Advantage at certain resolutions due to mainly, The 6950's 2Gb frame buffer, At 1920x1080 the difference between the 2 is very small.
Alan Wake: Microsoft preparing to leave PC gamers behind (again)
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Advantage at certain resolutions due to mainly, The 6950's 2Gb frame buffer, At 1920x1080 the difference between the 2 is very small.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I knocked down tesselation to 8 in the AMD CCC and brick walls won't slow down the game anymore, even with all the sliders maxed out, texture pack installed and DX11 features enabled. My CF'd 6970s still aren't enough to run the gaem at native res of my monitor though, so I have to knock down the resolution to 1080P or it becomes unresponsive, but at that res it's quite fluid really.
Hopefully next gen, AMD will progress beyond 2 vertices/clock for geometry processing and then tesselation performance will really take off. The 7900 series is a cool chip, but not really enough to warrant an upgrade from cayman IMO, not with the current price tag anyway.
Hopefully next gen, AMD will progress beyond 2 vertices/clock for geometry processing and then tesselation performance will really take off. The 7900 series is a cool chip, but not really enough to warrant an upgrade from cayman IMO, not with the current price tag anyway.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Hopefully devs just don't do stupid tessellation of walls instead.
Seconded and thirded.
Or over tesselation of geometry (Hawx 2).
I'm going to just hope most of these gaffs are just due to it being a relatively new technology and up til now fairly limited developement time spent on them rather than Nvidia helping them to implement tesselation and purposely over tesselating things that requiring little to no tesselation.
Even if I was currently running an Nvidia card, the overtesselation of those things would infuriate me as my card would be burning through power for no good reason. And on Nvidia I wouldn't even have the option to limit the max tesselation factor to reduce that idiotic waste of power.
Regards,
SB
Well, 1080p is basically 4x the pixel requirements of 360 version. With FP16 on everything @ full res post-processing, the reqs would be > double? Let's be generous and say that's a minimum 8x increase in power (across all aspects of pixel throughput, so shading, texturing, ROPs) needed @ ~30fps.
hmm... So I'm kinda not surprised to see the "6870 to 5870 group" there perform as they do in the chart there (27~31fps min) when you factor in clocks (I'd say it's fairly ballpark expectation when you throw in clocks and architectural improvements since Xenos).
The jump to 2560x1600 isn't exactly halving the framerate, but it seems fairly close in the grand scheme (minimum fps). Would be curious to see a PIX grab.
Here are the settings compared to the XBOX360 version:
http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?t=7725
http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?t=7725
Oh nice.
Wonder what they mean by mix of 960x544 and 1280x720. The pre-rendered cut-scenes were 720p. >_>
And hud was 720p
Probably thats it Ok so now it's time for someone to benchmark the game on various PC graphics cards at those settings and we can see how efficient the PC version of the engine is. I'd be especially interested in the older GPU's like the GF 7900GTX and Radeon 1900XT.
Thoughts
-360 had little aniso. That machine seems to get hit hard by it. I've seen bilinear filtering in 360 games. This seems strange when you consider Radeon cards since the beginning have had optimizations to minimize aniso hit. What is up with Xenos?
-PC draw calls cost far more. Thanks DX9?
-360 had little aniso. That machine seems to get hit hard by it. I've seen bilinear filtering in 360 games. This seems strange when you consider Radeon cards since the beginning have had optimizations to minimize aniso hit. What is up with Xenos?
-PC draw calls cost far more. Thanks DX9?
Most recent games end up not working on my old X1950 because the drivers are 2 years old and developers don't test the cards. NV on the other hand is still supporting GF6.
I guess it's easier to just add in an option to dial down the draw distance than port the game properly to DX11. Even though there's probably no-one out there that would be trying to play this on a DX9 level chip (and very very few on XP as well).
Pretty sure that is the reason.
AF Texture ops hit main memory bandwidth (GDDR3).
I suppose I should have guessed that it is bandwidth related. Need moar edram.
On DX11 you can definitely do a decent job of reducing draw call overhead by combining a lot of stuff into a single draw (using texture arrays, instancing, etc) but it takes some thought. It's hard to bolt-on to a DX9 engine so ports will typically suffer.
Like the PS3 argument, going in the other direction is easy... so design for PC first and port to consoles in this case?
Like the PS3 argument, going in the other direction is easy... so design for PC first and port to consoles in this case?
Hopefully devs just don't do stupid tessellation of walls instead.
Or tessellating water under the city 100% of the time, even when said level has none to see.
Similar threads
