Xenon version of Unreal Engine 3.0 games: 1/2 texture res

[Megadrive1988]

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=335867

I think my subject header is better worded than that of the teamxbox forum thread. teehee ^__^


original source: http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Normal Maps & Texture maps
We are authoring most character and world normal maps and texture maps at 2048x2048 resolution. We feel this is a good target for games running on mid-range PC's in the 2006 timeframe. Next-generation consoles may require reducing texture resolution by 2X, and low-end PC's up to 4X, depending on texture count and scene complexity.

not surprising. and I vaugely remember this being mentioned awhile back.

but unlike the guy who made the thread on teamxbox, I would not say that Xenon is going to be weaker than midrange PCs of 2006, just the opposite. Xenon should have more computational and rendering power from its PowerPC CPU and ATI graphics processor, a much tighter architecture than even highend PCs, even though PCs will have an advantage in memory size/footprint (main memory AND graphics card memory) and even though PCs will have faster GPU clockspeeds.

Xenon's multi-core PowerPC CPU should outperform any single core Intel or AMD CPU for PC and most if not all Intel or AMD dual-core CPUs for PC. not only that, but Xenon graphics processor should out-class PC GPUs in terms of feature set, until the next-next gen ATI and Nvidia parts arrive (NV5x and R6xx). and even then, Xenon will still have an advantage over even highend PCs in that, naturally, Xenon games will be targeted at the hardware, unlike PC games in 2006 and beyond, which will have to aim at the full spectrum of PCs from low to mid to highend, as always.

with that said, I am not disputing the quote from the original source, that texture resolution will be lower on Xenon (and all nextgen consoles) compared to PC games.

 

[Andy]

But what about Ram though? If XBox2 only has say 256MB Ram + 16MB of eDRAM and mid-range PCs pretty much are 512MB ram as standard these days possibly 1GB by next year (I base that on how cheap 512MB DDR ram is these days) then won't XBox2 have a harder time being able to display as high resolution as a mid-range PC?

Not that it really bothers me, because I wouldn't expect 2048x2048 from a console anyway.

 

[jvd]

the only reason i can see for this is the ram . If the xenon stays with 256 megs of ram it may be a problem. If it is indeed getting boosted to 512 or even 756 as some have said (though i highly doubt it ) then i don't see a big deal. Only mid to high end gpus will have 512 megs of ram in 2006

 

[Confidence-Man]

Your subject header isn't that much better.

It says they may require a 2x reduction and it doesn't specify Xenon.

 

[Pozer]

Makes sense if Xenon has 256mg of total ram. Not all of that can be used for textures too. I expect UE3 in upper resolutions to hunger for the 512meg cards. I still think its a mistake to only use 256meg GDDR3 in Xenon. A bank of cheap 256DDR sdram bridged to the CPU would be smart. Freeing up the entire 256GDDR3 for textures and would not increase price that much. Heck even 128 sdram would help. If nothing else it would be a great cache for streaming off the DVD drive.

 

[one]

1-year old news?

 

[jpr27]

I thought i read somewhere M$ is stating they are using or pushing the UE3 for the Xbox 2. If thats the case then going with 256Mb of ram and 12-16mb of edram would be pretty skimpy. Even if you drop down to using textures at 1024x1024 I think would hinder the game makers in the long run. I understand that this is a dedicated console and doesnt require the overhead of a PC but still. (Although looking at games like Doom 3 on Xbox and the Chronicles of Riddick sure impressed me). Not bad for what the xbox memory is

I agree with many people who think the Xbox 2 should use 512mb of Ram if nothing at all put pressure on PS3 to match memory sizes and on up since their XDR ram would cost a great more deal to keep up and costs down even a yr later I would think that DDR3 ram will drop in price faster then XDR over the life span but thats my guess on it. But to be fair if MS isnt able to do it, then lets split the difference and go with 384Mb of Ram (128Mb more then what is rumored to be coming) and 24Mb edram.

