What improvement would you most like to see, in Xenon?
- Thread starter Wunderchu
- Start date
More RAM, more RAM, more RAM.
Faster RAM would be nice too, but not as critical.
The EDRAM is plenty fast for what its intended to do.
More EDRAM would be nice, but you can get around that though various means.
Higher pixel fillrate would be useful, but not as useful when the GPU's designed to go all out on shaders instead. As long as you have enough.
Faster RAM would be nice too, but not as critical.
The EDRAM is plenty fast for what its intended to do.
More EDRAM would be nice, but you can get around that though various means.
Higher pixel fillrate would be useful, but not as useful when the GPU's designed to go all out on shaders instead. As long as you have enough.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
more RAM
ACTUALY EVERYTHING ^__^
ACTUALY EVERYTHING ^__^
bleon said:
It just means you pay extra when you buy the console instead. In what way is that better?
Anyway, I wanted to vote "smaller case size", but that option wasn't listed.
I always thought of the HD and netcard in Xbox as free gifts from MS. MS offers more power for the same price as Sonys PS2 as an incentive to buy. If Xenon ends up being the least powerful console with HD and backwards compatibility left out then that makes Xenon less attractive.
More Ram would give ANY console the biggest immediate bump. So i opted for that, seen how everything else is pretty much abstract.
One thing, how can the system process 500M vertices per sec, and 500M polygons per sec too? Is that possible? Aren't the 2 numbers supposed to always be different, since a polygon is made of 3 vertices at least (2 with strips)?
One thing, how can the system process 500M vertices per sec, and 500M polygons per sec too? Is that possible? Aren't the 2 numbers supposed to always be different, since a polygon is made of 3 vertices at least (2 with strips)?
london-boy said:
Indexed vertex buffers.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...enderingfromvertexindexbuffers.asp?frame=true
In any mesh, triangles share vertices. If you order your vertices right, the GPU can use the post-transform cache to avoid transforming the vertex again.
So each 1 additional vertex = 1 additional triangle.
that's kinda neat, IMO ... thanx for the infoaaaaa00 said:Indexed vertex buffers.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...enderingfromvertexindexbuffers.asp?frame=true
In any mesh, triangles share vertices. If you order your vertices right, the GPU can use the post-transform cache to avoid transforming the vertex again.
So each 1 additional vertex = 1 additional triangle.
aaaaa00 said:london-boy said:
Indexed vertex buffers.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...enderingfromvertexindexbuffers.asp?frame=true
In any mesh, triangles share vertices. If you order your vertices right, the GPU can use the post-transform cache to avoid transforming the vertex again.
So each 1 additional vertex = 1 additional triangle.
I knew that, but u can't always use that, and in the end the number of vertices is still higher than that of the polys.
london-boy said:
Correct, however it is possible to render 500 million trianges with 500 million vertices, and that's why the spec is quoted that way.
Anywhere you see someone mention # of triangles per second for any 3D hardware, what they probably mean in reality is # of vertices per second.
aaaaa00 said:
Correct, however it is possible, and that's why they say it can be done that way.[/quote]
Theoretically.... But even then, unless your 3D world has each of its objects and characters attached to each other, it's just impossible...
aaaaa00 said:
The difference would change depending on the situation yeah. But take a scene with thousands of different objects and characters on screen, all of which detached from each other and with it's own set of physics (which is what i'd expect next gen) and there you go...
london-boy said:
It's no different for any other hardware. People tend to quote triangles when they mean verticies. People also tend to quote polygon when they mean triangle.
If I have 1000 meshes in my scene, each with 4998 triangles (5000 vertices), I will have 5 million vertices in my scene, and 4,998,000 triangles. That's a 0.1% difference.
Here's a good powerpoint that will explain everything:
http://research.microsoft.com/~hoppe/tvc.ppt
If you do your optimization right, you can get > 1 triangle per each additional vertex.