heres a better example, ut2007 gameplay footage from this e3(by far the best lookign thing coming out for pc in the future) pales in comparison to the footage of ue3 shown for ps3, and gears of war for xbox, no to mention killzone 2, ghost recon 3, that dune buggy game for ps3, pgr3, f1, getaway 3.

another example, alan wake runnign on atis latest and greatest r520 was running WORSE than on the consoles. that card will be the most powerful ati card available when xbox360 launches. while nvidias card will likely be faster, it will still probably run worse.

pc gaming is going the way of nintendo.

 

[pcchen]

far cry was the first game to offer graphics superior to the best of what the xbox had to offer. it came out nearly 3 years after xbox.

I think Halo PC's graphics is better than the Xbox version, and it came out less than two years after the Xbox version, not 3 years.
What you said reminds me of some talks like "PC will need 3 years to surpass what PS2 can offer" and we all know what really happened instead.

 

[HVZ]

far cry was the first game to offer graphics superior to the best of what the xbox had to offer. it came out nearly 3 years after xbox.

I think Halo PC's graphics is better than the Xbox version, and it came out less than two years after the Xbox version, not 3 years.
What you said reminds me of some talks like "PC will need 3 years to surpass what PS2 can offer" and we all know what really happened instead.

besides the higher res of the pc monitor, it was virtually identical. it also ran like crap on hardware available at the time.

 

[Markus Maki]

another example, alan wake runnign on atis latest and greatest r520 was running WORSE than on the consoles.

I'd love to know where you saw Alan Wake running on consoles .

Everybody is still running the next gen stuff with early devkits that are not close to final performance, non-optimized code paths or with pre-rendered graphics.

But to the point - ultra-high-end PCs can produce same kind of results as the next gen consoles, and I believe more people will take advantage of these just because they code the SM3.0 etc. effects for consoles in any case.

Naturally you need a $$$ rig compared to a much cheaper console. What PCs can't compete in is the mainstream audience.

 

[pcchen]

besides the higher res of the pc monitor, it was virtually identical. it also ran like crap on hardware available at the time.

Halo PC has several improvements on graphics side (such as support for PS2.0). Its graphics was already not the best in the PC game world at its time, and the slowness is most due to the (bad) porting.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Athlon X2 4800+
2GB DDR667
128MB PPU
2x 512MB R520's
Creative X-Fi Souncard

Will it cost you a months wages? Yes. Will it give you bragging rights that your machine lays the smackdown of your friends brand new console? Yes indeed.

Yes, as Diplo said, that would be about comparable with a single PS3, and cost about ten times as much money. Would you pay that just to have bragging rights? In that case, don't forget a perspex case and RAM with LED's on them.

Are you having a laugh? Did you not read the specs? Double, yes read it double the graphics power is "about comparable" to you is it? How about 6 times the total RAM? Hmmm yes I can see how thats "about comparable". And yes, im sure the Cell will easily match the combined processing power of a dual core AthlonFX53, a 128MB PPU and an X-Fi sound processor.

Nvidia has already stated that there will be more powerful GPU's than the RSX by the time PS3 is launched. Single GPU's. I don't even need to bring up SLI to prove this point.

As for the price, at what point did you read me saying otherwise?

 

[pjbliverpool]

and will the xbox360 still have by far the better looking games? yes indeed.

No, it won't. A large number of X360 games will be ported to PC because of XNA, Live! and the unified controller. It may have some slightely better looking exclusive games at first but nothing mind blowing. Generally, the games will be availble on PC aswell with higher res and maybe some other enhancements for high end rigs.

you are all foolish to think the pc can compete with xbox360 or ps3 in terms of graphics.

Well that wasn't my argument but since you bring it up, because of ports yes it will. It will be a while before the PC gets exclusive games that exceed the console buut then thats not my argument.

even IF hardware does come out that surpasses said consoles, no games will take advantage of it because they will be coded for ancient hardware.

