Support NeoGAF

[dorio]

You heard it hear first Johnny, a fuckload. Back to you.

:lol

 

[sonycowboy]

you might look at Xbox1 vs Xbox 360 and go, 'oh, Xbox 360 looks like it is 5 times more powerful than Xbox1 because i see 100M polygons/sec compared to 500M polygons/sec' ....but that does not tell the whole story. Xbox1's claimed 100M sustained polygon/sec performance is far less likely in real games (its PR bullshit) than Xbox 360's 500M sustained polygon/sec performance.

I am SOOOOO glad that the PR crap is gone now. I'm ready for 500M polygons/sec and it's good to see the system can really do it.

 

[Warm Machine]

The streaming engine has probably gotten better and the memory allowed is higher.

Imagine this (not necessarily representational of exactly what they are doing)...

You have 50 megs to build a 50 mile square city with. You use all 50 megs in one shot for the whole city. The city as a result is pretty low poly.

Later you have the ability to stream in the city 5 megs at a time in physical chunks of 1 mile square. My math here is probably crap but that means the overall city is now 250 megs in size, and so it goes on.

Basically, sometimes memory is the limiting factor and sometimes raw poly pushing is the limiting factor to what you see on screen. If your machine can theoretically draw millions of polys but the memory on the machine only allows for a solid environment of 500,000 polys you get clever with how memory is managed with streaming buffers and instanced geometry.

 

[Dice]

Yeah, and doesn't it have way better z-buffering so not to waste geometry?

 

[Beer Monkey]

Don't forget that we're rendering to a higher resolution now.

Xbox 1 games typically rendered to a 307,200 pixel output (640x480).
360 games will typically render to a 921,600 pixel output (1280x720). Three times the size.

I'm not sure how frame buffers for these resolutions are typically implemented in consoles in terms of double-buffering, z-buffering, etc.

Xbox 1 could do 32 bpp, but is that typical in many games?

 

[gofreak]

Xbox2 / Xenon / Xbox 360 with ATI R500 'Xenos' GPU @ 500 MHz

1.5 billion verts per second (because of triangle setup limit)

It's still 500m vertices per sec, not 1.5bn. 500m triangles per sec ~= 500m vertices per sec. Each vertex in a triangle is not unique. Most vertices in a mesh are shared.

Xbox1's claimed 100M sustained polygon/sec performance is far less likely in real games (its PR bullshit) than Xbox 360's 500M sustained polygon/sec performance.

A dev on B3D ventured to guess that it could sustain its peak rate with Xbox1-level shaders, so I doubt you'll see that kind of peak in actual games.

But yeah, of course it's a lot more than Xbox either way.

For comparison sake, RSX should be able to process ~ 1.18B verticies per sec but at that rate it would also be able to perform pixel shading at the same time, unlike Xenos/C1..

I'm guessing that's the G70 figure linearly scaled up to 550Mhz? I'm not sure if it was clarified if that was the triangle setup rate or total processing.

Xbox 1 could do 32 bpp, but is that typical in many games?

It is quite - you won't see 16bit framebuffers next gen, I don't think. 64-bit framebuffers will be fairly common with the next-gen systems too.

 

[Warm Machine]

On smooth surfaces with a single textured material verticies are shared but on a flat shaded cube textured to represent a building each quad has to be broken apart to create the facet.

A change in material from one tri to the next will also seperate the verts. Flipped edges will also do this. Basically there are about 5 or 6 things that can happen to bust apart verts. Developers do their best to create unbroken tri-strips but it is mostly unavoidable.

 

[gofreak]

On smooth surfaces with a single textured material verticies are shared but on a flat shaded cube textured to represent a building each quad has to be broken apart to create the facet.

A change in material from one tri to the next will also seperate the verts. Flipped edges will also do this. Basically there are about 5 or 6 things that can happen to bust apart verts. Developers do their best to create unbroken tri-strips but it is mostly unavoidable.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure for the purposes of peak figures, they treat in a way that makes it sound as impressive as possible. 500m triangles sounds better than 500m vertices, and it can be technically true that 500m vertices ~= 500m triangles. If their setup engine can process 500m vertices per sec, they're not going to say 500m/3 triangles if they can say 500m

 

[Gregory]

Propably way less than they would claim.

I find it funny that Model 3 pushed 1 million, yet games today apparantly push 50-60 millions?
It certainly doesn`t look like it. Polygons means nothing.

 

[OmniGamer]

Propably way less than they would claim.

I find it funny that Model 3 pushed 1 million, yet games today apparantly push 50-60 millions?
It certainly doesn`t look like it. Polygons means nothing.

What games today push 50-60 Million PPS?

 

[dark10x]

Propably way less than they would claim.

I find it funny that Model 3 pushed 1 million, yet games today apparantly push 50-60 millions?
It certainly doesn`t look like it. Polygons means nothing.

Whoa, I think you have confused yourself here...

50-60 million? Where on earth did you get that number?

Games today are most certainly not pushing geometry at that level...

 

[Mallrat83]

Propably way less than they would claim.

I find it funny that Model 3 pushed 1 million, yet games today apparantly push 50-60 millions?
It certainly doesn`t look like it. Polygons means nothing.

Are you saying that Model 3 games hold up to the games of today graphically?