Oblivion Press Demo 02/22/06 Chicago

[RobertR1]

The Xbox 360 version also supports HDR effects, maybe that is why they didn't have AA in the PC version that they played, they had to turn the AA off in the PC version to get the HDR working... of course I'm going by the assumption that you can't have both at the same time, correct me if I'm wrong.

The x1900xt can do every form of known HDR+AA but perhaps due to a severe performance penalty associated with HDR+AA, AA was turned off??? or the game wasn't complete enough to allow for HDR+AA on PC's?

 

[Bobbler]

ATI says that on brute force, Xenos is at the level of X1900

...what?

 

[Griffith]

...what?

I used the wrong words, the right is:

Richard Huddy:
"x1900 is powerful in theory, but in practice performance on games it is comparable to Xenos, so it's right to say that X1900 is very near as being a 'xenos of PC' "

Le caratteristiche che rendono l'Xbox 360 unica nel suo genere sono allo stesso tempo le migliori esistenti per una console. Ad oggi produciamo una GPU (X1900) che è teoricamente più potente di Xenos e nei giochi offre un'esperienza confrontabile. Suppongo che sia giusto dire che la X1900 è molto vicina a quello che sarebbe uno Xenos per PC.

http://www.tomshw.it/business.php?guide=20060208

 

[superguy]

"x1900 is powerful in theory, but in practice performance on games it is comparable to Xenos, so it's right to say that X1900 is very near as being a 'xenos of PC' "

Wow, quiet a statement if true.

Of course now that I think about it, he probably considers 4XAA on Xenos as "free" in the comparison, which probably isn't true.

Still, the only way it makes sense is if the mini-ALU in X1900 doesn't do much. X1900 has 48 pipelines with the big ALU and smaller ALU. Xenos also has 48 but with just the big ALU.

If the secondary ALU doesn't do that much you could make the comparison. I doubt that though.

We have discovered logic does not take that many transistors on ATI cards. they added 32 pipes to X1900 with 63m transistors. Out of 230 in Xenos, Jawed says 75 are dedicated to 64 ALU's (qaud disabled).

 

[scooby_dooby]

I guess I'm mostly wondering if all these previews actually knew the exact hardware and settings the games were running at (for example was it an x1800 or an x1900? was the CPU dual core or just a modestly clocked P4? etc, etc)... because from the couple previews it seems the PC version is going to run like horseshit even on high end systems if we are to believe those PC stats listed.

Weren't all these previews basically done on the same night in the same hotel? I think the invited like 20 sites to come to some hotel late at night, and sit down in a big room with 20 widescreen LCD's and headphones. So, they should pretty much all be talking about the same setup/settings.

A member over at the elderscrolls forum put together this overview of all the different previews:

Shack News Preview:
Version Played: PC/360
-PC Load times a little faster then the 360
-XBOX 360 and PC graphicaly identical
-No noticeable graphic issues

Gamersmark Preview:
Verson Played: 360
-Low res textures found on clothing of characters
-Jaw dropping trees/countryside
-Framerate solid
-Annoying little load times, especially when mounted
-PC looked smoother from a distance

To The Game Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Jaw dropping graphics(countryside)
-Night/Day effects are amazing

Voodoo Extreme Preview:
Version Played: PC
-Amazing outdoor visuals
-Alot of eye-candy
-Minor stutters
-Once or twice saw stitching lines between textures
-XBOX 360 and PC looked the same visually

Gaming Trend Preview (Podcast):
Version Played: PC/360
-Looked great even without soft shadows
-Lighting effects fantastic
-Visuals stunning (tree textures/grass)
-Water, ripples best ever seen in game.
-Pop-in very minor, more prominent on PC
-Framerate solid, runs smoother on 360
-Load times slightly better on PC

Gamerandy Preview(Podcast):
Version Played: PC/360
-Best graphics ever in an RPG
-Mundane objects even have intricate textures
-360 slightly dampened far distance visuals
-Did not play retail build
-Best water ever seen(ripple effects)
-Serious jaggies on distant objects on 360/PC
-Character models are impresive
-Some pop-ins in far distances
-Amazing spell visuals

NewGamingRadio.com Preview(Podcast):
Version Played: PC
-Unbeleivable Visuals
-Some bogging down, lower framerate at the Port
-Sun setting, little slow down
-PC and 360 almost identical
-Some pop up, very rare and minor

TeamXBOX Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Realistic particle stuff(smoke)
-Realistic lighting
-Nice eye candy
-Visuals, living breathing world

GamePlasma Preview:
Version Played: PC
-Awe inspiring graphics
-No soft shadows a bummer

Gamespot Preview:
Version Played: PC/360
-Looks good on 360 and PC
-Runs faster on 360

IGN Preview:
Version Played: PC/360
-Visuals in favor of PC
-Stuff up close looks better then a far
-Draw distance is amazing
-Low textures on far away terrain
-Framerate slowed some when crowded screen
-Consistently swift loading times
-Textures amazing up close
-PC runs better then 360

