I never argued that. The argument was snake pass a Poorly optimized code was the most demanding game on ps4 GPU. also a highly optimized code on ps4/xb1 would be totally different code then switch, significantly more powerful hardware and totally different architecture, just an example, resident evil 5 was a highly optimized code on 360, it ran like crap on tegra x1 shield, which is a higher clocked, more powerful switch.
The semantic complications of 'demanding' games. *spawn
- Thread starter sebbbi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- caveat wars
- Status
I never argued that. The argument was snake pass a Poorly optimized code was the most demanding game on ps4 GPU. also a highly optimized code on ps4/xb1 would be totally different code then switch, significantly more powerful hardware and totally different architecture, just an example, resident evil 5 was a highly optimized code on 360, it ran like crap on tegra x1 shield, which is a higher clocked, more powerful switch.
Which post is the original argument that Snake Pass was the most demanding game on PS4 GPU?
There you go.
Benetanegia
Regular
I don't understand how you can argue that. It's obvious that it's more demanding. The reasons for which that happens are not really relevant.
After following the discussion, I can only conclude that you don't understand the meaning of "demanding".
if the reasons aren't relevant then whats' the point of bringing up snake pass? if a game is not properly optimized it can be demanding on even on the most powerful hardware, batman Arkham night was horrible even on the most powerful pc when it came out, resident evil 5 on tegra x1, runs like crap when anything is going on, has worse textures, and no AA compared tot he 360 version, metal rising also runs at half the frame rate as the 360 version, why use bad optimized ports as being the most demanding thing on the gpu? you would think most demanding means using the hardware to it's full potential, not just running a code, and getting shitty results cause the code is not optimized for the hardware.
Last edited:
Benetanegia
Regular
Not at all. Most demanding means that it demands more from the hardware, nothing more, nothing less.
The reason he brought Snake Pass up is because it is a very demanding game on all platforms, including the PS4, where it demands more from the hardware than the majority of AAA titles. It stands to reason that its "poorly optimized code" also demands more from Switch hardware than well optimized AAA titles would.
like i said before, how do we know this? it runs the same resolution as the xbox version for one that's a gpu thats 40% less poweful then ps4, again batman arknight when released was the most demanding game on pc, because it ran like crap? again is is metal rising and resident evil 5 the most demanding games released on the shield, so every time a game is not up to standards were gonna use the excuse it's the most demanding on the hardware? again switch architecture and ps4/xbox are totally different.
Benetanegia
Regular
Yes, every time that a game runs slower than other games in the same hardware, we are gonna say that it's more demanding. That is not an excuse, it's a reality. The reasons why (namely poor optimization) are irrelevant, it's still more demanding. Poorly optimized code is slower on all hardware, not only on PS4 like you seem to believe.
Which, as sebbi explained, is not of great importance on an indie game with little/no platform specific optimization.
But not the same effects. XBox One uses some effects from the Switch version instead of PS4 version and has worse AA than PS4.
each developer has a specific code for each machine that there porting to, ps4 could be badly optimized doesn't mean the switch is as well. anyway well agree to disagree you both can call it the most demanding game on the hardware, ill call it bad optimization, which is what it should called. iam project setssuna runs at 30fps on switch, dragon quest heroes cant even run at 30fps, bomberman ran at 30fps at launch, i'm not gonna call those games more demanding then every other game because of poor results.
as for the xbox one version, is also has more grass then the ps4 version, all in all the little details you mentioned are almost impossible to see.
You put too much emotional value to the word "demanding". I am talking about software engineering and processing unit's capability to run certain piece of code. For example running flash (action script) was highly demanding to last gen consoles (in-order PPC cores). This is mostly because flash code is basically cache missing all the time, and last gen consoles had 600 cycle stall for every cache miss. Modern CPUs handle this kind of demanding code much better. Memory latency is <200 cycles, OoO hides latency, caches are bigger, cache prefetchers reduce cache misses, etc. Another piece of code might for example contain lots of AVX2 fused-multiply add instructions (reaching peak CPU FLOP throughput). This bottlenecks another part of the CPU. This code obviously gets much more work done, but does this make this code more demanding or less?
Real life example: Guys are digging a mile long ditch with a shovel (inefficient hard work). Another team has built an excavator (very well optimized algorithm) and digs much faster. Their job gets finished faster (or they can dig longer ditch in the same time). Which one is more demanding?
That's one way of looking at it. Bunnybug appears to be looking at in terms of GPU saturation. Snake Pass is likely stalling a lot compared to something highly optimised and using async compute etc. To go with your real life example:
Two burly guys are digging up the road. One is digging into soft dirt, while the other is hacking at dense stony ground. The second guy is progressing slower than the first because his work is more demanding. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work.
Two other burly guys are digging up a different road. One is slower than the other. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work which is why he's slower, but in reality he's also digging soft dirt and is just not working as hard.
A burly guy and a scrawny guy are digging up the road. The scrawny guy's progressing slower than the burly guy, so we can conclude that the scrawny guy's work is more demanding as he's progressing slower. But in this case, he's digging the soft dirt, so in absolute terms it's less demanding, and he's just slower. But in relative terms, the work is far slower for the scrawny guy because it's harder for him to dig soft dirt than it is for the burly guy to dig stony ground.
This whole 'demanding' term has generated a protracted, nonsense discussion as no-one's clear what exactly is being talked about.
