Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo, Release Target Late 2021

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by mpg1, May 13, 2020.

  1. eastmen

    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    3,246
    how big will the game be ?

    If you can load 32 gigs of data into ram and then stream from your ram pool + slower hard drive it should offer a better experiance than from a single faster (but still slower than ram) ssd.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  2. chris1515

    Legend Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,090
    Likes Received:
    6,329
    Location:
    Barcelona Spain
    I suppose devs will try to limit game size to 200 GB. This will not going faster you need to load the data inside the RAM too from your slow drive and you need to do all the Nanite virtualisation work inside memory. I am not even sure this is possible, the compression between the disk and the RAM is different. Here it means optimize the RAM usage. Better wait details before talking about a scenery maybe impossible to reproduce.

    [​IMG]

    Unreal Engine 5 is optimised around SSD and fast and low latency storage, virtual geometry, virtual shadow maps, virtual texturing and having as much as possible in RAM only what is visible to render on screen. I am not sure storage are low latency enough for this but this a much better scenario than before the engine was optimised around SSD.

    After games assets won't be the same quality than the demo if it was the case I suppose minimum size for games would be at least 5 TB maybe 10 TB. The funny things we have fast storage but like cartdrige not big enough to push the assets quality the hardware is able to render.

    EDIT: And I suppose PCIE 4 SSD is not mandatory, something as fast as the Xbox Series SSD is probably enough ;)

    And it is cheaper.
     
    #1282 chris1515, Jan 5, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  3. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,521
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Location:
    Guess...
    Yes I agree. This is why I don't understand some peoples seeming unwillingness to accept that the demo might be possible on a current PC. That's not taking anything away from the PS5. Everyone knows the PS5 still has a much faster IO system than the laptop in question and even faster in many ways than any PC available today until Direct Storage arrives. If a developer wanted to they could no doubt make a game/demo that fully utilises that speed, I don't understand the negativity around the suggestion that this demo isn't it.
     
  4. cwjs

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2020
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    276
    There's no streaming in assets from game that weighs 10TB -- that would be impossible on a ps5 ssd too. You think the demo was shuffling around ~10 gigs of polygons every frame? That's ridiculous.

    This is completely misunderstanding the whole point of nanite. Nanite will either not work at all, or it will deliver a compressed format that brings all of the detail of your "5TB" meshes into a scaleable, deliverable size, and in a way that can be put onto the screen every frame at 30-60 fps by console gpus and cpus. (Which, I think, will be the bottleneck -- I'd bet a regular m.2 drive on a pc with a super high end i9 and 3080 will run ue5 much better than the ps5)

    "Fast" ssds are necessary, but they won't be the main bottleneck in most games and "Fast" doesnt mean ps5 fast.
     
    eastmen and PSman1700 like this.
  5. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,910
    Likes Received:
    6,855
    Yes the quotes I selected are "ignoring parts of the interview because they don't align with my interpretations", but the quotes you selected are the "representation of the truth".


    Yes he had access to the runtime demo in a windows PC. Which is why he ran a video at the livestream.
    Makes complete sense.



    "Pretty good performance" and "some fast storage" doesn't tell you it'd run faster or even that the current storage solutions for the PC would be capable.
    But it's nice that we're already getting away from the muh laptop runs the demo faster than the consoles nonsense.




    You could prevent this immature crap and trolling nonsense of throwing fanboy accusations every time someone writes something you disagree with.

    Yes, I even fucking bolded that sentence in the original post because I just knew someone would try to troll this down to fanboy warring.
     
  6. chris1515

    Legend Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,090
    Likes Received:
    6,329
    Location:
    Barcelona Spain
    Do you read my post? I quote my own post
    I said if the size of the game was not limited by the storage size. If we could have 100 TB SSD inside a PC or a console, it would not be a problem at all. And a 100 TB SSD doesn't exist for the moment.;-) At least on consumer side, I have no idea on professional side and if it exists I can't imagine the price. They said the size of demo assets is too big for games but realistic for TV show for example. They spoke about reduce the asset quality by a mip level or two. It seems you don't even follow what the devs told about the demo and the technology.