Replace if with when. And its the same with the consoles. Or do first gen xbox and PS3 games look as good as third/fourth gen?

far cry was the first game to offer graphics superior to the best of what the xbox had to offer. it came out nearly 3 years after xbox.

Umm, no. Although it was the first to give obviously better graphics. When they came out it could be argued NOLF2, UT2K3, Mafia and any number of other games looked better than anything on xbox at the time. Personally I thought RTCW looked better than Halo.

heres a better example, ut2007 gameplay footage from this e3(by far the best lookign thing coming out for pc in the future) pales in comparison to the footage of ue3 shown for ps3, and gears of war for xbox, no to mention killzone 2, ghost recon 3, that dune buggy game for ps3, pgr3, f1, getaway 3.

Lol, the "UE3 footage" shown for PS3 was UT2007 and Tim Sweeney himself said in an interview at E3 that the game would have more detail than the PS3 version on a top end PC.

Then there's Gears of War which has already been confirmed for the PC, as has GR3. Then there are the rest which were cg videos representing "what the PS3 should be capable of". You want me to be impressed with videos? Have you ever seen FF:TSW running on a PC?

another example, alan wake runnign on atis latest and greatest r520 was running WORSE than on the consoles. that card will be the most powerful ati card available when xbox360 launches. while nvidias card will likely be faster, it will still probably run worse.

Alan Wake was early code running in SM2.0 mode (read the inquirer). That means it was running on a slower shader model than the final version will be. Like I said, Nvidia has already said there will be faster PC GPU's than the RSX by the time PS3 has launched. Did you really expect otherwise?

pc gaming is going the way of nintendo

Lol, I take it your too young to remember all the hype monkeys saying the same thing back in 1999 when the PS2 was demonstrated?

 

[Frank]

Are you having a laugh? Did you not read the specs? Double, yes read it double the graphics power is "about comparable" to you is it? How about 6 times the total RAM? Hmmm yes I can see how thats "about comparable". And yes, im sure the Cell will easily match the combined processing power of a dual core AthlonFX53, a 128MB PPU and an X-Fi sound processor.

Nvidia has already stated that there will be more powerful GPU's than the RSX by the time PS3 is launched. Single GPU's. I don't even need to bring up SLI to prove this point.

As for the price, at what point did you read me saying otherwise?

Ok. One single question: if it does exceed the specs, disregarding the very large overhead of Windows and DirectX, what are you going to do with the excess? Use the best resolution, AA and AF you can choose? Or do you enjoy framerates in excess of 300, even if your monitor cannot display them at all?

But the point is moot. For starters, there isn't a single game that benefits from having a PPU. And the amount of games that benefit from multiple processors can be counted on one hand. So, if you're lucky, you will score some additional fps from your dual GPU's. And that's about it.

Really, I could plug some supercomputer boards into my PC, and brag that it is faster than any other PC on Earth. And that might even be true. But I would hope really hard, that you wouldn't go and ask me to show something that actually makes any use of it.

And I wouldn't want to play a game while anyone else was watching, as they would start asking very nasty questions, like why my framerate is so low, while I have the fastest PC on Earth.

 

[HVZ]

and will the xbox360 still have by far the better looking games? yes indeed.

No, it won't. A large number of X360 games will be ported to PC because of XNA, Live! and the unified controller. It may have some slightely better looking exclusive games at first but nothing mind blowing. Generally, the games will be availble on PC aswell with higher res and maybe some other enhancements for high end rigs.

you are all foolish to think the pc can compete with xbox360 or ps3 in terms of graphics.

Well that wasn't my argument but since you bring it up, because of ports yes it will. It will be a while before the PC gets exclusive games that exceed the console buut then thats not my argument.

even IF hardware does come out that surpasses said consoles, no games will take advantage of it because they will be coded for ancient hardware.

Replace if with when. And its the same with the consoles. Or do first gen xbox and PS3 games look as good as third/fourth gen?

far cry was the first game to offer graphics superior to the best of what the xbox had to offer. it came out nearly 3 years after xbox.

