The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[function]

Of course I bloody don't but your not a PC gamer so you don't go on PC gamer forums so you don't know how popular they are.

Most new builds are running 7950's because they are the price performance champion, people are even buying them over 7870's because the extra cost of a 7950 is easily justified by the extra performance.

You can get a 7950 in the UK for £220....

That's stupid cheap for a GPU that offers 3.8Tflop+

It's also a poor card that gives bad performance (perhaps because of drivers, I dunno), and shows just how much at least some "core" PC gamers value high average frame rates while having no appreciation of smoothness. This is a great read for anyone genuinely interesting in performance and not just dick waving:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited

I'd rather game on my 360 than put up with this hitching, twiching, hiccuping, shit. We're not talking about "normal" frame rate fluctuations here, were talking about frequent freezes up to several frames long, the kind of badness that you simply don't get with console games. And it's happening in loads of big games. Look at Skyrim:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/9

Holy shit! The 7950 is like a rabbit stuck on an electric fence! You could go and make a fucking cup of tea during some of those (frequent) spikes, and take a sip from it during the smaller ones. This makes console games that tear and drop frame rate by a few percent look like the promised land filled with glassy smooth lakes.

I'm really glad that Tech Report are measuring frame latency now and not just average frame rates. It takes the badness out of the realm of opinion and puts a spotlight on it.

Edit: this is perhaps just as bad as the Skyrim on. Dear god!

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/7

 

[almighty]

It's also a poor card that gives bad performance (perhaps because of drivers, I dunno), and shows just how much at least some "core" PC gamers value high average frame rates while having no appreciation of smoothness. This is a great read for anyone genuinely interesting in performance and not just dick waving:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited

I'd rather game on my 360 than put up with this hitching, twiching, hiccuping, shit. We're not talking about "normal" frame rate fluctuations here, were talking about frequent freezes up to several frames long, the kind of badness that you simply don't get with console games. And it's happening in loads of big games. Look at Skyrim:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/9

Holy shit! The 7950 is like a rabbit stuck on an electric fence! You could go and make a fucking cup of tea during some of those (frequent) spikes, and take a sip from it during the smaller ones. This makes console games that tear and drop frame rate by a few percent look like the promised land filled with glassy smooth lakes.

I'm really glad that Tech Report are measuring frame latency now and not just average frame rates. It takes the badness out of the realm of opinion and puts a spotlight on it.

Edit: this is perhaps just as bad as the Skyrim on. Dear god!

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/7

There's a big difference between having stutter and having vissible stutter.

I like many others don't notice it besides turn on dynamic vsync and problem goes away completely. 30fps on consoles feels horrible compared to the 60fps vsync on my machine.

And I wouldn't really go quoting articles to bash a product which you have no experience with, makes you look like a fan boy.

 

[function]

There's a big difference between having stutter and having vissible stutter.

I like many others don't notice it besides turn on dynamic vsync and problem goes away completely.

No, the problem doesn't go away at all, never mind completely. The tests are performed without vsync. It explicitly states that in the methodology, it shows screenshots of the setting showing this, and the results show vsync is off to. Dynamic vsync will cap the frame rates but can't elimate the hitches.

How the hell can you *not* not notice epic badness like this:

http://techreport.com/review/24051/geforce-versus-radeon-captured-on-high-speed-video

30fps on consoles feels horrible compared to the 60fps vsync on my machine.

You're really sensitive to frame rate, but can't notice very frequent megahitches in frame rate (that would probably fail console validation)?

And I wouldn't really go quoting articles to bash a product which you have no experience with, makes you look like a fan boy.

You look naive by (falsely) claiming that the problem goes away with dynamic vsync. The results are laid out, objectively, in fact, and you can see the results with you own eyes. But sure, ignore all that and call me a name!

Hitching has long been a sporadic issue with PC games (Crysis was a bollocks for it), hopefully TR shining a light on this is going to be the beginning of something good. I was getting sick of bringing up the Average Frame-Rate Fallacy and talking about stuttering and being told by the PC Gaming Warrior Caste that 1) I was blaspheming 2) it wasn't real 3) I needed a faster PC. Hooray for me. Boo for the 7950. Truly a worse proposition for a performance enthusiast than the PS360 (as things currently stand).

I'll bet good money that next gen console games running on AMD APUs won't have these issues. And that's a very valid point for this thread IMO. The next gen console environment - even in this day and age with so much power locked up in relatively humble PCs - will still have something of value to offer to people like me (and I'm sure others on this forum) who have fast PCs. Consistent and uniform performance has a place, even if sometimes I'd rather tweak and driver hunt to get the absolute best experience on the PC.

