Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by Shifty Geezer, Jan 2, 2020.

  1. Jupiter

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    In movement it has Interlacing artifacts which does not look better than a native resolution like 1620p. Using native resolution, temporal upsampling or DLSS2.0 is much better in my opinion.

    So far it does not use fullscene raytracing effects but only for some objects.
     
    jayco likes this.
  2. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,339
    Likes Received:
    701


    Edit:
    1. Chose a platform with an upgrade path.
    2. PCIe 4.0
    3. 6/12 CPU, although consider increasing the thread count to 16 (see point 1)
    4. 16GB DDR4 3GHZ
    4. DX12U 8GB VRAM GPU
     
    #622 jayco, Jun 16, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2020
    Pete, pharma and PSman1700 like this.
  3. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    896
    Ive been next gen proofed for a while i see :p
     
    pharma likes this.
  4. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,340
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    If the need for very wide access and high levels of frame by frame decompression moves over to the PC, then 8 cores might not end up being enough for high frame rate PC junkies.
     
  5. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Location:
    Guess...
    With luck developers will give PC gamers the option of installing games uncompressed thus entirely bypassing the need for decompression either in hardware or software. I think most PC gamers are in a position to give up and extra 60% of SSD space to store uncompressed game data vs giving up 5-6 CPU cores on decompression.
     
  6. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    896
    Requiring more storage space makes more sense then requiring 12+core CPU's and wacky decoder chips. It seems by far the easiest and probably cheapest solution. With raw uncompressed data, you don't even have to rely on compression and everything that comes with it. Maybe even best quality.

    The reason consoles need this compression is because you can't just ship then with 2+TB's worth of SSD, or require users to buy massive external drives to play more then one game.
    On pc, it's abit of a different story. It to me, seems a better solution, you circumvent the whole compression/decompression part side of things. SSD's will get cheaper down the line.
     
    #626 PSman1700, Jun 16, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2020
    pharma likes this.
  7. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,340
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    As primarily a PC gamer who hasn't owned a "current gen" console but who's had 32 GB of memory for the last four years, I'd also support the option for a large decompressed (meaning down to DXTC etc) pool in main ram.

    Take your time, no need to burst over a few frames, retain data so multiple spins of the mouse don't require multiple reloads and decompressions etc.

    PC has lots of options at its disposal. If you have lots of cores and lots of ram and you can't keep the GPU fed with rendering data then, IMO, your engine isn't scalable enough in all the ways necessary.
     
    Entropy, DavidGraham, tinokun and 4 others like this.
  8. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Likes Received:
    8,126
    Location:
    London, UK
    You would be giving up SSD space and reducing the effective amount of data that can be streamed. 4mb of data that compressed at 1.9mb now takes twice the bandwidth to stream from the SSD to CPU/RAM/GPU. Loading data faster is the goal. It's a more complex problem than just giving up SSD space.

    Pick your poison. :yep2:
     
    dobwal, milk, Xbat and 2 others like this.
  9. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Location:
    Guess...
    Yes that's a given. But the discussion, even in the media has always been framed as "how can a PC keep up with a 4.8GB/s or 8-9GB/s (i.e. compressed speeds) console when NVMe drives currently top out at xGB/s (raw)". Compressed throughput is rarely considered when considering effective bandwidth on the PC side (despite decompression regularly being raised as an issue) but you raise a good point that perhaps it should be.

    The suggestion I'm making is that with uncompressed data (down to native GPU texture compression formats), there are commercial drives today that can match or exceed the XSX SSD compressed performance and by the end of this year there will be drives which come within about 75-80% of PS5 compressed throughput, and that allows you to completely sidestep the decompression bottleneck. For now, until PCIe 5.0 comes along (possibly as soon as next year) and doubles those speeds, I'd argue that's sufficient at the very high end.

