Quake4: Nvidia6800 vs ATI Xenon

[seismologist]

Keep in mind with a PC you have to assume tons more overhead memory usage so i dont think theres a 1:1 comparison in memory.

Maybe its because they were running on powermacs and x800s until about 2 months ago?

J

I agree that theres some extra overhead on the PC. But you're still comparing 1gb + 256mb dedicated with 512mb shared. It's just a guess.
Maybe someone could quickly prove me wrong by pointing out the exact bandwidth comparison.

the powermac/x800 to Xbox360 isn't much different from porting from PC environment. The 360 GPU is "theoretically" more powerful.
So the question remains how much did the CPU performance take a hit in a straight port. Basically how does one in-order 3.2ghz core compare with a P4 2.4c (which is still at 60fps according to the CPU benchmarks)

You would think that XNA would be able to facilitate this transition in some way.

 

[expletive]

I agree that theres some extra overhead on the PC. But you're still comparing 1gb + 256mb dedicated with 512mb shared. It's just a guess.
Maybe someone could quickly prove me wrong by pointing out the exact bandwidth comparison.

the powermac/x800 to Xbox360 isn't much different from porting from PC environment. The 360 GPU is "theoretically" more powerful.
So the question remains how much did the CPU performance take a hit in a straight port. Basically how does one in-order 3.2ghz core compare with a P4 2.4c (which is still at 60fps according to the CPU benchmarks)

You would think that XNA would be able to facilitate this transition in some way.

Youre right i forgot about the local memory on the video card. A 4:1 memory difference is excessive.


J

 

[Richard]

This is from Epic's UE3 tech page:

We are authoring most character and world normal maps and texture maps at 2048x2048 resolution. We feel this is a good target for games running on mid-range PC's in the 2006 timeframe. Next-generation consoles may require reducing texture resolution by 2X, and low-end PC's up to 4X, depending on texture count and scene complexity.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

flamebait?

This was a pretty good thread until you started the flamebait and ruined it.

What is meant by flamebait??

 

[Gabrobot]

Why would they create new lower polygon models?

Because of early development hardware probably. They stated they were going to go to using the higher poly models that they had in the PC version. They intend for both versions to run the same content.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

30fps?

Because of early development hardware probably. They stated they were going to go to using the higher poly models that they had in the PC version. They intend for both versions to run the same content.

Once this is done, will it be 60fps or will it still be only half performance of PC version?

 

[Gabrobot]

Once this is done, will it be 60fps or will it still be only half performance of PC version?

I don't think they've really said, but I don't see why it shouldn't run at 60fps when it's finished. Performance problems right now, as other have already said, are because it's an early version of the game...the PC version is naturally further along in development and is better optimized.

Certainly they'd want a faster framerate since Quake 4, unlike Doom 3, is an all out fast paced action game.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Optimization?

I don't think they've really said, but I don't see why it shouldn't run at 60fps when it's finished. Performance problems right now, as other have already said, are because it's an early version of the game...the PC version is naturally further along in development and is better optimized.

Certainly they'd want a faster framerate since Quake 4, unlike Doom 3, is an all out fast paced action game.

So you suggest that with a lot of optimization Xbox360 Quake4 goes from 1/2 to full 6800 performance? What could be causing this?

 

[Gabrobot]

So you suggest that with a lot of optimization Xbox360 Quake4 goes from 1/2 to full 6800 performance? What could be causing this?

Who knows? But from what they said, they may not even have had final hardware to run it on, which could make quite a difference. That, and just the fact that the hardware is quite a bit different from a PC and there are a lot of optimizations to do...they're probably focusing more on optimizing the PC version right now since it's likely to ship first.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Damn, made it to page two without seeing much common sense. Game code for one architecture just don't magically run better when you put it on a faster but radically different architecture. This is a prime example of bare minimum optimization on the part of the developer.

It doesn't surprise me that game code ported from an OOE, single-threaded CPU system with GPU support for older GeForce cards doesn't run as efficiently on a multithreaded three core architecture with a USA GPU. If the game was rebuilt from scratch it would probably run at 200 fps on X360. That engine is old and busted. UE 3.0 is the new hotness.

Seriously, this is common (B3D) sense.

 

[Tim]

So you suggest that with a lot of optimization Xbox360 Quake4 goes from 1/2 to full 6800 performance? What could be causing this?

You have already been told that is completely expected for CPU heavy engine, a in-order CPU would be at best half as fast per clock.

With a highly optimized engine like the Doom 3 one it would be a big surprise if a straight recompile was anywhere close to half the performance.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Simple recompile?

You have already been told that is completely expected for CPU heavy engine, a in-order CPU would be at best half as fast per clock.

With a highly optimized engine like the Doom 3 one it would be a big surprise if a straight recompile was anywhere close to half the performance.

I already suggested poor CPU utilization as one cause many pages before my friend, so I agree that it is possible cause. However, that does not answer all questions.

After all, it was not a simple recompile no? They even created new content in the form of simpler polygon models. What does that have to do with CPU performance? If CPU limited performance to 30fps and GPU went very much under-utilized, then graphics content would be improved greatly rather than degraded slightly no? Gabrobot suggests that this maybe because unusual Xenos GPU requires much optimization for this graphics content. Regardless of cause, for Quake4, current xbox360 devkit performance less than 50% of P4 with 6800.