 

[almighty]

No, the problem doesn't go away at all, never mind completely. The tests are performed without vsync. It explicitly states that in the methodology, it shows screenshots of the setting showing this, and the results show vsync is off to. Dynamic vsync will cap the frame rates but can't elimate the hitches

How the hell can you *not* not notice epic badness like this:

http://techreport.com/review/24051/geforce-versus-radeon-captured-on-high-speed-video


You're really sensitive to frame rate, but can't notice very frequent megahitches in frame rate (that would probably fail console validation)?

You look naive by (falsely) claiming that the problem goes away with dynamic vsync.

1. Watch that Skyrims video on YouTube and when reading the comments you'll see there's a lot of people that don't really think the Nvidia footage is any better then the AMD footage.

2. Adaptive vsync does fix the problem and there's a few threads showing results, it especially reduces micro stutter too which as you know is related to frame times. Infact Toms did an article comparing various modes to try and reduce micro stutter and frame times on AMD cards and it worked very very well.

No Dynamic Vsync : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329-8.html

Dynamic Vysinc enabled : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329-11.html

It's just as effective at reducing this frame lag discovered by tech report too

I'll find the thread out tomorrow from overclock.net that shows dynamic Vsync reduces it to Nvidia levels and in some case produces better results then the Nvidia cards.

Dynamic Vsync is also being implemented in the AMD drivers so it'll fixed soon anyway.

It's nothing more then a silly software problem, and a problem that most people don't notice anyway.

I feel your doing nothing but ranting about an issue which you have no experience with and are purely bashing on little more then the words of an article, you're not from the PC world, so when some one that is from the PC world says the problem is not as bad and can be fixed listen to that person.

Anyway you stick to your consoles 20-30fps and I'll stick to a completely rock solid 60fps with adaptive Vsync

 

[pjbliverpool]

Not that I want to get involved in this argument but ive got to challenge the claim of pc gaming being a relative hitching fest compared with console gaming. I cant speak for the 7950 bit I did have a 4890 and while it was occassionally too slow to achieve the framerates I wanted at the settings I preferred, the only game I ever noticed hitching in at playable settings was bioshock. No idea what was up with that game. With the 670 thougb ive never seen a hint of hitching, even at settings the gpu clearly cantu maintain 30fps at. That includes crysis maxxed out, 1080p / 16xQ AA which is probably about 20fps, not smooth but definately no hitching either.

 

[function]

1. Watch that Skyrims video on YouTube and when reading the comments you'll see there's a lot of people that don't really think the Nvidia footage is any better then the AMD footage.

And I hope they feel proud of themselves.

2. Adaptive vsync does fix the problem and there's a few threads showing results, it especially reduces micro stutter too which as you know is related to frame times. Infact Toms did an article comparing various modes to try and reduce micro stutter and frame times on AMD cards and it worked very very well.

Microstutter (as found in multi GPU setups) is a different phenomenon related to the appearance of out of sync updates between the cards. Soft vsync certainly can help with this, as it limits the opportunities for one card can get ahead of the other.

When a game is simply dropping frames (with 40 or 50 or 70 ms intervals) you can't achieve the same results.

It's just as effective at reducing this frame lag discovered by tech report too

I'll find the thread out tomorrow from overclock.net that shows dynamic Vsync reduces it to Nvidia levels and in some case produces better results then the Nvidia cards.

I'll certainly check out the thread.

It's nothing more then a silly software problem, and a problem that most people don't notice anyway.

I notice it, and it bothers me. The more regular, and the shorter and more severe it is the more it bothers me.

Doom 3 on my single core A64 would drop 1 frame precisely once every second. I could never fix it. It did my nuts in. If I could have capped at 30 fps to avoid it I would have.

I feel your doing nothing but ranting about an issue which you have no experience with and are purely bashing on little more then the words of an article, you're not from the PC world, so when some one that is from the PC world says the problem is not as bad and can be fixed listen to that person.

Appealing to your own authority. How majestic!

"You are not from the PC world!!".

I love PC gaming. PC gamers? Not so much.

Anyway you stick to your consoles 20-30fps and I'll stick to a completely rock solid 60fps with adaptive Vsync

Try again. I'll stick to my PC for most stuff, like I have done since the Dreamcast. I'm sure you'll continue to enjoy your rock solid 60 fps for a long time to come (regardless of whether your getting it).

 

[function]

Not that I want to get involved in this argument but ive got to challenge the claim of pc gaming being a relative hitching fest compared with console gaming.

It's not all PC gaming, it's some games and, apparently, some hardware and some drivers.

Such is the varied nature of the beast that is the PC. A fixed platform must be an awful lot easier to de-hitch without just throwing masses of power at the issue. This is simply one of the consoles inherent advantages, and I think it'll still be with us for as long as the PC is an open(ish) platform.

I cant speak for the 7950 bit I did have a 4890 and while it was occassionally too slow to achieve the framerates I wanted at the settings I preferred, the only game I ever noticed hitching in at playable settings was bioshock. No idea what was up with that game.

