Xbox 360 Case Study: Reasons why 2nd generation console titles will excel

[mckmas8808]

Everybody has the count Dreamcast. It was this gen. And you're right MS just came into the game later than half of the competition.

 

[blakjedi]

It is going to be a while before PC devs start designing games with Xenos class GPUs as the baseline.

So IMO the gap between this generation of GPUs and Consoles is larger than the Xbox1/GF4 generation. Xenos has more performance and features compared to its contemporaries then that generation.

Might be your best post ever.

 

[Acert93]

I know that Madden 2002 on my PC, which was only 350 Mhz and had a 64 MB GF2MX card, looked better than the PS2 version.

Overall I am not sure Madden is a good example. EA uses the "base platform" philosophy and cross ports heavily. I always thought Madden had the worse graphics of the football platforms. Fever had some very nice polish in many areas (weak models though) and VC always had spiffy graphics.

<rant>The fact I can play the PS2 version of Madden at Wal*mart and it is in the same league as my PC with a 6800GT does not make me too happy actually. The PS2 is 5 years old. If GF2 cards, as you were saying, could churn out comparable graphics WHY in the world are we still pretty much on the same engine with the PC?</rant>

I thought, give or take, the PS2 version has held up very well compared to the PC (less gaggies). I have only played the PS2 version in stores but I thought over the years it has done ok.

I did browse some pictures and I would say they seem fairly close.

PS2 2001 far close
PC 2001 far close

PS2 2002
PC 2002
Xbox 2003

PS2 2005
PC 2005
Xbox 2005

Looking at some benchmarks it seems in Madden 2004 (which like I noted above is not leaps and bounds better than the Xbox version) you need decent hardware to break 30fps at 1280x1024. Radeon 9600/FX5700 is not unreasonable, but even then these cards do not break 60fps at that resolution. Considering those cards, at the time, cost almost as much as an Xbox alone it kind of puts it into perspective IMO.

Madden, imo, is not really a great example because I don't think it aims very high or uses the hardware well. Outside of resolution the Xbox version has been just as good, if not smoother, at times.

I do not on more cutting edge games Halo looked a lot better than the FPS on the PC market for a while. I cannot say much for many others games because I had a GCN which does not have a lot of overlap with the PC

 

[blakjedi]

The fact that the console market thrives on exclusives makes comparisons fairly difficult generally. Exclusives tend to be the only games which utilize the best knowledge of teh hardware at a given time.

Most ports are either common denominator built (dx 8 class GPU e.g.) or market share driven (PS2 with 70+ percent of the market).

Very few developers can or will take the time to port to a platforms strengths. Ubisoft has done and admirable job of thats this gen. EA less so. In the 16-bit heyday with only two real contenders developers did develop to the consoles strengths.

Examples include the MK series, Earthworm Jim, and some cross platform Capcom games. Then you had abetter benchmark from which to compare system strengths and weaknesses than you do now.

 

[dukmahsik]

i think what really sets it apart is the edram

 

[Black Dragon37]

i think what really sets it apart is the edram

Not really - Xenos isn't the first to use eDRAM in its GPU.

I think it's rather the unified architecture that sets it apart from any other GPU... maybe even the RSX.

 

[jvd]

No, DX9 cards have been on the market 3 years, not 4. Fall 2002 saw the launch of the Radeon 9700Pro.

It wasn't fall , i know i got my 9700pro in august when it first came out through thier website. So it would be summer 2002 so its been a little over 3 years your right . By the time the ps3 comes out it will be around 4 years depending on when its actually launched .

UE3 is a DX9 game, but it is targetting mainstream cards as the "baseline". As Epic has said themselves a 6600GT should play it fine. Further, Epic is aiming at a SM2.0 featureset as the baseline--that is pretty far behind what we are seeing now in the hardware.

Yes sm 2.0 is the base line . But 90% of what you can do in sm2.0 you can do in sm3.0 . Sm3.0 is mostly about speed and programing ease . Not to mentino that this engine will already have alot of work put into it for the ps3 graphic system which is based on dx 9 and the xenos graphics system based on dx 9. Both support sm3.0. Which i highly doubt epic would program features for these two gpus and not bring those features over to the pc version .

And judging from Steampowered.com's user stats respectible GPUs are less common than the bottom feeding FX5200, 6200, 9600SE, etc type cards. The PC market is smaller and the majority of people are still using outdated hardware (features) that underperforms (performance).

With the exception of the fx 5200 the other two cards can do dx 9 graphics at very respectable framerates at 800x600 . Not to mention that each year this low end changes and many can get a great jump in features

last year it was the x300s and 6200s , this year it will be 6600s and whatever it is from ati . Intergrated graphics went from nforce 2 video (geforce 2 graphics ) to the dx 9 graphics with the new ati igp .

Many people who have the fx 5200s and other games when they go to buy unreal 3 games will make an upgrade to whatever will play it at the res and feature set they want and when they do they will find powerfull sm3.0 card at the 100$ price point and lower .