Gaming Nexus Preview:
Version Played: PC/360
-Best Graphics Ever
-Sunset reflections amazing

GamersWithJobs Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Landscapes graphical achievement
-Load times, 5 times in 5 minutes in countryside (1-2 seconds)
-City load times a little long(PS2 San Andreas Long)

1UP(Electronic Gaming Monthly) Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Not much said about grapics

Wired Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Poor view distance
-Alot of poping
-Low res far away objects
-Lot of load screens, especially when mounted

GameInformer Preview:
Version Played: 360
-Visually Amazing Experience
-Resonable Framerate
-Smooth framerate

My Highlights from all the previews:
-First and Foremost (Non Retail Build Played)
-Summed Up: PC and 360, Basically Identical Graphicaly
-PC and 360 toss up on which is better graphicaly
-PC has quicker load times, but 360 has smoother framerates
-Pop-in bugs found, in both versions, minor in most instances
-Draw distance, very good, some complaints on low res objects a far
-Amazing Spell Visuals
-Amazing Water effects(Ripples)
-Countryside Jawdropping
-Amazing character(NPC) animations
-Load times, mixed opinions

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=246359

 

[superguy]

I alsdo figured, if 16 pipes takes ~30m transistors by X1900 example, then r420 had around 130m for everything else. Just another point of comparison for Xenos. Then again, the move to 32 bit precision alone probably took a lot.

Huddy has been saying throughout that Xenos will outpower PS3. I find that very interesting. I have been keeping an eye on him. I dont know if he's just talking company talk or if he really knows something.

He said for example, the 360 will get closer to the PS3 demos than PS3 will.

 

[RobertR1]

I alsdo figured, if 16 pipes takes ~30m transistors by X1900 example, then r420 had around 130m for everything else. Just another point of comparison for Xenos. Then again, the move to 32 bit precision alone probably took a lot.

Huddy has been saying throughout that Xenos will outpower PS3. I find that very interesting. I have been keeping an eye on him. I dont know if he's just talking company talk or if he really knows something.

He said for example, the 360 will get closer to the PS3 demos than PS3 will.

If the RSX is nothing more than a 550mhz 7900GTX, and Xenos is on par with the x1900xtx, then the RSX will likely lose.

 

[Bobbler]

As much as it's fun believing in fairy tales, taking that PR as anything more than hyperbole is probably not very safe.

I'm not even really sure what he's trying to say, it's rather ambiguous. I will say if they could have made a chip that had ~65% the transistors, ran 150-200mhz slower (likely taking 1/2 the wattage or so), and had similar performance they would have. I'd rather not have this thread turn into a debate about the power of Xenos... I'm not saying Xenos isn't powerful, but let's be realistic.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

It all depends on the game engine being heavy with pixel or vertex shaders. In a vertex shaders intensive engine a Xenos should destroy a X1900 ( I wish some company made an intensive poly engine to see this ), in a balanced engine still would win Xenos, but in a pixel shaders intensive one X1900 would be ahead.

 

[Bobbler]

Weren't all these previews basically done on the same night in the same hotel? I think the invited like 20 sites to come to some hotel late at night, and sit down in a big room with 20 widescreen LCD's and headphones. So, they should pretty much all be talking about the same setup/settings.

A member over at the elderscrolls forum put together this overview of all the different previews:


http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=246359

Thanks -- nice little compilation there.

edit: @Scooby: Those previews all together paint a bit better picture for the PC version than the few snippets I originally saw... not wondering as much now (I could only read the quotes selected by the forumites as the actual sites are all blocked; I suppose that was kind of dangerous to begin with). Still looks like it's a far better choice to go with the X360 version, no doubt (as had been previously assumed).

 

[Griffith]

As much as it's fun believing in fairy tales, taking that PR as anything more than hyperbole is probably not very safe.

I'm not even really sure what he's trying to say, it's rather ambiguous. I will say if they could have made a chip that had ~65% the transistors, ran 150-200mhz slower (likely taking 1/2 the wattage or so), and had similar performance they would have. I'd rather not have this thread turn into a debate about the power of Xenos... I'm not saying Xenos isn't powerful, but let's be realistic.

I can agree with you when ATI compares an ati product with a nvidia product
but NOT when ati compares an ati product with another ati product

Xenos and X1900 are as apples and bananas, all we can compare numbers, but NO ONE know how much they ends in practice, ONLY ATI CAN KNOWNS
period.

 

[scooby_dooby]

One things for sure, it makes me happy to own a 360 when you hear that it has smoother framerates than a P4@3.4Ghz w/ 2GB RAM and a X1800XT, especially knowing how much a rig like that would cost.

