How many vertices are XBOX360 games pushing?

[postmodern_man]

Hi everyone. Does anyone here care to speculate how many vertices or triangles the XBox360 first generation games are pushing on a per-frame basis? I would assume this number should account for multi-passed textures/shaders(pixel ops etc) and lightmaps for every triangle.

On a side note, does anyone here care to speculate on what a "typical" Xbox 360 game "can" push per-frame assuming that multi-passed shaders are used on every triangle(such as layered shaders sharing same UV's and each consisting of color, normal, specular highlight, and gloss attributes)




best wishes

 

[zidane1strife]

That's a very good question, I get the impression of 10x over last gen avg. increase in geometry(from dev. comments I've seen). That'd be 70m to 150m+ per second. Though the range's even wider actually, especially thanks to the quick-ports, even on x360 exclusive titles I'm seeing a substantial difference in model quality. Backgrounds mostly look perfect and super-smooth and high-poly, cars too look uber, but some characters look a bit poly starved(e.g. kameo/CoD2/Perfect Dark). Per frame, should be between 200k(quick ports) to several million per second(But the mystery is toy story 1 is just a few million per frame, iirc. Any round object there is practically perfectly round, and there can be quite a number of them in some scenes. Which begs the question where's the virtually perfect roundness around practically the whole scene? why are we seeing rough spots? memory issues?-maybe most launch titles were dev. with 256MB in mind, that is if the move to 512MB was late, which I'm not sure...)

I personally love it when I can't see a single sharp poly edge where it shouldn't be, it just makes me all giddy inside(building arc.s, tubes, vines, character's cloathing/head). Some of my fav. UE3 models are those with form-fitting outfits where you can see many a curves between the character's cloth/armor/etc. I also like seeing things like cloth/skin creases/folds/deformations with super smooth curves. (Things that make a game look cg'ish in my book: iq, roundness of curved or round objects, cloth/hair physics, high-rez texturing with AF, animation, lighting.)

Every time I see high-poly super smooth things(Gundam/PGR3/FN3/GTvision/FFVII/Lair), I'm pleased, when I see rough spots say(I-8, sega phantom game, PD0, COD2) I grow a bit worried about next-gen and whether we'll see such sexy roundness in most games..

 

[Inane_Dork]

On a side note, does anyone here care to speculate on what a "typical" Xbox 360 game "can" push per-frame assuming that multi-passed shaders are used on every triangle(such as layered shaders sharing same UV's and each consisting of color, normal, specular highlight, and gloss attributes)

It sounds like you're only considering polygons drawn to the final picture. They are certainly the most obvious, but there are more polygons drawn than that. Mainly, whatever dynamic shadow system developers use also requires a lot of polygons per second. In a way, they're almost more important given that the pixel programs used in them are tiny or simply nonexistent.

I don't know which number you'd prefer, but I just thought I'd point out that metrics like that can be interpreted differently.

 

[overclocked]

Speaking for myself i think of polys per frame as in the final picture, not counting various other factors in that could duplicate or more the numbers.

Anyway from my angle if there are "many" PS2/XBOX/GC games that push 10millions i dont think substantial increases except for cutscenes and so.

A PS3/360 game pushing 2millions a frame @30/second or 1million @60/second would i see as a huge jump.
Esp if this was consistent throughout most the game.
And of course if it would be high quality pixels per frame.

I dont have any idea what any current 360 game could have as i think most guesses always turn out wrong cause its so hard to tell.
I think the current methods does the jobb great in terms of getting the best performance with great visuals IMO.

 

[Guden Oden]

Hi everyone. Does anyone here care to speculate how many vertices or triangles the XBox360 first generation games are pushing on a per-frame basis?

Not all that many I'd say. DoA4, PDZ, Full Auto, Condemned and undoubtedly others aren't particulary complex at all when it comes to world geometry.

I would assume this number should account for multi-passed textures/shaders(pixel ops etc) and lightmaps for every triangle.

You should perhaps note that several of those techniques you mention do not increase vertice counts.

On a side note, does anyone here care to speculate on what a "typical" Xbox 360 game "can" push per-frame assuming that multi-passed shaders are used on every triangle

If you want per-frame numbers and multipassing, then theoretically it could be any number at all up to near infinity. Of course, the framerate would roll over and die, but you could have 200+ bajillion vertices/frame. Anyway, what's the point? Seems like useless penis-comparising to me.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Demo

Hi everyone. Does anyone here care to speculate how many vertices or triangles the XBox360 first generation games are pushing on a per-frame basis? I would assume this number should account for multi-passed textures/shaders(pixel ops etc) and lightmaps for every triangle.

On a side note, does anyone here care to speculate on what a "typical" Xbox 360 game "can" push per-frame assuming that multi-passed shaders are used on every triangle(such as layered shaders sharing same UV's and each consisting of color, normal, specular highlight, and gloss attributes)




best wishes

This is not possible to know without data from developer or Performance Analyzer type device but Xbox360 demo from last year is drawing 150,000/frame with 5 geometry pass. But this is only demo so probably real game is much more.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

It wont be that much more than PS2 games, Normal mapping aplenty

 

[superguy]

One beeeeeelion vertices.

 

[zed]

This is not possible to know without data from developer or Performance Analyzer type device but Xbox360 demo from last year is drawing 150,000/frame with 5 geometry pass. But this is only demo so probably real game is much more.

A/ its not the number of verts but what u do with them ie u can do far far more flat shaded static models than dynamic fragment shaded etc ones

anyways my post is to contradict the above post, with demos vs games u typically will get far better performance in demos for many reasons

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Optimize

A/ its not the number of verts but what u do with them ie u can do far far more flat shaded static models than dynamic fragment shaded etc ones

anyways my post is to contradict the above post, with demos vs games u typically will get far better performance in demos for many reasons

Real game can have much more poly for many reasons including more optimized because of more development time and more type of scene so some scenes with not so much pixel shader but much geometry can have more unified shader for vertex operation.

Sometimes demo can good efficiency, but also real game with many years development can have more. Look at PS2 tech demo and real games, real games much better no? Same with Xbox360. Maybe games we have now are not so great but I think later games will have really good performance.