    You don't even understand what is virtualized geometry, you need the full asset on the storage. This is not some geometry generated at runtime. Nanite is not compatible with tesselation and displacement for the moment.

    [​IMG]

    I am sure of it too, when the demo will release on PC, Directstorage will probably be available. And I don't think a PS5 SSD was mandatory, a XSX SSD is probably enough and probably slower is ok too this is a very linear demo not an openworld with this asset quality. They said they can run the last part of the demo on a slower SSD with special care about the disk layout (let the data being sequential on the SSD, it works very well on HDD after this is not very realistic on an open world where you will have to duplicate huge data on the tiny SSD). We are back to square one, this is better to have faster SSD like XSX or PS5 or PC when DirectStorage will be available. All this stuff with taking care of data layout was one of the reason Mark Cerny told it was important to have a fast SSD.

    EDIT:
    Size of games is so problematic they talked about the possibility to stream assets on the SSD by level from the Cloud. If they reach the targeted 60 fps on next-generation consoles for the demo without compromise on quality*, it is sad because we will never see this inside a game because SSDs are too little and not because the consoles aren't powerful enough to render assets of this quality.

    *The demo can run at 60 fps probably with a lighting downgrade, Nanite is 60 fps ready but not Lumen but the demo was made 18 months before the planned release. And for example the performance of Nanite were better than into the slide, it takes less than 4.5 ms to run on PS5, it was told by Brian Karis and multiple Epic engineers told this is very early technology and they can optimize to keep the same quality but nearly double the framerate.



    EDIT: On Quixel megascans site, there are some of the rock assets used inside the demo, the size is between 200 MB and 300 MB for each assets.
     
    #1286 chris1515, Jan 5, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  7. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4,419
    Likes Received:
    2,040
    Not many have 7gb/s nvme drives on pc yet i think, but adaption might get faster then one could think when prices adjust abit.

    Anyway, by the time actual UE5 games see the light, on pc there'd be nvme (with direct storage) solutions a magnitude faster then the consoles.
     
  8. liams

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    235
    out of interest does anyone know how unreal licensing works with something like gamepass? since as far as I know the unreal licensing is on a revenue basis, which would be hard to determine from a subscription service.

    It cant be the case that Microsoft gets to use unreal for 'free' if everythings just on gamepass, or is there a clause that I haven't seen?
     
  9. techuse

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    375
    You expect PC SSDs to offer 55-90 GB/s when UE5 games arrive?
     
  10. dobwal

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,650
    Likes Received:
    1,842
    Agreed. VRAM is backed by system RAM on a PC and a mid-range to high-end PC can have anywhere from 24GB-56GB of RAM. A big chunk will be the slow system variety but that slow RAM is still many times faster than the consoles’ SSDs.

    That slow SSD on the PC is going to see less traffic over the course of multiple frames being rendered so SDD bandwidth becomes less important.
     
    #1290 dobwal, Jan 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
    Silent_Buddha, eastmen and PSman1700 like this.
  11. cwjs

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2020
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    276
    Yes, but the trick here is what is "the whole asset" -- something like geometry textures has very different size requirements than a .obj file. (we know for a fact nanite isn't geometry textures, their lead dev said as much, but I'd bet it's something along the lines in terms of being a compressed representation that has different rendering properties than a raw mesh.) I'd speculate there's an absolutely 0% chance that nanite is scanning through entire raw megascans on disc then doing whatever magic to get the parts it needs -- I believe nanite is going to be as much about the format of the meshes as the tech to render them. Even more traditional pipelines are getting in to more heavily pre-processing meshes (such as dx12u's meshlets approach), i think it's a safe bet that nanite meshes are going to be pretty different from regular geometry files.

    Yes - my bet here is: it will run without fine without directstorage (on suitably fast cpus and gpus). We'll be able to find out, since this demo or technically similar demos will run on PCs that are incompatible with directstorage

    See, this is a super important datapoint.I'm speculating, but imo the 4.5ms a frame is another data point that the ssd is nowhere near the bottleneck here -- there's no way you could stream in all that raw geo every frame in 4.5ms on a 5.5gb/s hd. Something else is going on! Most likely something cpu and gpu intensive. (Decompressing and reconstructing some kind of data structure friendly to this sort of rendering)

    As above in this post, I agree the source assets (what goes in to the builds, not what goes onto the disk) are big.