That is the future .

And it is not as clear cut from a market penetration perspective that DX9 is "here" now. We have yet to see a major DX9-Only release. We should see that... in 2006 like you said. But we do not know how many games will require DX9 cards. But waiting almost 4 years after the API's release for a game the demands the minimum spec DX9 card And below I will touch on how that is even behind the consoles below (Xenos/RSX are waaaaay ahead of SM2.0).

Requireing and taking full advantage of dx 9 are two diffrent things .

A game can be made from the ground up to run best on sm2.0 and sm 3.0 and still be able to run using fall back shaders and paths for dx 8 . I think u will see this happening alot next year .

So from a developer perspective, on the PC, you are going to have to support SM2.0 unless you are doing a console game and don't care much about PC sales or don't have the time to redo a lot of shaders.

So we may see our first SM3.0 required game in 2007. Another 3 years after the API release

And there you are . However even with the splinter there are still common paths that can be run. A developer can target sm2.0 as thier base . write fall back shaders for sm1.1 and then write shaders for more speed in sm3.0 and support more features . That is the key to the pc . So yes you have splintered markets . But now in 2005 and esp in 2006 we will have enough cards that run sm2.0 well that it will be the new base line . with many games pushing sm3.0 features . Just like the previous engines that were largely targeted around dx 8 . Those like doom3 and half life 2 . They ran best on dx 8 and higher cards but still ran on dx 7 cards . The same will happen with the new engines . They will run best on dx 9 base cards like the 9700pro and higher but will still run on dx 8 just with less features and the gamers will upgrade to 9700pro lvl cards which can now be had for around a 100$ and are going to become only cheaper or at that price point more power than before .

Performance: Xenos (and RSX) are definately ahead of the game in performance. Putting aside the closed box paradigm vs. the open platform (which is significant in the end product), ATI wont be releasing a GPU with the shading power of Xenos until 2006 and wont architecturally have a GPU as effecient until a year after the Xbox 360 launches. We are expecting 48 fragment shaders in R580 which should come out in the Spring. In certain situations the R580 should perform better (PS-limited tasks) but in vertex heavy games, bandwidth sensative games, etc... Xenos will *still* have a perfomance edge.

To contrast, the GF4 Ti series launched 6 months later with more performance and features than the NV2A.

THe x1800 also has 512 megs of its own extremely fast ram . The pc itself has a ton more ram . The x1800 is also a fillrate beast compared to the xenos and supports higher and better fsaa modes and of course higher reses .

THe r580 will also have its own pool of 512 megs of ram along with everything else .

Features. No contest. Xenos has all these features *standard*. So all 20-50M Xbox 360 units will have them. Hardware tesselation, HOS, FP10/16 blending, 3Dc, Vertex Texturing, Flow Control and Branching, MEMEXPORT, etc... Toss in the eDRAM and the bare Xenos spec is light years ahead of the standard PC game/PC API. DX9 SM3.0 and SM3.0 hardware are a bit behind in features (and the ability to perform those features in game).

Yes the xenos has more features than the r520 but not many more . It also lacks things like ram foot print .

That is something your not going to get around . NOt to mention that ever 8-12 months we get a morepowerfull card .

However this is not my arguement . My arguement is in the games . Yes xenos can be more powerfull than the dx 9 cards on the market . But how much of a diffrence will there be visualy ? I think u will find that when the first real dx 9 engines come out the diffrences will be very small .

Xenos is not a mainstream GPU, it is a flagship class GPU. Further it has a good couple handful of very useful features it does fast. We have not seen Displacement Mapping as a key feature in PC games. Why? Vertex Texturing is slow and is not on all SM3.0 hardware. Xenos is going to rock in this area with all 48 ALUs having vertex texturing support and having hardware tesselation. How about HDR+MSAA? Even the high end GPUs struggle with this and/or cannot do both at the same time. HOS? Not even on the radar.

I wouldn't claim hdr+ msaa is slow on the r520 . at 720p it should be pretty fast . Vertex texturing is slow but how fast is it on the xenos .

You keep talking about the xenos advantage but really we have yet to see any tests done. How much of an advantage does the xenos have while doing this . Does it really translate into an advantage ?

Same goes with the rsx . We hear great things but there are no tests done .

You ignore that the high end, for the PC, are "trend setters" and developers do not design with them as the minimum spec. 256MB cards are finally getting a decent workout in some new games yet the majority of products sold are 128MB cards.

Developers are not going to disregard over 50% of new 2005 GPU sales (i.e. the number of new 128MB cards sold) to support 512MB as a standard.

Consoles and PCs have reverse paradigms. PCs use the bottom feeder low end POS cards as the "baseline" features and performance--everything else is tacked on. Console design with the hardware in mind.