Off the top of my head, my hitch-list is Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Unreal Tournament 3, FSX, Doom 3, Crysis, The Longest Journey (lol?) and ... I think The Settlers 3 or something. There's more but I can't remember them right now.

With the 670 thougb ive never seen a hint of hitching, even at settings the gpu clearly cantu maintain 30fps at. That includes crysis maxxed out, 1080p / 16xQ AA which is probably about 20fps, not smooth but definately no hitching either.

With comparable hardware to consoles the potential for hitching and stuttering is always going to be greater on the PC, although the 7950 seems to be something of a perfect storm. My 560 Ti is still holding the fort pretty well. But then again so is my Xbox - Trials Evolution is full of 60 fps badassery, although even that hitches at this one point on this huge assed "Gigatrack" track ...

 

[liolio]

The issue with V-sync solving some issue on PC is that for example speaking about Hitman Absolution, as the topic came into discussion on the board, is that, if I get there measurements right, even the Nvidia gtx660ti, in their 99th percentile measurement, the average is still above 33.xx ms (34 something) which means that most of the frames would miss the vertical refresh.
Actually I wonder if Techreport could use 33 ms (or 16ms) as a reference point instead of 99th which is still pretty "loosy" (think of DF if one games runs 30FPS V-sync without hiccups and another platform lose it every once in a while).
For example looking at hitman absolution how many frame (in %) woud make it in time for 30FPS V-sync? 90% on the gtx660ti?
10% is a lot if you look at how consoles games are evaluated.
EDIT
If for example I look at that game, both cards offers are past 60 fps on average, but looking at their 99th percentile measurements actually none of the card could sustain 60 V-synch, not even close, and with massive disparities between both cards.
Nvidia is close with ~20ms (still almost 25% off on average), though I would guess that in case of soft V-sync it would indeed goes out of v-synch quiet often
For AMD actually is not even an option.
For "console smooth experience" with those cards 30FPS should be the target, with one card having some room for extra eye candy.

 

[almighty]

And I hope they feel proud of themselves.

Why? Because they don't notice something that you do? Even on overclock.net the people posting in the thread say they don't notice it while playing.

I can't see it, I know it's there but I just can't see or feel it.

Off the top of my head, my hitch-list is Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Unreal Tournament 3, FSX, Doom 3, Crysis, The Longest Journey (lol?) and ... I think The Settlers 3 or something. There's more but I can't remember them right now.

I've never had any real problem with PC games being stuttery or sluggish.

Out of curiosity what was the system specs that you was playing Crysis on when it stuttered and lagged?

 

[function]

I've never had any real problem with PC games being stuttery or sluggish.

Sluggish to me is more about overall frame rate and input response. I wouldn't say a fast PC ever feels sluggish, except for when there's a messy control scheme like Dead Space (with triple buffering that game was incredibly unresponsive!). PC games with good frame rate almost always feel a lot less sluggish than 30 fps console games (Dead Space excluded). Particularly nice when paired with a mouse for freelook.

Stuttering and hitching is a different thing though, although a fast PC with no driver issues or bugs affecting the game is often fine in this regard too. It can strike at the oddest of times too. The Longest Journey ran fine on my PC, but stuttered like hell on my laptop (despite being about a billion times higher than the recommended running specs).

Out of curiosity what was the system specs that you was playing Crysis on when it stuttered and lagged?

It was my dual core Opteron, overclocked to 2.5+ gHz, with 2GB of DDR 400 overlcoked to DDR 500 (but keeping the 333 timings). A touch faster than an FX-60 with stock memory. Ironically increasing the ram to 4GB made things a little worse, as I had to go to 2T 433 mHz (wiped out nearly a third of my main memory bandwidth!). Graphics card was a 9800 GT (absolutely belting card, under £100 and you can still game well on it today). was doing about 30 fps average.

Also happened, though not as badly, on my chum's Core 2 Quad.

The less high end the PC hardware you game on the more you appreciate console consistency. I stuck with my faithful Opteron until about two years ago. Despite it probably being a better CPU than the one in the 360, and certainly having a better GPU and much more ram, I ran in to a lot more performance oddities and inconsistencies than I did with my 360 (even if the overal results on my PC were normally rather better).

 

[almighty]

It was my dual core Opteron, overclocked to 2.5+ gHz, with 2GB of DDR 400 overlcoked to DDR 500 (but keeping the 333 timings). A touch faster than an FX-60 with stock memory. Ironically increasing the ram to 4GB made things a little worse, as I had to go to 2T 433 mHz (wiped out nearly a third of my main memory bandwidth!). Graphics card was a 9800 GT (absolutely belting card, under £100 and you can still game well on it today). was doing about 30 fps average.