    I don't think this is true -- ue5 (or some preview builds at least) is coming out this year right? As soon as it's out, some indie dev will slap every quixel model into a map and make a build.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  12. eastmen

    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    3,246
    yea thats my point. I can get 64gigs of ram for my pc for the price of a 1TB nvme ssd. Yes I can't fit a full game in 64gigs. I am sure after windows has its way I might be limited to 48 or 56 gigs of ram. But that is still 48 gigs of ram that is offering huge amounts of bandwidth along with the 8-32gigs of ram on the graphics card.

    Direct IO will not only improve bandwidth through storage but also ram.

    don't forget that next year we should see AM5 with ddr 5 and I am sure intel will be right on that train also.

    DDR5 will up the Max udimm size from 32 to 128gigs. So we could be looking at the average gamer pc actually having upwards of 128 gigs of ram.

    If as @chris1515 says games will cap out at 200gigs then you could literally fit half the game in ram. So how would an 8GB/s ssd be faster ?

    And thats up to 128 gigs per dimm. So if you have a board with 4 dimm slots like today you could do 512 gigs of ram.

    Now of course that will be crazy expensive. But still there are gamers willing to spend the money.
     
    PSman1700 and dobwal like this.
  13. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,253
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    of course :lol2:
     
  14. HLJ

    HLJ
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    506
    If you distrust me already, no amount of screenshots will alleviate that /shrugs

    But I will play for "fun" (at work atm though)

    ASUS Prime X299 Edition 30
    Intel Core i9-10900X (X not K version due to PCIe lanes)
    64 GB Corsair Vengeance
    NVIDIA RTX 3090
    Corsair MP600 NVMe - 2TB
    6 x 2 TB HPE Enterprise SSD's (read intensive)

    Due to be updated in ~2 years....GPU will be upgraded next generation.

    I will be more interested in the performance jump to my next PC, than how a console demo will run TBH /shrugs
     
    pharma and PSman1700 like this.
  15. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,728
    Likes Received:
    10,877
    Location:
    London, UK
    That's a weird thing to say because the need for a fast SSD is not a requirement for using Unreal Engine 5. UE5 is not an engine only for fast-flash devices,

    I don't understand why you are so unbelievably focussed on the SSD, which has long-standing been an option for PCs where RAID SSD should theoretically eliminate loading times but don't because the fundamental I/O framework is the choke point. This is what Direct Storage is aimed to improving.

    The underlying I/O as administered by the OS in PCs and consoles is already light on CPU usage. The CPU hit comes by having game data stored in .PAK (zip) files and having to load them them in memory for the CPU to pick apart the data, decompress anything for the CPU into main memory and sometimes decompress and send data for the GPU over the PCIE bus on PC. That's your CPU usage which Microsoft cannot fix with Direct Storage because this is just how games are written.

    I'm not claimed this. :???:

    I've not claimed this either this. You seem to be posting on the basis that the improvements are about reducing the CPU overheard of I/O whereas this isn't the case. CPU driven I/O has not been a thing for literally generations. Some improvements will come of re-arranging data that is does not need to be picked apart by the CPU first (i.e. file check in) but that's an option now.

    Microsoft's Direct Storage API can't change this, games are written how they are written.

    This was your assertion, not me:


    You're literally arguing with yourself here :mrgreen: and at this point I really an out because it feels like you are just arguing with people for the sake of arguing and you're not interested in learning or discussing anything.
     
  16. ThePissartist

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    913
    Okay, so you've got an entirely new PC - all new components nothing upgraded and all appears to be top of the range. You already talking about your next PC as if you're going to replace every single component again.

    It seems improbable, but let's play ball.

    Are you going to be able to run benchmarks on that system throughout the course of the generation?

    Edit: I priced your machine. Are you sure you haven't just created a fantasy machine using your favourite website? I can't see how many people would be stupid enough to buy an entirely new machine and disregard their entire pre-existing PC. A screenshot would definitely be preferable.