You however ignore the fact that developers still target these features . Even though only a few people had sm3.0 cards farcry came out with patches for it , battle for middle earth came out and other games patched or came out with sm 3.0 support. Many games will instantly take advantage of the bigger ram footprint from higher quaity textures which are easy to release with a game , or with higher fsaa modes .
THat is the strength of the pc . They can enable features for those who have the hardware while still targeting a midrange or low end card of the time .

Eventually, but not in 2005 and probably not in 2006 for the memory. Doom 3 require 384MB ins 2004, BF2 required 512MB in 2005, yet most games will work with less. It is hard to imagine a lot of developers targetting 1GB when games can simply reducing memory size by lowering texture quality. And the fact the new consoles are 512MB systems will also figure into that targetting.

I said recommended not required. Two diffrent things. Doom 3 doesn't have it , but half life 2 does . Minimum system specs were 1.2ghz cpu , 256mbs of ram , dx 7 card , 4.5 gigs of hd space . Recommended was 2.4ghz processor 512 megs of ram , dx 9 graphics card .

As you can see there are big diffrences , double actually in the cpu and ram for recommended play. Both examples of ours are delayed games

Here is eq2 , a game from novemeber 2004 Requirements 1ghz cpu , 512 megs of ram , dx 8 card with 64 megs of ram or more .

Boom dx 8 required game ... hmmm Recomended 2ghz cpu , 1 gig of ram , dx 9 card with a 128 megs or more .

This is just the way its going to go . People will upgrade to dx 9 when the time comes or not play the games.

2. Xenos is, for all practical points and purposes, a DX10 class GPU minus redundant hardwired features, Avivo, etc. The only significant feature we know Xenos is missing is a Geometry Shader which, ironically, is not needed due to the fact Xenos can use Xenon as a slave. With cache locking, compressed vertex streaming, and a CPU with a Dot Product this feature was unnecessary.

So I don't get where MS is hitting ATI for an "at the end of a api" GPU.

This is far from the truth. Dx 10 will be much more than just unifed shaders. Dx 10 has been in developement since dx 9 came out 3 years ago .

This is just looking at video cards .


A pc will have

Dual core cpus
x86-64
Dedicated sound cards with thier own ram
512 megs of ram video cards
gig of ram or more system ram
Possibly physics cards .


There is alot coming down the pipe in an 2006 /2007 we will see vista with its new api come out which will once again allow the gpus to leap over the gpus in the new consoles .

Gpus that came out over 3 years ago now have many of the features of the xenos and rsx . For instance the r300 series can do g.i even though it wasn't part of sm3. 0 .

Then we have another crop of cards the nv40 and the r520 that can do sm3.0 and do 90% or more of what the xenos and rsx can do and the nv40 based cards have been in the market for over a year now and are already in the low end of the price spectrum .

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A rather silly comparison. To hand pick one game that is somewhat in the same genre and use that as a basis to judge hardware capabilities?

I said it was anecdotal based on my own experiences, and not a perfect conclusive argument.

The point is, which stands, is that though the hardware is more capable, the software running on it isn't neccessarily any better, simply because developers don't write for the very best hardware but an economical best-fit, give or take a bit here or there (some games do push the envelope, mostly FPS's which is why I made mention of that genre). I gave one example. There's other games PS2 looks worse than comparable games on PC, and others where it looks better. BUT for 5 year old tech the fact that not every game on PC looks that much better is clear evidence that better hardware != better looking games, and that having the best PC hardware in 5 years time doesn't neccessarily mean your games are going to look better that what's on XB360 or PS3.

 

[mckmas8808]

Man reading that Shifty has got me excited again.

 

[jvd]

I said it was anecdotal based on my own experiences, and not a perfect conclusive argument.

The point is, which stands, is that though the hardware is more capable, the software running on it isn't neccessarily any better, simply because developers don't write for the very best hardware but an economical best-fit, give or take a bit here or there (some games do push the envelope, mostly FPS's which is why I made mention of that genre). I gave one example. There's other games PS2 looks worse than comparable games on PC, and others where it looks better. BUT for 5 year old tech the fact that not every game on PC looks that much better is clear evidence that better hardware != better looking games, and that having the best PC hardware in 5 years time doesn't neccessarily mean your games are going to look better that what's on XB360 or PS3.

YOur not comparing budgets though . The average pc game budget is lower than that of the ps2 budget .

Not to mention that most games that came out in 2004/2005 are better looking than the ps2 games in those genres in 2004/2005 .

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Who cares why though JVD? It's just a fact PC games don't target the high-end users and that it takes years for baseline PC games to catch console titles. The hardware isn't really relevant. Everyone here should also remember that UE3 will be surpassed on X360/PS3 by top developers, and that will probably be the baseline for PC development for a few years.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

YOur not comparing budgets though . The average pc game budget is lower than that of the ps2 budget .

Not to mention that most games that came out in 2004/2005 are better looking than the ps2 games in those genres in 2004/2005 .

Which is one of the reasons PC tech may be superior, but the advantage in actual games isn't that much improved as the tech. It's still the case Better Hardware != Better Software. There's many other factors involved.