    But as you say, if compression is factored in then that bandwidth could potentially far exceed either console. The trade off then is in CPU time for decompression. That trade off it too high IMO but to put it in context, by Microsofts own calculations, using a combination of zlib and BCPACK on a current top end NVMe drive at 5GB/s would net you around 10GB/s effective throughput but cost around 6 CPU cores in decompression time.
     
    DSoup and PSman1700 like this.
  10. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,577
    Likes Received:
    16,028
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    No. The real time compression is lossless.

    It's an efficiency thing. Compressed date 1) loads faster 2) gives you more storage 3) has no down sides. A PC with hardware compression will have more storage, access that data faster, and cost less (won't need 2x the storage capacity) - in every way better.

    PC don't have it because they are stuck in legacy thinking, perhaps in no small part because the IO deals with lots of writes as well as reads and compression can't be used so well for writing data. Consoles have it because they can and it's a better solution.

    I don't think brute forcing a solution is ever the better solution.
     
    techuse likes this.
  11. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,802
    Likes Received:
    10,817
    Location:
    The North
    when has it not been better? Are modern chips going back to higher clocks or more cores?
    DF is talking about pairing between CPU and GPU, not against GPU vs GPU. They never made the claim that more CU was worse than higher clockspeed. especially if you're going to end up with more TF from increased CUs.
     
    function and PSman1700 like this.
  12. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,577
    Likes Received:
    16,028
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    No. The XB1 opinion was about system balance, which is a thing. What you posted was DF's opinion of the time. Maybe they've changed opinion since then having years of retrospective to consider the impacts of the HW choices?

    What exactly is the purpose of your recent (and in part removed) contributions to this thread? It's for discussing DF articles. If you just want to post anti-DF opinions, that doesn't belong on this forum. You're free to disagree with them, to post disagreements with observations/opinions, and to even suggest they aren't reliable if other people cite them elsewhere, but talk in this thread should be on the ideas they float.

    I also feel the need to point you to the DF article on XB1's cloud computing promise. DF quite happily produce content challenging consoles. They may not always be right, but it's far from one-sided.
     
    neckthrough, VitaminB6 and PSman1700 like this.
  13. BRiT

    BRiT Verified (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    15,907
    Likes Received:
    14,822
    Location:
    Cleveland
    I refer everyone to the first post for the thread to remember the rules for it. It is not for attacking biases or defended your preferred console. Ignoring the rules can result in Thread ReplyBans or Forum Bans.

    https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2095464/
     
    damienw, tinokun and PSman1700 like this.
  14. ultragpu

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    2,298
    Location:
    Australia
    Richard mentioned you need a 2070-2080 to future proof but I think he's lowballing it by heaps, at least if you wanna turn on Raytracing. We saw quite a few PS5 games running RT in native 4k/30fps already and some with graphics vastly superior to the likes of BF5, Metro, Control or Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Yet those cards struggled heaps in those games at native 4k with RT On, only the 2080 TI can run them in a much playable fps. I think he underestimated the console optimization, efficiency a lot here, you'd definitely need a 2080 ti to future proof or just wait for the Big Navi and 3000 RTX series.
     
    ToTTenTranz and Jawed like this.
  15. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    896
    Very hard to say, BF5 and the other titles you mentioned are basically designed without RT in mind, bolted on RT as many called it. Next-generation games are most likely build around and optimized with ray tracing in mind, in special 1st party exclusives.
    Ray tracing really starts with next generation consoles, the pc was kind of in proving grounds with only NV supporting it in high end expensive GPU's. And even then, with later patches, BF5 ran very well even with RT, in 64 player sized multiplayer matches.

    So no, i don't think they have it all wrong, a 2070 and 2080+ for ps5 and xsx respectively doesn't seem low balling to me. Ue5 tech demo was supposedly doing rather well (1440/40fps??) on a 2080 laptop edition, which is close to a 2070.