    And anyway, if you really do have it - it would definitely still be fun to see how a machine costing nearly £4000 compares over the course of a generation. Especially since it almost exactly matches to 10x the price of the PS5/XSX.
     
    #1296 ThePissartist, Jan 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  17. chris1515

    Legend Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,090
    Likes Received:
    6,329
    Location:
    Barcelona Spain
    Again the Epic devs themselves said this is too big for videogames. I think they know better than you if it is viable for videogames or not. The solution stream some of the game data from the cloud if you want to keep the same quality or reduce the asset quality. They created this demo, reduce the geometry details is needed in a shipped videogame, compression is not magic, The format of the data is different not the RAW megascan asset and probably better for compression but this does not change the fact that the asset quality is too big for videogames.

    Brian Karis is behind Nanite idea.


    There are two compression formats the one on the disk, it will be decompress by the I/O mechanism with the hardware decompressor on console and one in RAM at runtime but the process is not free out of decompression. There are two compute shader software rasterizers for pixel size triangle and for triangle bigger than a pixel another primitive/mesh shader using the hardware rasterizer for the Nanite process, it was told by Brian Karis. Decompression from disk and in RAM and rasterize the geometry was 4.5 ms on PS5 when they made the slide, Brian Karis told it is less now, it was before some optimizations.



    The limitations are the storage speed(asset quality) and hardware power(resolution or reduce geometric details). Nanite try to display 1 polygons per pixel, the resolution can decrease if you have a storage fast enough for display the best asset but a hardware not powerful enough for render them at 4k for example like the PS5(1404p on average in the demo) or XSX. Another solution if the hardware is not fast enough is to reduce the geometric details and it works too if the storage is too slow to stream the data inside RAM.

    Brian Karis saying this is not viable for videogames and the problem is storage size.


    This is funny to see people doing some speculation like they know better than the guy working on it since years and having this idea since more than a decade. We can add virtual shadow mapping but it is count inside VT I suppose. Texture are 8k in the demo and Shadow maps are 16K. 1 million triangles is equivalent to a 4k texture size they said in the Unreal Engine fest video.




    Tim Sweeney and other Epic devs hint the demo will be available, everyone will be able to test it at least on PC to verify the SSD speed needed for example or how it scale. We will be able to see the size it take on storage.

    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/bK5Vvv

    Some image of the non textured Zbrush model here
    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/kDl2aA

    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/nYEDvE

    EDIT: Added twitter thread from The Nanite creator.
     
    #1297 chris1515, Jan 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  18. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,521
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Location:
    Guess...
    But Nanite and Lumen are:



    "And with features for scaling the content down to run on current generation platforms using traditional rendering and lighting techniques"


    We know UE5 scales across basically everything, but the Edge article makes clear (as per the quotes I've already highlighted in my post above to Tottentranz) that it was the move from spinning HDD's to flash based SSD's that enabled the next gen tech of Nanite and Lumen. Hence why they were not possible without the SSD's in the new consoles as Tim Sweeney has literally already stated (again, see above post to Tottentranz).

    Because with or without Direct Storage, SSD's still vastly increase available IO bandwidth (especially if game data is organised to take advantage of them) and more importantly for Nanite/Lumen, they reduce seek times and thus the latency of data requests by orders of magnitude. Direct Storage makes the whole process more efficient and less of an overhead on the CPU but you're acting as if there's literally no advantages of SSD's over HDD's without something like DirectStorage and a hardware decompression unit which is blatantly false.

    This is wrong. The CPU IO overhead even outside of the decompression requirements is still relatively high:

    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-inside-xbox-series-x-full-specs

    "The final component in the triumvirate is an extension to DirectX - DirectStorage - a necessary upgrade bearing in mind that existing file I/O protocols are knocking on for 30 years old, and in their current form would require two Zen CPU cores simply to cover the overhead, which DirectStorage reduces to just one tenth of single core."

    As Microsoft have made clear to Digital Foundry, there is scope to reduce that overhead by more than an order of magnitude via Direct Storage. However I do agree with you that the overhead associated with decompression is even higher.