Question is how much blame is CPU performance and how much blame is GPU performance and why graphics content degraded if only CPU performance to blame?

 

[Lysander]

In 1up is said that q4 runs "less than 60" not 30fps on X2. Second where is info that they used less poly models. Third, optimisation of X2 is not good, Carmack admitted that he is not handling X2cpu well, I do not know for raven, but this game is pc port and it is not finished yet.

 

[Guden Oden]

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.

It's the same as when Epic ported UT to PS2, it too ran at a crappy framerate due to Epic being lazy PC programmers writing crappy bloated unoptimized PC code for a console that requires special consideration. If indeed Q4 runs at 30FPS on x360 when the game is released it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and it certainly should NOT reflect poorly on the console itself. Rather, it just goes to show that PC developers just aren't any damn good at making console games. They're too damn spoiled, and too damn lazy.

Then again, the text could be wrong, and the game might run at a full 60FPS at release. Really, it should, x360 should easily handle those kind of visuals, if programmed properly. Heck, if really programmed properly it should do completely mindblowing visuals that are much MUCH more complicated than Q4 at a constant 60FPS...

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Article

In 1up is said that q4 runs "less than 60" not 30fps on X2. Second where is info that they used less poly models. Third, optimisation of X2 is not good, Carmack admitted that he is not handling X2cpu well, I do not know for raven, but this game is pc port and it is not finished yet.

Article very clear that target is 30fps.

Regarding polycount downgrade ...
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?pager.offset=1&cId=3142747

Regarding Carmack, he only know x86, but what does CPU utilization have to do with reducing graphics assets in quake4? Assuming Xenos is 2 x 6800 in capability, if CPU takes too long, GPU would wait a long time for CPU hence graphics assets could be dramatically upgraded not downgraded no? What is it about Xenos architecture that caused graphics downgraded not upgraded?

 

[Lysander]

In both articles they use words like "slightly less polygon number" and "less then 60 fps"; "target is 30 fps" is statment of writer; X2cpu could be a problem for pc game makers, it is a three core (nobody saw 3core before) and needs a clean source code and raven people will not go to use all. Read ign article about g4.

 

[Mordecaii]

Personally, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the biggest problem they're having with the 360 version is having to redo the game for dx9 instead of being able to keep it on OpenGL.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

What about GPU?

In both articles they use words like "slightly less polygon number" and "less then 60 fps"; "target is 30 fps" is statment of writer; X2cpu could be a problem for pc game makers, it is a three core (nobody saw 3core before) and needs a clean source code and raven people will not go to use all. Read ign article about g4.

Yes, I agree this will be big obstacle to pc developers attemting console games and this affects CPU performance but it still doesnt explain why the graphic content was made worse instead of improved no?

Maybe as Mordecaii said soemthing to do with directx vs opengl but will it result in less than 50% performance of 6800? Just how different is Xenon from 6800 from directx/opengl compatibility?

 

[Mordecaii]

Well ihamoitc2005, since the game's graphics engine has to be rewritten to use DirectX, they are going to have to spend a lot of time getting the game running at full speed since it's a completely different API. As far as I know, switching from OpenGL to DirectX isn't exactly trivial. I'm sure that once they get things worked out the game will be running at a good framerate with all the visuals being equivalent to the PC version. Of course Raven may decide to leave the game running at a slower framerate and not optimize the engine further once they reach a certain framerate to reach deadlines. Also, on a PC the engine has to be relatively efficient and optimized since it's going to run on a large variety of hardware.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

openGL

Well ihamoitc2005, since the game's graphics engine has to be rewritten to use DirectX, they are going to have to spend a lot of time getting the game running at full speed since it's a completely different API. As far as I know, switching from OpenGL to DirectX isn't exactly trivial. I'm sure that once they get things worked out the game will be running at a good framerate with all the visuals being equivalent to the PC version. Of course Raven may decide to leave the game running at a slower framerate and not optimize the engine further once they reach a certain framerate to reach deadlines. Also, on a PC the engine has to be relatively efficient and optimized since it's going to run on a large variety of hardware.

You might have a point on this topic although less than 50% performance is pretty shocking for a GPU thats much more powerful on paper no?

http://www.beyond3d.com/#news22498

Dean Sekulic, CroTeam

"So, although I'm an OpenGL fan, I have to say that Direct3D is currently one (small) step ahead. And the drivers for Direct3D are generally better, except in nVidia case - they have great drivers for both D3D and OGL! (We get ~5% higher frame rate under OpenGL on NV 6000 and 7000 series). ATi, on the other hand, have some serious issues, and not only with performance; just simple things, like conformance with some OpenGL extension they
"support".

As for Microsoft's "brilliant" idea to slowly kill OpenGL by layering it on top of Direct3D API... Well, that's definately unfair play in my book, and I'm totally against it!!! "

So looks like combination of ATI and Microsoft = bad for openGL developers

Interesting is opposite story with PS3:

Tim Sweeney, Epic Games

"Our approach to Direct3D and OpenGL isn't really changing in this generation. OpenGL is now the standard graphics library for PlayStation 3, so we have an implementation up and running already, and we'll support OpenGL wholeheartedly on all platforms where it's the primary graphics API."

So it seems many PC ports will require significant recode not just for CPU but even GPU to work properly on Xbox360 no? 25% of stated GPU performance is very poor.