Unreal Engine 5, [UE5 Developer Availability 2022-04-05]
- Thread starter mpg1
- Start date
...what an amateurish attempt of asserting AMD would have powerful compute only in future generations
...what an amateurish attempt of asserting AMD would have powerful compute only in future generations
I absolutely think that AMD with their 22+TF's of raw compute power and the infinity cache, full rdna2 featureset has quite capable GPUs already now. Things will only get better from now, improved RT and reconstruction.
Yeah, but in my experience it's more than capable since GCN (don't know earlier architectures).
Notice TF became an even worse method to relate NV and AMD, because NV has doubled FP units but not SMs. And even if it would be fine, RDNA averaged 16/32fp TF is similar to Ampere TF (According to techpowerup site, Ampere has no double 16fp rate, which confuses me a bit.)
Just saying. I have never seen an Ampere or RDNA GPU, and i don't believe they actually exist for real. Like bitcoin money, or man on Mars. But speculations about virtual tech is still fun.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I didn't need marketing to tell me Demon's Souls brought geometry detail I hadn't seen before.
Unlike most of the raytraced vs. screen space reflection comparisons for example.
Your 'argument' seems to rest on the idea that geometry is already ahead of the game and totally fine and it's everything else that needs work.
But again, my point is that it's impossible to see UE5's demos and not realize how much of a false perception this is. My standards have already changed. It may take longer for you, but you will eventually look back on this and realize you've been silly doubting the importance of geometry. I promise this will happen in due time. Via Nanite or mesh shaders or whatever, geometry will indeed be a focus of this upcoming generation. And again, I'd also agree that we need many other techniques to improve along with it, so we get a good balance.
After seeing the breakfast picture zed post prior to this post I was thinking of artery saturation rather than compute saturation.
On both PS and Xbox devs can write or use their own traversal as well as use a different Bvh Form. The effectiveness of doing this though of course depends entirely on the content and what type of RT the dev is going for anyway. Default traversers (and there are more than 1 default ones) could in some case be perfectly fine (as is the case for at least 2 titles I have talked to devs about).
Oh that is on the way@Dictator Thanks!
I was just looking for some UE5 performance comparisons over various GPUs... nothing yet...
cheapchips
Veteran
Oh that is on the way
Using a million Turok models as the benchmark?
lol na just the provided demo - for that at least we know the fps and resolution targets of this demo on next gen consoles
So I was just running through the demo on different GPUs at 1080p internal upsampled to 4K at the epic scalability setting. Though running through it, I am a bit curious whether the demo runs at a flat 30 fps on console hardware at 1080p. The demo is rather unbalanced load-wise in terms of scenes and what is happening. The particle effects for example when they happen close to the camera (which have nothing to do with Lumen or Nanite of course) are really heavy. If the particles happen further from the camera then they barely affect the framerate in comparison.
Maybe using DRS the resolution goes under 1080p when the load is too heavy.
That is what I would think -
by the way, for you all here: High scalability settings (which they recommend for 60 fps targets) vs. Epic Scalability settings (30 fps targets) - both are using TSR to bring 1080p up to 4K output.
I recommend opening them up in a tab and flicking between them.
That is what I would think -
by the way, for you all here: High scalability settings (which they recommend for 60 fps targets) vs. Epic Scalability settings (30 fps targets) - both are using TSR to bring 1080p up to 4K output.
I recommend opening them up in a tab and flicking between them.
The shadows are less impressive in high, no Dof too.
EDIT: I think probably no Ao
Last edited:
High is better to me. Foreground objects, including main character, are blurred on Epic
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
For some reason the EPIC setting seems more blurred: the large boulders on the ground seem more defined on the HIGH scalability settings.
The DOF changes, less DOF covering the scene =cheaper to render.
Similar threads
- Locked