If nothing else I've come up with a non-car analogy that should get London-Boy interested.
Two burly guys are digging up the road. One is digging into soft dirt, while the other is hacking at dense stony ground. The second guy is progressing slower than the first because his work is more demanding. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work.
Two other burly guys are digging up a different road. One is slower than the other. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work which is why he's slower, but in reality he's also digging soft dirt and is just not working as hard.
A burly guy and a scrawny guy are digging up the road. The scrawny guy's progressing slower than the burly guy, so we can conclude that the scrawny guy's work is more demanding as he's progressing slower. But in this case, he's digging the soft dirt, so in absolute terms it's less demanding, and he's just slower. But in relative terms, the work is far slower for the scrawny guy because it's harder for him to dig soft dirt than it is for the burly guy to dig stony ground.
This whole 'demanding' term has generated a protracted, nonsense discussion as no-one's clear what exactly is being talked about.
If nothing else I've come up with a non-car analogy that should get London-Boy interested.
That's one way of looking at it. Bunnybug appears to be looking at in terms of GPU saturation. Snake Pass is likely stalling a lot compared to something highly optimised and using async compute etc. To go with your real life example:
Two burly guys are digging up the road. One is digging into soft dirt, while the other is hacking at dense stony ground. The second guy is progressing slower than the first because his work is more demanding. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work.
Two other burly guys are digging up a different road. One is slower than the other. We can conclude that the guy working slower has the more demanding work which is why he's slower, but in reality he's also digging soft dirt and is just not working as hard.
A burly guy and a scrawny guy are digging up the road. The scrawny guy's progressing slower than the burly guy, so we can conclude that the scrawny guy's work is more demanding as he's progressing slower. But in this case, he's digging the soft dirt, so in absolute terms it's less demanding, and he's just slower. But in relative terms, the work is far slower for the scrawny guy because it's harder for him to dig soft dirt than it is for the burly guy to dig stony ground.
This whole 'demanding' term has generated a protracted, nonsense discussion as no-one's clear what exactly is being talked about.
If nothing else I've come up with a non-car analogy that should get London-Boy interested.
Been on reading gaming forums for a 15 years now, never seen anyone look at it like that. it's always the technical show cases that get mentioned as the most demanding games on hardware. the fact that anybody can call snake pass the most demanding game on ps4 is mind boggling to me, it looks a gen behind the best looking ps4 games. so games that look like they using every resource they can, to get as much power from the gpu as possible, are not as demanding because they run at 1080p or are well optimized?
Last edited:
Benetanegia
Regular
Again, the visual results are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's how hard the hardware has to work to produce the results that matters.
Games run as fast as the hardware they run on allows. Snake Pass is so "expensive"/"taxing"/"demanding" that it can only run at 30Hz thank to its sub HD resolution. (Where a number of AAA games run in HD at 30Hz.)
We are going nowhere anyway so I might clean up that mess or move it in another thread soon.
We are going nowhere anyway so I might clean up that mess or move it in another thread soon.
The context here was porting games from XBox and PS4 to Switch (GCN to Maxwell). Your argument was that Switch will run AAA ports even worse than indie ports, because they are more impressive and more demanding to the hardware. My argument was that this is a pure software engineering problem, and is not directly related with the perceived impressiveness or visuals. For example if Snake Pass uses a slow algorithm that chokes the PS4 GPU, this same slow algorithm will be ported to Switch version and will choke it's GPU as well, unless of course architectural bottlenecks between GCN and Maxwell differ enough. Well optimized code will likely run also well when ported to other similar platform. The perceived quality advantage and the technical advantage (resolution, fps) from indie to AAA should remain after the port, when you are comparing indie ports to AAA ports on both the original and the target platforms.
This of course assumes that the AAA studio is spending proportionally similar amount of (equally skilled) resources on porting as they did for the original technology and that the indie developer is equally budget and time constrained as they were with the original title. Getting better end results out of a platform is mostly about making clever choices. You try to skip as much as possible unnecessary work and/or do work in a simpler way (still maintaining acceptable results). Sometimes it's about pure technical choices, like whether the team has the resources to implement a better but more complex algorithm or data layout. But most often improving the performance simply needs time and iteration. You analyze your bottlenecks and fix them, until you are happy. This is where big AAA teams have the advantage. Both on the original platform and in the port.
Sorry about the mess
I'm sorry, you are not making sense to me. AAA games are trying to max out ps4 gpu and cpu for the most part, indie games are not, your argument here makes little sense to me as well, aside from software engineering problems, specs do play a major role. dragon quest heros 2 is well optimized on ps4, 1080/60fps, on switch its 1080p/25fps with huge downgrades in graphics , i don't understand really what ps4 running a game well has to do with switch, the gulf in specs and architecture is huge. i think we should stop, and agree to disagree.
Benetanegia
Regular
But they do "max out" the GPU and CPU. That's why Snake Pass runs at a lower resolution than most AAA games. If it didn't "max out" the hardware, or in other words, if it wasn't hitting a bottleneck somewhere, it would be running at 1080@30 or even 1080@60.
snake pass is not maxing out the hardware. maxing out the hardware is what AAA games do, because they have the budget, resources and skill, and the results show. you think resident evil 5, metal gear rising and dragon quest heroes are maxing out the the tegra x1 gpu. bomberman on switch launched at 30fps, 2 months later it got a patch to be 60fps, its something called optimization.
- Status
Similar threads
