Ruby demo (R420) vs Xenos (R500) Tiger's Eye pixels

B

Brimstone

B3D Shockwave Rider
Veteran
So just a little over a year before XB360 hardware with the ATI Xenos GPU was unleashed, the Ruby demo was released to show off the X800's (R420) prowess. Having a 256 bit bus and 160 million transistors it was no lighweight card.

Fast forward to a little over a year later and the XB360 hardware hits the ground running for Microsoft with the R500 Xenos unified shader GPU. Having 232 million transistors on the shading core gives it a 72 million transistor advantage, and an eDRAM module to make up for having a 128 bit bus that is shared with a tri-core cpu.

ruby01.jpg


1171503812.jpg


ruby02.jpg


1158290715.jpg



ruby03.jpg


1171503811.jpg


Hi-res link
http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1483/1171503811.jpg

Hi-Res Link
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/044/reviews/933049_20070214_screen002.jpg



Intresting to the see the juxtapotion in quality. Shadowrun has a graphics engine built specificaly for the 360 I assume, so it should be pushing the GPU really hard.
 
inefficient said:
Shadowrun has a graphics engine built for PCs and the 360. Those are probably shots from the PC game or Bull shots. I don't believe it will have that quality of filtering and AA on the console version.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure they built a graphics engine specificaly for the 360 architechture. Porting that and making changes as needed for the PC market shouldn't be much of a challenge.


Unlike the Unreal Engine 3.0 games, Shadowrun will have AA applied I'm guessing.
 
How many polys in the Ruby character, and how many in the shadowrun character model(s)? Does shadowrun have self shadowing?
 
That comparison must be one of the stranger things happening this week.
The only conceivable reason the Ruby demo images might seem less attractive to anyone is because they are less than half the size. In all other categories, individual effects, lighting fidelity, shadowing fidelity, skin rendering, overall scene consistency, there's just nothing there that allows Shadowrun to exist on the same page with the Ruby demo.

I really don't know how to say it without hurting anyone's feelings ... Shadowrun isn't a graphically impressive game. Bury that thought. It not only fails to match Ruby in graphics quality, much more than that, it's a genuine stinker.

That diffuse reflection on the floor there has been done in Quake 3 engine games aeons ago on the PC. For something that squarely murders it try 2004's Painkiller. And I kid you not, even Red Steel on the Wii has a better version of that effect, and it also does a lot of convincing atmospheric effects, something that is gruesomely missing from Shadowrun's outdoor rendering. The only thing Shadowrun has going for it is the character shadowing.
But then these are most definitely bullshots or PC shots. There's just a little too much AA in them to go as downscaled from a 720p source even with 4xAA.
 
I'm missing the point of this thread, anyone want to give me the cliffs? Is Shadowrun supposed to look good?
 
Brimstone said:
Shadowrun has a graphics engine built specificaly for the 360 I assume...
Click to expand...
Why would you assume that? They just stated that their graphical goal was to present the same game on both platforms. So they clearly did not build the engine for the 360.

And even if they did, FASA is clearly not capable of making cutting-edge engines. Look at other X360 games for proof.

Why Shadowrun? Why? Any reason? Other than it's one of the poorer looking titles on the platform?
 
Todd33 said:
I'm missing the point of this thread, anyone want to give me the cliffs? Is Shadowrun supposed to look good?
Click to expand...


Shadowrun represents from a technology aspect, a game that should be pushing Xenos to its limits, just like the Ruby demo pushed the X800 (R420) very hard.


While the clockspeeds of both GPU's are close, the available memory bandwidth if very different along with one GPU having a higher transistor count. I find it pretty amazing that roughly 12 months later Xenos shipped in a $300 console. True engineering wizardry by ATI.


Inane_Dork said:
Why would you assume that? They just stated that their graphical goal was to present the same game on both platforms. So they clearly did not build the engine for the 360.

And even if they did, FASA is clearly not capable of making cutting-edge engines. Look at other X360 games for proof.

Why Shadowrun? Why? Any reason? Other than it's one of the poorer looking titles on the platform?
Click to expand...


Crimson Skies was a high water mark for Xbox graphics. The Shadowrun developers are made up of two teams combined together. The Crimson Skies and Mechwarrior teams are united on the Shadowrun project. According to Dean Takahashi the number of developers working on the game is over 100 people.