I would be surprised though if the 360 settings were truly 'maxed', hines has stated in a recent interview that as new cards come out, players will be able to increase the sliders to take advantage. I expect there to be some headroom for the PC version as far as increasing settings beyond the 360, but you'll probably have to wait until next year to get a card that can handle it.

 

[Bobbler]

Someone save me!

Are you guys honestly believing this?

 

[pjbliverpool]

It all depends on the game engine being heavy with pixel or vertex shaders. In a vertex shaders intensive engine a Xenos should destroy a X1900 ( I wish some company made an intensive poly engine to see this ), in a balanced engine still would win Xenos, but in a pixel shaders intensive one X1900 would be ahead.

So let me get this straight, you think that ATI designed the X1900XTX so that in a "balanced" engine (in terms of normal vertex to pixel load) the X1900XTX will be massivley vertex shader bottlenecked?

Is it not more realisctic that 8 vertex shaders is simply more than enough for any reasonable vertex load in current or upcoming games?

Bottom line, X1900XTX creams the Xenos in every way, not just raw specs but in actual resources that it has available (transistors, heat, power, cost, timing of development). Anyone that says otherwise is either fantasising, or in the case of ATI, marketing. I would love to see how the head of their PC marketing department would respond to such a claim during a major publicity event for the R580. If in fact ATI reps never exagerate or bend the truth, then he would admit that the two are roughly equal and as a result, Xenos hands R520 its ass. Do you think he would say that?

 

[Griffith]

Someone save me!

Are you guys honestly believing this?

yes, as it came from the only source that knows how are the things in truth, for sure ATI knows it better than you, they made the two gpu, they made the internal test, in the world there're no one that knows the two gpu better than who creates Xenos and X1900

 

[superguy]

I'm not even really sure what he's trying to say, it's rather ambiguous. I will say if they could have made a chip that had ~65% the transistors, ran 150-200mhz slower (likely taking 1/2 the wattage or so), and had similar performance they would have. I'd rather not have this thread turn into a debate about the power of Xenos... I'm not saying Xenos isn't powerful, but let's be realistic

Isn't that what we're trying to do?

Like I said I'm very skeptical, but hey if he said it we should take it into account.

X360 games so far sure dont show me that. But it still could be true.

I would much rather have R580. If MS had gone with a dual bus layout like Ps3, they likely could have afforded it easily as well, especially with PS3's Blu-Ray costs being exceedingly high in comparison.

Maybe clocked at 550 or so, but still an R580.

Anyway all I'm saying is Xenos does have 48 pipes right? Just like X1900. Of course as I said, they're one ALU.

Another thing is pretty much every dev has mentioned how X360 was more powerful than they though based on specs, specifically Epic.

 

[Bobbler]

I would be surprised though if the 360 settings were truly 'maxed', hines has stated in a recent interview that as new cards come out, players will be able to increase the sliders to take advantage. I expect there to be some headroom for the PC version as far as increasing settings beyond the 360, but you'll probably have to wait until next year to get a card that can handle it.

I imagine even if there is room for improvement the sliders won't add a whole lot (maybe longer draw distance to reduce the "pop-ins"?).

(I edited my previous post to you, btw, if didn't notice)

 

[pjbliverpool]

One things for sure, it makes me happy to own a 360 when you hear that it has smoother framerates than a P4@3.4Ghz w/ 2GB RAM and a X1800XT, especially knowing how much a rig like that would cost.

I would be surprised though if the 360 settings were truly 'maxed', hines has stated in a recent interview that as new cards come out, players will be able to increase the sliders to take advantage. I expect there to be some headroom for the PC version as far as increasing settings beyond the 360, but you'll probably have to wait until next year to get a card that can handle it.

Where are you getting this "X360 version runs better from"? 2 sites said x360 runs better and one admitted the PC version was at a higher res anyway thus invalidating that comparison. One said the PC version runs better and looks better (IGN, arguably the most reliable of all the reviews) and another said it looked smoother from a distance.

Thats hardly solid proof that the X360 version runs better. I think people should just wait until the game launches and take a look at the benchmarks on the PC when we know what settings its running at. Im finding it highly unlikely that an X1900XTX won't be able to handle the final version at 720p with some FSAA at max details smoothly.

 

[superguy]

I'm wondering why so many seem dead set on proving the 360 version must run worse than PC's. This is not a PC vs 360 forum is it?

I find my faith in Xenos waxing and waning depending on ATI's fortunes. Now that they have the performance lead in PC's probably for at least six months (if 7900 rumors are true) I'm much more apt to believe they know what they're doing. A few months ago with X1800 appearing lackluster I was pretty down on ATI. Now they seem pretty genius again to me.

 

[superguy]

Im finding it highly unlikely that an X1900XTX won't be able to handle the final version at 720p with some FSAA at max details smoothly

I think most would agree (except maybe Richard Huddy apparantly) that A X1900 has more raw power than both PS3 and X360.

However, the 360 can be tuned for specific hardware. So I also believe they may look and run very similar.