Umm, no. Although it was the first to give obviously better graphics. When they came out it could be argued NOLF2, UT2K3, Mafia and any number of other games looked better than anything on xbox at the time. Personally I thought RTCW looked better than Halo.

heres a better example, ut2007 gameplay footage from this e3(by far the best lookign thing coming out for pc in the future) pales in comparison to the footage of ue3 shown for ps3, and gears of war for xbox, no to mention killzone 2, ghost recon 3, that dune buggy game for ps3, pgr3, f1, getaway 3.

Lol, the "UE3 footage" shown for PS3 was UT2007 and Tim Sweeney himself said in an interview at E3 that the game would have more detail than the PS3 version on a top end PC.

Then there's Gears of War which has already been confirmed for the PC, as has GR3. Then there are the rest which were cg videos representing "what the PS3 should be capable of". You want me to be impressed with videos? Have you ever seen FF:TSW running on a PC?

another example, alan wake runnign on atis latest and greatest r520 was running WORSE than on the consoles. that card will be the most powerful ati card available when xbox360 launches. while nvidias card will likely be faster, it will still probably run worse.

Alan Wake was early code running in SM2.0 mode (read the inquirer). That means it was running on a slower shader model than the final version will be. Like I said, Nvidia has already said there will be faster PC GPU's than the RSX by the time PS3 has launched. Did you really expect otherwise?

pc gaming is going the way of nintendo

Lol, I take it your too young to remember all the hype monkeys saying the same thing back in 1999 when the PS2 was demonstrated?

slightly?? compare ghost recon 3, pgr 3, killzone 2, f1, motorstorm, getaway 3 to anything coming out for the pc and tell me they are slightly better.

higher res, lower fps, lower poly counts, less effects.

halo pc was the first game out to match or beat halo xbox in terms of graphics(and even then the diff was minimal). it came out almost 2 years after xbox. then halo 2 came out and it bests everything excluding far cry, doom 3..gets hard after that.

nofl, ut2k3/4, mafia dont even compare to halo 2 or unreal championship.

might have been ut2007, doesnt change the fact it looked worlds better than what they showed for the pc. go watch videos of both. animation, complexity and lighting for the ps3 demo are a whole leap beyond what has been shown for pc. and tim sweeny never said that.

yes they might be ported to the pc, but in what capacity. and they werent cg, they were in game engine.

who cares if it was running in sm 2.0 mode. it would be running the same mode on consoles so its a moot point. and nvidia says a lot of things, doesnt make it true.

have u looked at sales numbers of pc games latley? they have been declining ever since...just like nintendo. more and more pc games are just afterthought ports of console games....so yeah pc gaming is on the way out. it makes no sense for anyone to go plop down 500 for an r520 or g70 when xbox 360/ps3 will cost less and be more powerful. not to mention the cpus in both absolutly blow away anything we have now or will have in the next 2 years in regards to game performance.

 

[Blazkowicz]

are you on crack?

I tried halo for PC and think it looks like shit, choppy as hell, very low res textures (must be coming right from the xbox version). I'd take the average Q3 powered game over it (looks a lot better with 3x the framerate and much higher res textures)

a big lol @ halo2
http://www.armchairempire.com/images/previews/xbox/halo-2/halo-2-9.jpg
http://xboxatomic7.free.fr/h/halo-2_2.jpg

looks more like quake2 than far cry to me.

 

[HVZ]

way to hand pick bad screenshots, i can pick far worse screenshots for ut2k3/4.

heres some good halo 2 screens.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/562116_20041105_screen002.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/562116_20041105_screen006.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/562116_20041105_screen089.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/562116_20041105_screen126.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/562116_20040616_screen005.jpg

 

[Blazkowicz]

three of them are high res with something like 16x FSAA. those are PR shots, not screenshot

#006 and #126 are real, I don't see why they are so interesting.