    Aside from that, even the consoles are going to be limited in hw ray tracing, what we saw in the PS5 demo's was rather limited RT, with GT being the most obvious, but only for the cars reflections and made the game look rather close to GTS. HW RT as in todays PC games at high resolutions is going to be taxing.

    A 2070 or higher (and the other parts they mentioned) and you're more then good to go. Hell even a 2060 would be, and that's without even counting in DLSS2.0 and future revisions of that. Aside from all of that, scaling these days is extremely efficient, i have no doubt 2070 users won't be able to play next gen games at close to PS5 level detail, resolution and framerate. That is again ofcourse, if the rest of the system is fitted with matching components and devs do some work on the port etc.

    As a side note, thanks DF for the informative and nice article ;)
     
    pharma likes this.
  16. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Location:
    Guess...
    This doesn't seem like a particularly good comparison. Without knowing the extent to which RT was used in each of those games relative to each other, to say nothing of how other settings would impact performance, there's no reasonable basis here for comparison.

    The closest RT performance comparison we have right now (and this isn't really a reasonable basis for comparison either, but much better than the above) is Richards statement about a RTX 2060 "comfortably outperforming" the XSX in Minecraft RTX at 1080p DLSS with the XSX at native 1080p.

    The following video gives some indication of how much performance a RTX 2060 can gain from DLSS in Minecraft RTX at 1080p (spoiler: it's huge), but it still only puts a RTX 2060 into 2080 Super territory. So that leaves you with a 2080 Super "comfortably outperforming" the XSX in Minecraft RTX. And of course we'd expect the XSX to comfortably outperform the PS5 in the same test. That certainly seems to make Richards suggestion of a 2070-2080 look fairly reasonable. At least in the 2-3 year timescale which he's discussing. Later on in the generation you'll no doubt want more.

     
    DavidGraham, tinokun, DSoup and 3 others like this.
  17. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,802
    Likes Received:
    10,817
    Location:
    The North
    It's an interesting discussion point, I think we've as a group asked why Tensor Cores etc, why the investment into RT Cores and Tensor Cores. But if it were plain compute you'd have to contend with so many other factors like, increasing the bandwidth several times greater to ensure all that compute is fed.

    The whole DLSS/RT Core bit, really reduces the bandwidth footprint required to obtain the results you want, at a cost of a large die. (likely better performance in specialized cases) But without the added cost of significantly larger bandwidth.
     
    DavidGraham, DSoup, BRiT and 2 others like this.
  18. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    2,686
    Likes Received:
    896
    No doubt about that, a contrast to needing more. In case of less good scaling and optimizing, one could drop a setting or two, reduce the resolution somewhat or revert to DLSS. A 2070 will last you through a generation. But PC gamers usually want more, that's the thing with the platform. A 3060S or 3070S down the line could give some nice performance per price/watt ratio.
    Imagine a BF6 designed around next generation hardware (strongly doubt BF6 is going 2013 consoles), with RT in mind. DF will be busy comparing and analysing between all these platforms, GPU's etc ;)
     
  19. ultragpu

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    2,298
    Location:
    Australia
    It will outperform it in RT that's for sure but comfortably? That remains to be seen. Also Richard pinned PS5 to 2070S level in best case scenario and that's <5% slower than 2080 in 4k.
     
    London-boy likes this.
  20. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,802
    Likes Received:
    10,817
    Location:
    The North
    There are quite a few concessions given with PS5's RT implementations.
    Where I think they did great was that perhaps many people didn't notice where or what the limits are.

    Where I think you're wrong, is where you believe their RT solutions are to do more for less. I'm pretty sure it's just doing less, much less. I think you'll find that BF5, Metro, Control and SOTR RT implementations are very thorough high varying levels of quality with very few compromises.

    I don't want to put @Dictator on the spot, but I believe he will have something coming that will go over the individual games and speak about their RT implementations, you'll get a better idea then.
     
    DavidGraham and PSman1700 like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...