KILLZONE Shadow Fall [PS4]

Well its 1080p/30fps with some low polygon models. Not surprising if they were working on 1.5GB memory. I wonder if they can up the framerate with 8GB that they will have now

 

Perhaps they were standard fake mesh-based sun rays.

I think Planetside 2 does have proper sun rays.

 

This is what I want the most, especially from a flagship exclusive baseline. I hope they will at least try to aim for 60 fps.

 

GG seems to like 30 fps.

I can see them trying to stick to a vsynced 30 fps this generation. They have already shown they can get 1080p30 running on devkits... Which are now sounding much underpowered compared to the final system.

 

It's pretty, but KZ3 was so disappointing that I have little interest in this. If I thought the problem with KZ3 was that the campaign wasn't scripted enough, I'd be interested.

Looks like the "Is it worth the cost to use FP RGB" debate is going to be as dead next-gen as "Is it worth the fill rate to use normal maps?" was this gen.

 

I'm surprised that someone noticed this. The effect does look utterly fantastic, hiding the artefacts is a tricky thing to do though.
Lets just say that there are alternative ways to tackle the effect where removing the gun is a fairly trivial problem, provided you are willing to make certain trade-offs

 

Well he said usable RAM for graphics data. I assume then the rest is taken by OS and other game related data. Thats said I can think it will be a good increase with 8GB RAM available. Maybe atleast 3GB that can be dedicated to graphics alone.

 

I do not think the OS will take up 5GB of ram on the final machine, it is far more likely the other way around, but imo I think its more likely that the final PS4 OS will take up <2GB of ram.

 

Are you serious? How could more memory help getting more computational performance??

 

Why? Reducing texture resolutions in games and freeing up memory does result in increased FPS on pc! Atleast we can expect increased texture resolutions for sure. If they keep the same textures as now, the performance would definitely increase.

 

Considering that we've been hearing rumors about 512 for a long time, i'd say 1gb is the limit. That's fine with me.

 

It was in reference to the 4GB devkit where a dev here said they could max utilize 1,5GB for graphics thus leaving 2,5GB reserved for OS and other data (probably game data). My guess would be as yours less than 2GB for OS. But besides OS and graphics data you also need to load other game data such as sound, engine files, AI, data to be streamed, caches and so on.

 

Doesn't reducing texture resolution also mean less work for the GPU to render the textures aswell as the mapping since they consist of less pixels. Thus itshould come down to GPU perfomance and not amount of VRAM present?

Like if say we have a Titan with 3GB and one with 6GB both will perfom exactly the same with same settings aslong as the graphics data is less than 3GB.

But ofcourse more RAM will allow bigger worlds, more objects and higher textures to be stored in RAM but still the more to render, the bigger the worlds the more it will also tax the GPU/CPU.

 

yes, of course. Depends on where the bottleneck was. If it was due to lesser memory, it will surely open up a lot of performance. The rest of the hardware seems capable enough.

 

Does it use tessellation here?

 

I was under the impression that framerate is also affected when memory intensive elements take a huge chunk of the available memory.
I also remember in the case of Crysis on the PS3 that the res was reduced compared to the 360's due to more memory constraints on the Sony platform. They could have went with the same res if they wanted to but that would have affected the performance, right?

 

Only if bandwidth is the bottleneck I would presume having smaller textures can affect the framerate, or when the rendering is negatively affected by having to get the textures from harddrive, etc. Then you could have much more texture in memory and get at them much faster. But I would be highly surprised if Guerilla will manage a higher framerate because they got more memory, and I think they've already confirmed to stick to 30fps.

 

correction:
"framerate is also affected when memory intensive elements take a huge chunk of the available memory bandwidth."

Using smaller textures uses less bandwidth - that is where your performance savings come in. It has nothing to do with the amount of ram being used.
And this only applies when you are bandwidth limited. If anything, using more memory will typically mean reduced performance as it implies you are reading more data, missing caches more often etc (therefor more bandwidth hit).
At the end of the day, KZ:SF has ~4-5GB / frame bandwidth for 30fps. Use more, and the frame rate goes down. Remember that isn't ~4-5 GB of unique memory either, as typically most data will be read+written multiple times per frame.

As for Crysis ps3, if you hit the memory wall (as in, don't have any left) there really isn't much you can do. If you have exhausted algorithmic memory reduction (eg, stream more aggressively - popin), then you simple have to cut stuff out.

 

I'm assuming that you're not intentionally trolling with this...

That is only true for one case, where the required amount of textures does not fit into the available VRAM and the game has to load data for the rendering through the AGP / PCI express bus for every frame. In short it's called trashing and it can send the fps to single digits, true.

But this is a different architecture and the game is clearly running smoothly already, so there's no trashing and more RAM would not help.

 

Not likely.