Quake4: Nvidia6800 vs ATI Xenon

[ihamoitc2005]

I have heard that Nvidia 6800 run Quake4 at good frame-rate but Xbox360 version has less polygons and fixed at 30fps.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3143786&did=1

I suggest idea that this is due to CPU utilization on Xbox360, not infererior GPU since ATI Xenos stronger than Nvidia 6800. Doom3 engine very CPU based and hence inferior CPU utilization of Xenos 3-core CPU can yield inferior graphics performance no?

 

[Master-Mold]

I have heard that Nvidia 6800 run Quake4 at good frame-rate but Xbox360 version has less polygons and fixed at 30fps.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3143786&did=1

I suggest idea that this is due to CPU utilization on Xbox360, not infererior GPU since ATI Xenos stronger than Nvidia 6800. Doom3 engine very CPU based and hence inferior CPU utilization of Xenos 3-core CPU can yield inferior graphics performance no?

Doubt it.

More than likely its the same issue with Nvidia cards and ATI cards with the Doom3 engine not a CPU more than likely.

 

[Master-Mold]

Actually that article defies logic.

Are they talking about a Vanilla 6800? I find it hard to believe Q4 was "silky smooth" with all the effects turned up with that card. I should know what its capable of, I have owned an MSI 6800 on a P4 3.2 for a year.

Doesn't make sense.... 360 should devour that system under almost any circumstance except poor optimization.

 

[Almasy]

Alpha kits.

Well, this is interesting. This isn´t a serious, nor thorough benchmark, but at least now there´s a point of comparison between PC graphics cards and Xenon. I actually would like to know if it is really a plain 6800 that is providing much better framerates, it´s really strange really to see the PC version outperform the console one, especially with that setup.

The game could be limited by the CPU, no? I heard the D3 engine makes heavy utilization of the it.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Quake 4 is a terrible example of pushing technical limits. It doesn't matter if the game were 30, 60 or 120 fps, it looks like it needs some major help. But the fact that id/Raven can't get more than 30 fps from the X360 does not reflect well on them.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

30fps = bad reflection?

Quake 4 is a terrible example of pushing technical limits.

What reasons do you have for saying this?

It doesn't matter if the game were 30, 60 or 120 fps, it looks like it needs some major help. But the fact that id/Raven can't get more than 30 fps from the X360 does not reflect well on them.

Dont forget, Gears of War is only 30fps. Only 60fps confirmed are DOA4 and Call of Duty 2.

 

[Colourless]

There is probably a good reason why Carmack is currently doing work on XBox360. I'm going to guess that Quake 4 builds for 360 is only using a single CPU core at the moment.

 

[Acert93]

Doubt it.

More than likely its the same issue with Nvidia cards and ATI cards with the Doom3 engine not a CPU more than likely.

1. ATI cards have closed the gap significantly in Doom 3. ATI has a history of sub-par performance in many OpenGL apps, but over time they have gotten better.

2. At 1280x1024 the ATI X800XL performs at 60fps+. Xenos by all accounts is significantly faster than an X800XL (or X850XT for that matter). So it is hard to believe that Xenos would struggle with Quake 4 at a lower resolution (1280x720).

3. The Doom 3 engine is CPU intensive as it uses the CPU for shadowing.

Obviously the Doom 3 engine would require a significant re-write (OpenGL on the PC vs. a custom DX version on the 360; CPU optimization) to get the rendering engine & shadows to work correctly and run well. This is hard to do when you are on a...

4. Crunch. Raven and id Software are not very big. Raven is trying to get Quake 4 out on the PC, id Software is working on their new title/engine, so Quake 4--360 is an extra iron in the fire. Considering the dev kit issues, uniqueness of the CPU core, etc... it is hard to expect much.

Doom 3 was capped at 60fps. id Software has kind of taken the "slower paced" FPS approach with Doom 3 and considering their statements about Q4 running about the same on PCs, it would be surprising if Q4 was a really fast paced shooter. Like it or not they probably feel 30fps is sufficient.

 

[Acert93]

There is probably a good reason why Carmack is currently doing work on XBox360. I'm going to guess that Quake 4 builds for 360 is only using a single CPU core at the moment.

That would be a pretty good guess

 

[MonkeyLicker]

Considering SLI 6800 Ultras only managed ~20 fps running GOW at E3, I'd say the 50% increase when switching to Xenon should crush any doubt.

 

[Lysander]

Dont forget, Gears of War is only 30fps.

It is under 60 and over 30, in any case solid 30. Rein said that epic don`t shot for 60. If they will hit 60, they will just start to add new graphic details.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

20fps and polygons

Considering SLI 6800 Ultras only managed ~20 fps running GOW at E3, I'd say the 50% increase when switching to Xenon should crush any doubt.

Given that Quake4 has less than half polycount, and only half texture and pixel-shader performance on Xenon compared with single 6800, is it not more likely it is due to superior CPU utilization that frame-rate went from 20 to 30fps compared with SLI6800?

 

[ihamoitc2005]

30fps gears of war

It is under 60 and over 30, in any case solid 30. Rein said that epic don`t shot for 60. If they will hit 60, they will just start to add new graphic details.

Yes, I agree with Rein that he must add more graphical details. Effects and polygons very poor.

 

[Inane_Dork]

What reasons do you have for saying this?

The game is built on an engine that was planned for a GeForce 256. How could you possibly think Quake 4 is a good tech representation of SM3.0+ hardware?

Dont forget, Gears of War is only 30fps. Only 60fps confirmed are DOA4 and Call of Duty 2.

And don't forget that Gears has a gazillion more effects than Q4. I can't honestly believe you're making this argument. Q4 simply cannot hold a candle to Gears, graphically. I can't think of anyone who would disagree. So if the X360 can do Gears at 30 fps, it should be able to do Q4 at 60 fps (at least).

 

[ihamoitc2005]

SM3.0 vs SM3.0+: Big difference in backwards compatibility?

The game is built on an engine that was planned for a GeForce 256. How could you possibly think Quake 4 is a good tech representation of SM3.0+ hardware?

So how different is SM3.0+ from SM3.0 that SM3.0+ hardware runs older engine far less well than SM3.0 GPU and why do you feel it makes for much lower GPU performance?

And don't forget that Gears has a gazillion more effects than Q4.

What effects does Gears have that are very special?.

 

[Lysander]

Textures of gow are poor?! How`s that?
Oh, and playable gow (30-60f) works at only one X2core; according to cliffy is faster than on powermac alpha dev.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

dev kit speed and textures

Textures of gow are poor?! How`s that?
Oh, and playable gow (30-60f) works at only one X2core; according to cliffy is faster than on powermac alpha dev.

What was clock speed of dev-kit CPU? I think biggest limit on Xbox360 games will be CPU utilization.

Textures of GOW are good and bad. Normal mapping is very very nice, but simple textures are sometimes very low resolution. Maybe DVD drive not big enough.

Quake4 on Xbox360 very poor performer compared with PC with 6800.

 

[TrungGap]

Textures of GOW are good and bad. Normal mapping is very very nice, but simple textures are sometimes very low resolution. Maybe DVD drive not big enough.

PS3 with a 50GB BR disc would not be any better. Streaming texture from disc? You must be jesting....LOL

 

[zidane1strife]

It is under 60 and over 30, in any case solid 30. Rein said that epic don`t shot for 60. If they will hit 60, they will just start to add new graphic details.

Hmmm, that sounds a bit suspicious.

 

[seismologist]

edit: dont want to throw this too far off topic.

Doom 3 was running at 60fps on my 6800GT well over 720p res. too. It must have something to do with the texture memory bandwidth?