Also happened, though not as badly, on my chum's Core 2 Quad.

It was CPU and memory bandwidth related, Crysis was one of those rare games that needed an increase from every aspect of your PC, CPU, GPU and system bandwidth.

I gained a decent chunk of performance when I moved to faster RAM although that 9800 GT was also the problem due to it having 512mb VRAM, the game eats well over that, I have it eating over 2Gb VRAMmy 7970's.

Now doubt your system was texture thrashing due to lack of VRAM and that was the main cause of the stuttering, I had a similar problem with 512Mb 8800 GT's but then I moved to a couple of 1Gb 8800 GT's by Palit and the stuttering had gone.

 

[function]

It was CPU and memory bandwidth related, Crysis was one of those rare games that needed an increase from every aspect of your PC, CPU, GPU and system bandwidth.

I gained a decent chunk of performance when I moved to faster RAM although that 9800 GT was also the problem due to it having 512mb VRAM, the game eats well over that, I have it eating over 2Gb VRAMmy 7970's.

Now doubt your system was texture thrashing due to lack of VRAM and that was the main cause of the stuttering, I had a similar problem with 512Mb 8800 GT's but then I moved to a couple of 1Gb 8800 GT's by Palit and the stuttering had gone.

Well that explains that then! Yeah, my 9800 GT was a 512 MB model. The game was perfectly playable at around 30 fps (though a solid 30 or 60 would obviously have been nicer), it was the stuttering as you moved around that broke the immersion for me.

And you have to admit that regardless of the compromises required for the PS360 versions of Crysis they do a pretty good job of maintaining consistent performance with very limited amounts of memory.

 

[almighty]

Well that explains that then! Yeah, my 9800 GT was a 512 MB model. The game was perfectly playable at around 30 fps (though a solid 30 or 60 would obviously have been nicer), it was the stuttering as you moved around that broke the immersion for me.

Stuttering as you moved? VRAM thrashing without a doubt.

For Crysis you basically need

1. An Intel core series CPU at 4Ghz+
2. Fast system RAM ( 1600Mhz+ with good timings )
3. A GPU with 2Gb VRAM and at least AMD HD 5850 level performance or higher
4. A fast HDD for data streaming

If you have all of those Crysis will run like butter...

In regards of the consoles I can't really comment because I've seen plenty of videos I've not personally seen then running in the flesh.

From the comparison videos I have seen though I'm not that impressed

 

[(((interference)))]

What were the latest Steam hardware survey results?

If a next gen machine launches with the equivalent of 2TF in GPU power, what percent of PCs will it be better than?

 

[almighty]

What were the latest Steam hardware survey results?

If a next gen machine launches with the equivalent of 2TF in GPU power, what percent of PCs will it be better than?

Define PC's?

People buy consoles to play games on.

Some people buy PC's for PC related stuff.

Some people buy PC's to game on.

The people that buy a PC just as PC won't be running a 2Tflop GPU and nor do I think that matters as they won't be gaming on it.

The people that buy PC's to game on will all pretty much have a GPU that's atleast 2Tflop ( AMD HD 5850 offered 2Tflop+ some 3 years ago )

 

[Inuhanyou]

I think what he means is, "will the consoles be good enough to run the latest games with comparable visuals to their PC counterparts".

I'd hope so.

Now if they have to tick off a few resolution points to get there, that's another thing

 

[(((interference)))]

Define PC's?

People buy consoles to play games on.

Some people buy PC's for PC related stuff.

Some people buy PC's to game on.

The people that buy a PC just as PC won't be running a 2Tflop GPU and nor do I think that matters as they won't be gaming on it.

The people that buy PC's to game on will all pretty much have a GPU that's atleast 2Tflop ( AMD HD 5850 offered 2Tflop+ some 3 years ago )

For this purpose, we can look at PCs in the Steam hardware survey, ie used by gamers.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The people that buy PC's to game on will all pretty much have a GPU that's atleast 2Tflop ( AMD HD 5850 offered 2Tflop+ some 3 years ago )

Hate to burst your bubble but there are plenty of 'gamers' currently running crap (2 year old mid range or less) in their machine. If you want to narrow gamers to the subset of people that spend $300 or more on a video card you're talking about a fairly small number.

 

[almighty]

Hate to burst your bubble but there are plenty of 'gamers' currently running crap (2 year old mid range or less) in their machine.

Well personally I don't class those as gamers..... I know loads of people that only play The Sims on there PC, I don't class those as gamers either.

Playing only a couple of games constantly is not what a gamer is to me.

And 2 year old mid-range hardware should still be over 1Tflop

 

[Inuhanyou]

I see...so the people who don't spend hundreds on their video cards aren't "real gamers" now. In combination with the "your not a PC gamer so you don't know about tech" comment you made, I see where your coming from.