Honestly if you include everything as a whole, I wouldnt be suprised to see MS put the 512Mb in to help deal with xbox live issues. Not sure how much will be changed or added but it will basically still use the basis of how we make online matches now (one person creates match=server)tells me that it should be 512Mb or we will never expand beyond 8 on 8 matches unless they bring in dedicated servers for some of these issues.
But then again, MS is really pushing Xbox Live realizing that with not only graphics and games on their minds but Broadband and bandwidth Xbox Live, they may have certain technologies that make good use of the system resources and make it seem like your working with more then 256Mb of ram. Guess we will have to wait till E3 to get any more details.

Im hoping for 512Mb of ram but I not entirely convinced we will get it. I do think that we will get edram of some type maybe around 10Mb-16Mb.

***There is No Luck...Only the Will and Desire to Succeed!!!***

 

[Iron Tiger]

1024x1024 isn't half of 2048x2048. One would think that people that are concerned with memory footprint would realize that when the size of the scaled texture/normal routinely ends up being about a quarter that of the source.[/nitpick]

 

[Acert93]

I agree with many people who think the Xbox 2 should use 512mb of Ram if nothing at all put pressure on PS3 to match memory sizes and on up since their XDR ram would cost a great more deal to keep up and costs down even a yr later I would think that DDR3 ram will drop in price faster then XDR over the life span but thats my guess on it. But to be fair if MS isnt able to do it, then lets split the difference and go with 384Mb of Ram (128Mb more then what is rumored to be coming) and 24Mb edram.

I agree with the bold/underlined stuff. When XDR was announced I remember reading specifically how XDR outperformed current memory in a number of ways, and since it had premium performance it would also have a premium price in relation to GDDR3.

As a tactical move, if MS put 512MB of GDDR3 you would think Sony would probably at least consider looking at 512MB (Sony probably has system designs with a couple configurations and will pick the best system for their cost and performance goals). 512MB XDR + BR drive + CELL + nVidia GPU would be expensive indeed.

But if Sony stuck with a lesser amount of RAM (lets say 256MB) then 2 things happen: 1) The extra memory gives the X2 some wiggle room in textures and the like which could help gloss over possible performance pitfalls that it may have to the PS3, and 2) it may convince some developers that a system with more memory and possibly an easier development environment would be a better platform to work on to hit deadlines. All conjecture, but I could see it happening. Unlike theoretical performance numbers, memory limitations are real and RAM can be a big bottleneck.

The Xbox had 64MB of memory, so 256MB is not a huge jump when you consider HD resolutions + larger worlds with more assets and higher resolution/more varied textures. So, like everyone else, I am hoping MS is nuts and puts 512MB in. BUT, that is not the hints we have heard from developers, so put your mind at rest and be happy with 256MB.

On a side note, what would be very bad for MS is if they go with 256MB of memory and the PS3 has 384 or 512. Unless MS was able to convince developers to make the X2 the "base" platform (how PS2 is this gen) they would be in trouble. Unlike Sony with the PS2, MS does not have the clout of being THE market leader and having the same type of 3rd party support in Japan-N. American-Europe. So if Sony one ups MS in memory that could be an issue. If the PS3 is going to have the most powerful system in EVERY area + have the most developer support by a land slide, well, MS cannot let that happen.

So the chess match goes both ways. Sadly, what I expect is 256MB of main memory on both and possibly slower memory pools like the GCN has.

 

[Acert93]

1024x1024 isn't half of 2048x2048. One would think that people that are concerned with memory footprint would realize that when the size of the scaled texture/normal routinely ends up being about a quarter that of the source.[/nitpick]

Correct, 50% less area is ~1430x1430.

Area
100% = 2048 x 2048
50% = 1430 x 1430
25% = 1024 x 1024

(Basically if you look at a 10in x 10in square which is 100in^2, 7in x 7in is 49in^2 which is half of the original area, so 70% length/heighth of a square produced half the area; same principle just extrapolated).