Gears of War does look very good, there is no denying that. But besides them and Bungie who else is pushing the XB360 better than FASA?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Ruby demos aren't anything to write home about... the assets are unfortunately not even near the quality of AA games, especially nowadays.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
The Ruby demos aren't anything to write home about... the assets are unfortunately not even near the quality of AA games, especially nowadays.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, with a small hack, those demos could run on the r3xx series of cards fairly well.
 
Brimstone said:
Gears of War does look very good, there is no denying that. But besides them and Bungie who else is pushing the XB360 better than FASA?
Click to expand...
Bioware, Sega, Real Time Worlds, Rare, Midway, Silicon Knights, EA, Ubisoft, Tecmo, Capcom, Mistwalker, need I continue? Basically every X360 game looks better than Shadowrun. I honestly have no idea how you could possibly be suggesting Shadowrun looks great on any platform.
 
Inane_Dork said:
Bioware, Sega, Real Time Worlds, Rare, Midway, Silicon Knights, EA, Ubisoft, Tecmo, Capcom, Mistwalker, need I continue? Basically every X360 game looks better than Shadowrun. I honestly have no idea how you could possibly be suggesting Shadowrun looks great on any platform.
Click to expand...

It definetely looks good. Its come a long way. The art style is great. Certainly not the superlative game graphically.
 
Inane_Dork said:
Bioware, Sega, Real Time Worlds, Rare, Midway, Silicon Knights, EA, Ubisoft, Tecmo, Capcom, Mistwalker, need I continue? Basically every X360 game looks better than Shadowrun. I honestly have no idea how you could possibly be suggesting Shadowrun looks great on any platform.
Click to expand...

Shadowrun is a Top Gun at showing off what Xenos can do: HDR lighting and great filtering. The image quality is superb as far as video games go. The pixels are smooth as silk.



1163176018.jpg


shadowrun-next-gen-20070201034620510.jpg




Lost Planet-multiplayer map

1171661069.jpg


t_859_0001.jpg

Hi-Res version Link
http://images.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/4256/859_0001.jpg
 
I'm really surprised this thread lasted so long without making a clear point.

If he's trying to say that "Doublecross" Ruby, which was designed for old hardware, is being matched by a game, well it's hard to agree that that game is Shadowrun. And even still, why should we care about "The Doublecross" (being that it's for old tech) when ATi already demonstrated "The Assassin (made for R520) on the very first running X360's way back at E3'05? Wouldn't that be a better high water mark to reach for? Well, of course not. Tech demos are meant to show off things in the best possible light under the best conditions. It's like a television show where people wear 2 pounds more makeup than they normally would, and the "living room" you're looking at only has 3 walls, no ceiling and no connection to the other rooms in the house. Ruby demos have the benefit of not having to process AI, collision, input commands, or numerous other things that are processed in a real game.
 
From a reviewer who saw it very recently:
"Takahashi seems less than impressed. He notes that the graphics "aren't anything special," adding that they are more or less on par with Halo 2. " link

I heard the same echoed by other people who have seen it too. Thats why I am skeptical that those shots are directly from the 360 version. I suspect they are either renders using game assets or very high quality shots from the PC version of the game.
 
inefficient said:
From a reviewer who saw it very recently:
"Takahashi seems less than impressed. He notes that the graphics "aren't anything special," adding that they are more or less on par with Halo 2. " link

I heard the same echoed by other people who have seen it too. Thats why I am skeptical that those shots are directly from the 360 version. I suspect they are either renders using game assets or very high quality shots from the PC version of the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the graphics in Shadowrun are nothing to write home about. Fortunately, everyone who has played the game absolutely loves it as a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Final specs for RSX and Xenos - please help me to found them
Replies
3
Views
4K
StefanS
S
C
  • Locked
Xbox 360: New Spec Tech Details Surface
Replies
5
Views
4K
Farid
F
M
Xbox 360 graphics processor codenamed: XENOS. some details
2 3
Replies
43
Views
9K
Jawed
Jawed
U
  • Locked
Overclocking Guide
Replies
1
Views
7K
Reverend
R
Back
Top