    DirectStorage may well deal with both though. RTX-IO certainly deals with both in combination with DirectStorage but there is some suggestion that DIrectStorage itself may be the framework for GPU based decompression with RTX-IO simply being the Nvidia branding of it. We've yet to find out for certain.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/1620...-starts-at-the-highend-coming-november-18th/2

    "Finally, AMD today is also confirming that they will offer support for Microsoft's DirectStorage API. Derived from tech going into the next-gen consoles, DirectStorage will allow game assets to be streamed directly from storage to GPUs, with the GPUs decompressing assets on their own."

    My key point here though is that these are CPU overheads which it's certainly great to reduce, but doesn't mean that games can't still take advantage of SSD's even without these reductions. It simply means that you need a proportionately more powerful CPU to cope with the overhead as data transfer rates ramp up. The statement from the Epic engineer is exactly in line with that. He states data transfer rates in the UE5 demo aren't that high (by SSD standards) but you nevertheless need a powerful CPU. Presumably DirectStorage would mean you need a less powerful CPU to achieve the same thing. That in no way means that it can't be achieved today though.

    Okay so just to be clear, are you or are you not arguing that the UE5 demo "Lumen in the Land of Nanite" could be run on todays PC's without Direct Storage?

    See my previous response on this. In any case it appears that you are trying to assert that the UE5 demo is not possible on todays PC's because despite them having SSD's, they don't have the rest of the console IO stack to support them. If that's not your argument then I'd suggest we're not in major disagreement and leave it there.

    I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't making that argument, I was repeating your argument for the benefit of the reader as the thread of the conversation was lost when you quoted me. You asked (paraphrasing) "How could Tim Sweeney say the demo can't run on PC (even if directly asked)?" Suggesting that's a question he couldn't answer because of the variation in PC hardware configurations. So I answered that if it was impossible to run the demo on any PC due to it requiring an IO capability that is beyond current PC's, it should be straight forward for him to answer. The point being, that he hasn't said anything of the sort.
     
  19. snc

    snc
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    411
    on pc's that have 0.1% users
     
  20. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,521
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Location:
    Guess...
    The quotes I've highlighted are in addition to those you highlighted in order to add additional context. I'm not ignoring any part of the article, I simply prefer not to cherry pick parts of it out of context so as to re-enforce my own interpretation. If you feel the quotes I've picked are missing additional context from the article then do feel free to point that out.

    Is this really the best argument you have for claiming this individual isn't an Epic employee and/or is simply lying? Here's the video itself, my Chinese isn't great but even I can tell this is legitimate and they're clearly talking about the demo. You can even check the time stamps at 53:00 and 2:07:00 to clearly see they are talking about specs and streaming speed. The translations for those points are also in the comments below the video. It's probably time you dropped this now.



    Why would he state you need "some fast storage" to get get "pretty good performance" at the same detail levels as the PS5 if it is in fact impossible to run the game on PC at the same detail levels as the PS5 because said storage solution doesn't exist? That would be a pretty strange statement to make would it not? Wouldn't he simply have said "you can't because PC's lack the storage solutions at the moment"? I'd say you're really stretching on this point alone, but in combination with the video above I'm afraid you're straying into complete denial territory.

    This is not something I've claimed. The fact is that we don't know how they compare in performance because one is locked and the other one is likely unlocked, but also "not cooked". We can at this stage be quite certain that the 2080m powered laptop in question can run the demo that was shown on the PS5 at around 40fps.

    I know this wasn't directed at me but it's an interesting point so I'd like to pick up on it. It seems here that you are admitting that the UE5 demo would be perfectly possible on the XSX which I agree is likely. However at the same time you are arguing that it's entirely impossible on a modern PC. I'd really like to understand how you're arriving at these seemingly contradictory conclusions? The XSX IO system is capable of 4.8GB/s with decompression. There are already drives available today which exceed this performance without decompression. We also know thanks to the DF article that Microsoft claims the IO system inclusive of decompression would saturate the equivalent of 5 Zen2 cores (and without decompression, 2 Zen2 cores). There are obviously CPU's available today which are both faster and have many more cores than this.

    So how can you conclude that the demo would be totally impossible on a modern PC but entirely possible on the XSX?[/quote]
     
    tinokun, AzBat, Reynaldo and 5 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...