To put it into context, 720p is 1280x720. I don't think we would mind if all the textures were 1024x1024! The fact is most textures are smaller than that and developers do not waste memory making textures look perfectly crisp up close. They figure most gamers do not walk 2inches from every wall (unless playing D3 which everything is so dark you cannot see anyhow!) so they do not need to waste memory having high res textures on everything. Although it would be nice if they made doors and such higher res than in most games right now.

One area memory limitations will hurt is normal maps and other memory intensive tricks.

 

[jvd]

Well guys don't forget they do have 3Dc and whatever other improvements ati has made to that compresion scheme and whatever else ati has come up with .


using 3Dc can allow you to put in 4 times the detail as a normal normal map or the same quality normal map using 25% of the bandwidth that would normaly be needed .

IT can also in two component mode offer a 2:1 compresion ration.

So you can put 4 times the detail in the same space , get a 75% bandwidth savings or fit twice the textures in the same space.

Please correct me if i'm wrong on any of this

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Next-generation consoles may require reducing texture resolution by 2X

You mean textures on a 512 Mb machine might have to be smaller than they would be ona 1 Gb PC with a 256/512 Mb graphics card?! Who'd have thought!!

 

[London Geezer]

Next-generation consoles may require reducing texture resolution by 2X

You mean textures on a 512 Mb machine might have to be smaller than they would be ona 1 Gb PC with a 256/512 Mb graphics card?! Who'd have thought!!

Amazing they say "Textures might have to be reduced"......

Errr.... might???

Unless next gen consoles have Neverland Tinkerbell Goldpowder Texture Compression, they will have to be reduced.

 

[Acert93]

Amazing they say "Textures might have to be reduced"......

Errr.... might???

Unless next gen consoles have Neverland Tinkerbell Goldpowder Texture Compression, they will have to be reduced.

No no no no.... NOOO!!

EVERYONE knows that [insert your favorite console] will have 512bit XYZ-Buffered 360* Ultra Super [brand] Neverland Tinkerbell 3Dc Goldpowered Ge-Rad Texture Compression 3(TM) and every other console [insert any console you do not own or any brand you dislike] has stupid monkey engineers that created machines that require uncompressed 8bit BMPs

 

[jvd]

acert wtf are you talking about ?

 

[Acert93]

acert wtf are you talking about ?

Hmmm it is 5:50am. I guess I was not being as humerous as I thought I was

Basically every system will have memory issues less [insert favorite console name] which will have super duper special compression (e.g. 3Dc). Get it... ha ha... ha...

Ok, NEVERMIND!

 

[jvd]

Basically every system will have memory issues less [insert favorite console name] which will have super duper special compression (e.g. 3Dc). Get it... ha ha... ha...

well its 6am here and i haven't slept so mabye its me

But i'm pretty sure both the ns5 and xenon will have 3Dc as i mean wtf wouldn't they , ati made both and made 3Dc and it was in last years pc part . on the flip side the ps3 may also have 3Dc as there is no fee to use it .

I think we can agree that all consoles will have memory problems even if they have a gig of memory and have all the fancy compresion schemes . THat still doesn't mean we can't tlak about the compresion schemes we know about correct ?

 

[Acert93]

Of course not I am totally behind 3Dc (and as you note ATi made it available as an open standard I would expect nVidia to use it unless they have something better) and think it is great. I was just playing off the doom and gloom "your system stinks" as a pre-emptive "X2 sucks, it cannot even handle an engine that is designed to work on it" type talk--oh, and it was meant to be funny, which it was not, so here we are talking my silling comment seriously

 

[London Geezer]

You can edit my posts here, hairy bitch but u cant on the General Forum MWAHAHAHA

 

[Acert93]

I wet my bed still.

ewwww MS and Nintendo are shaking their boots...

No, really, I think they are.

EDIT: What? Your post did not say that earlier! Btw, way more info than I needed to know... sometimes LB, it is best to keep stuff like that to yourself