PDZ - only 2-3% graphical power on X360?
- Thread starter SentinelQW
- Start date
2.4% is too little. If anything I would be Perfect Dark Zero is using 10 to 20% of the graphical capability of what we will see on 4th generation Xbox 360 games. Before anyone else thinks my figure is way off just look at the basics.
Game devs need to get their hands around hardware before they can make it shine. They're still figuring things out with the Xbox 360 and it will take a while longer before they are really comfortable with it. Once that happens then the optimizing begins, and then we can see what the machine is really capable of.
Game devs need to get their hands around hardware before they can make it shine. They're still figuring things out with the Xbox 360 and it will take a while longer before they are really comfortable with it. Once that happens then the optimizing begins, and then we can see what the machine is really capable of.
Bigus Dickus said:Hmm... there's a thought... how much extorsion would it take to get Futuremark or whatever they call themselves to release a 3Dmark version for the 360, PS3, and Revolution?
Would make no sense since similar systems would always give you the same number. The "my Xbox360 is faster than yours" isn't possible, so what would be the point?
That's correct.Jabjabs said:
People love to simply things to extremely strip down and bitsized facts.
But the problem is that some things inherently complex can't be explained "simply".
Sure, you can make a rough analogy or explain things in layman terms, but you have to remember that those simplifications are not to be used to do comparaisons with something else. Because in most cases, direct comparisons are impossible even with values that shares the same name (e.g.: PS2 VU1 Gigaflops VS TnL unit GigaFlops of the Flipper, both are Flops values, but, yet, they cannot be compared directly to each others).
Your sarcasm detector is down, I see, xxx._xxx_ said:Would make no sense since similar systems would always give you the same number. The "my Xbox360 is faster than yours" isn't possible, so what would be the point?
I'd say it using 25%. You can definitily tell it's a game that was originally developed for the GC, and then ported to the xbox, then ported to the 360 with some nice textures added. The game is awsome online but I think it could have used another 6 months of texture work. Some of the textures are amazing while others are just average. It's weird to look down and see the most amazing brick texture you've ever seen in a video game then look up and see an average wood texture.
The niceness of the textures has pretty much squat of diddly to do with using the power of the console. Replace the textures with nice highres ones and you won't be consuming any more GPU cycles. Certainly won't be affecting the use of polygons which the OP refers to.
Any figures people come up with are going to be totally arbitary. You can't tell looking at a game how much it's using resources. For all you know everything's running at 100% and they've just made a severe hash of the optimization. Likewise, if you rate a game at 25% of resources, how can you quantify the improvement using 100%? Because it looks nicer? If you compare XMen Legends II on the PS2 with Champions of Norrath on the same, both the same gamestyle and viewpoint. CON has a high, fairly solid framerate with full screen supersampling and intense particle effects with complex lighting and shadows. XMen Legends II has pretty much none of that with a dire framerate, one of the worst I've personally witnessed. But I can't say that XMen Legends II is only using say 25% of the PS2's power. I don't know how much sitting idle the EE and GS are doing. It could be a poor implementation, or it could be a complex rendering system they use. I couldn't place an arbitary figure based on looks as to how much of a piece of hardware's capability is being used, and I doubt anyone who knows the complexities involved would bother trying either.
Any figures people come up with are going to be totally arbitary. You can't tell looking at a game how much it's using resources. For all you know everything's running at 100% and they've just made a severe hash of the optimization. Likewise, if you rate a game at 25% of resources, how can you quantify the improvement using 100%? Because it looks nicer? If you compare XMen Legends II on the PS2 with Champions of Norrath on the same, both the same gamestyle and viewpoint. CON has a high, fairly solid framerate with full screen supersampling and intense particle effects with complex lighting and shadows. XMen Legends II has pretty much none of that with a dire framerate, one of the worst I've personally witnessed. But I can't say that XMen Legends II is only using say 25% of the PS2's power. I don't know how much sitting idle the EE and GS are doing. It could be a poor implementation, or it could be a complex rendering system they use. I couldn't place an arbitary figure based on looks as to how much of a piece of hardware's capability is being used, and I doubt anyone who knows the complexities involved would bother trying either.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
The latter is closer to it... fanbo*s need more wood for their fires._xxx_ said:Nah, I just wasn't sure if he referred to some potential overclocking in the future or being able to compare the different systems for some "My PS3 is t3h fas7erer 7han yu0r XB360!!11!1one11" loving
Well, Technically most all games use 100% of a console. Some are just optimized better. I just threw out the 25% arbitrarily to suggest that I think by the end of the x360 lifespan there will be a game that looks 4x better.
I do believe texture quality relates to the power of a console. Texture quality relates to texture resolution, texture resolution relates to memory usage, affective memory usage is very important for console performance.
I do believe texture quality relates to the power of a console. Texture quality relates to texture resolution, texture resolution relates to memory usage, affective memory usage is very important for console performance.
Yu Suzuki claimed shenmue was only using like 30% of the power of the dreamcast. Given the framerate problems, I don't really believe that. Maybe if dreamcast had a 2nd cpu it could have come much closer to the theoretical polygon max of the system, but I'd say the system as it was couldn't do much more.
BTW, anyone notice that when a game is claimed to use more of the mysterious power of a system that no one else can touch that the filtering and general quality of the image ten to drop? Shenmue had filtering that looked more like a Saturn game, and Resident Evil 4 has horrible output, there's almost no visual advantage to progressive scan over interlaced. Then look at first gen games on systems. Super Mario 64 had cleaner output than just about any other n64 game, and Super Smash Bros Melee has a PC-esque look to it that many other games lack. It's like the developers drop filtering quality hoping that the person with the average 30 year old TV and RF cables won't notice it missing.
BTW, anyone notice that when a game is claimed to use more of the mysterious power of a system that no one else can touch that the filtering and general quality of the image ten to drop? Shenmue had filtering that looked more like a Saturn game, and Resident Evil 4 has horrible output, there's almost no visual advantage to progressive scan over interlaced. Then look at first gen games on systems. Super Mario 64 had cleaner output than just about any other n64 game, and Super Smash Bros Melee has a PC-esque look to it that many other games lack. It's like the developers drop filtering quality hoping that the person with the average 30 year old TV and RF cables won't notice it missing.