Advice sought on building a PC that can compete with next gen consoles (PS4, X720) Page 3

  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 21:20:47
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @vizzini so explain (briefly) how the ps4 architecture, which is based on existing PC tech will be affected by this. If its the same essential setup it will be similar at voxel performance and the PC specified will match it or more so.

    Besides which, even if voxels and an appropriate architecture DO become standard, it will take at least 4-5 for the setups to become commonplace and mass market. The existing systems will still provide a great performance for a long time.
    The PS4 has much more in common with the Xeon-phi co-processor boards than a modern day PC (like the one you are evangelising the OP to buy).

    That's the point of the 8gb of GDDR5 in both PS4/Xeon-phi and the similar performance/flexibility and high memory bandwidth. One has double the memory bandwidth and the other has twice the teraflops performance at the cost being suited to gaming instead of a supercomputer, but both are similarly alien in performance setup compared to a PC, in spite of all three being x86 based.

    Intel are clearly on a different page to Nvidia, who are on a slightly different page to AMD, who are on slightly different page to Sony, and Sony seem to agree on quite a few things with Intel. And all the main next-gen engines (about to release)are implying they are based on that voxel/contour setup from what I've read on the internet. All to avoid the ridiculous overdraw problems shown in the DF x3 titan PC running Crysis.

    Maybe it will all go badly and voxels will fail again, but I wouldn't bet a £900 PC on it.
  • RobTheBuilder 14 Apr 2013 22:05:03 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini ok, if all that is accurate I can see more of a case, but even so the follow through of that architecture to standard desktop level is likely to be 4-5 years, as PC developers are unlikely to risk their entire audience by developing a title with no scale back to the current architecture.

    I think a PC at £800-900 is as much power you can buy for a reasonable price, and even if voxels become more widely used as you discuss, there will still be three-four years of very high level PC gaming from it.
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 22:20:59 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    VOXELS!

    Utter bollocks.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 22:23:05
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @vizzini ok, if all that is accurate I can see more of a case, but even so the follow through of that architecture to standard desktop level is likely to be 4-5 years, as PC developers are unlikely to risk their entire audience by developing a title with no scale back to the current architecture.

    I think a PC at £800-900 is as much power you can buy for a reasonable price, and even if voxels become more widely used as you discuss, there will still be three-four years of very high level PC gaming from it.
    But all PC developers target console specs, so multi platform games(UE4 especially if voxels) will favour the design setup of the PS4 in this scenario, so the PC version will be scaled back on the £900 PC (celeron i5, Gtx 680). So the eighth(edit) of the memory bandwidth, only twice the graphics fillrate to operate on a quarter of the voxel memory, and only twice the CPU performance to shuttle four times the data to and from RAM and VRAM. I still don't think it meets the criteria, even if it plays all the old UE3 games that you can play on 360 or PS3 slightly better than PS4 and Durango.

    “Advice sought on building a PC that can compete with next gen consoles (PS4, X720)“

    Edited by vizzini at 22:47:00 14-04-2013
  • Rodpad 14 Apr 2013 22:30:10 1,931 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    You really think the GDDR5 system memory is going to make up for it's low performance GPU compared to say a PC with a GTX 670 or AMD 7970?

    Don't be fucking mental.

    Edited by Roddles at 22:30:55 14-04-2013
  • RobTheBuilder 14 Apr 2013 22:36:46 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini but that's presuming

    1. Voxels take off hugely and across all developers, which is unlikely to happen let alone in 2-3 years.

    2. All publishers make lazy PC ports instead of retooling the games for PC architecture. Even if voxels did become the new benchmark, publishers aren't going to ignore the 90% of PC owners who are tooled for it, and performance will be comparable with PS4 just in a different way.

    The odds of a i5 4ghz with a 670 or two being anything but a very solid gaming PC for a minimum of 4 years are so long that I don't think it's even worth discussing. Even if voxels do arrive, they won't be the standard until long after that.
  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 22:43:17
    @Roddles

    I was as sceptical as you. But after reading that pdf in full on voxel/contours and how it removes the chronic overdraw bottleneck that is spectacularly displayed on the £5,000 3x titan DF PC running Crysis I'm now convinced.

    Take a look at these Fox engine analysis pictures.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-04-fox-engine-gallery-photo-capture

    I'll be surprised if this isn't how their engine toolchain is converting existing polygon mesh assets into presumably voxel equivalents, by augmenting a voxel mesh from each of the virtual camera viewpoints of the polygon mesh.
  • Khanivor 14 Apr 2013 22:45:57 40,861 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    But but ding ding tickets please
  • ibenam 14 Apr 2013 22:46:40 1,439 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Skirlasvoud after seeing this thread collapse into a "Vizzini" thread :
    -
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 22:49:41 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Voxels and point sprites have an extremely niche use and are extremely limited by not being able to animate them, meaning their only workable purpose is for destructible terrain and architecture. Polygon mesh will still be king for a long time to come due to it's lower performance impact and much higher graphical quality and texturing.

    As for the PS4's architecture being anything different, it's irrelevant as all game design will be based on the same tools and x86 apis that PC games use.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • RobTheBuilder 14 Apr 2013 22:50:28 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @ibenam for once I think he asks a reasonable question, but I think he is reading far too much importance into voxels. Regardless of them the machine specified will be a great gaming PC
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 22:53:01 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    You can tell vizzini knows a bit about hardware, but absolutely sod all about software, and watching him try to fill in the gaps with clueless conjecture is bloody hilarious.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 22:54:34
    @Dirtbox

    If you still think the same after you've read the paper, then fine. But at least make the effort to read and understand the paper if you can ;).
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 22:59:10 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Doesn't change the fact that you can't animate them.

    BTW, the FOX engine hasn't got anything to do with voxels.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 23:00:39 14-04-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 23:00:41
    Why are you talking about voxels? They had their chance and they blew it.

    @ mental vizzini

    Edited by Aargh. at 23:01:14 14-04-2013
  • Maturin 14 Apr 2013 23:03:49 3,033 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Ooh voxels.  Time for a Delta Force sequel.  :)
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 23:04:35 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I wouldn't say voxels blew it, it's more that they have to be used in a way that they're actually useful and only Minecraft has ever really managed to play to their strengths.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 23:10:50
    So that's a No to reading the Nvidia 2010 paper then?

    Your point about animation isn't really that relevant, as most of the work done (and wasteful overdraw) in rendering is of assets that don't move. So rendering polygons for foreground animations is fine, as it allows for accelerating the ray-casting even more (by removing rays where opaque framebuffer pixels already exist). Using voxels for background animation would be efficient, either by having low fidelity voxel data for each animation frame streamed in from disc/disk, or updating the low fidelity representation in situ.

    Edited by vizzini at 23:13:36 14-04-2013
  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 23:24:43
    I wish the assburgers anonymous meetings would stop crashing these random threads.
  • cubbymoore 14 Apr 2013 23:28:10 36,497 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Maturin wrote:
    Ooh voxels.  Time for a Delta Force sequel.  :)
    YES. IMAGINE THE MAP SIZES.
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 23:29:50 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I had no idea you were refering to that, yeah, I read it a few years ago and watched pretty much everything about it become quickly obsolete. Efficient sparse voxel octrees and voxels aren't quite the same thing, but good work mangling your context. They're still pointless and will always be pointless. IIRC, they had a demo with the interior of a small building like a church and it was something along the lines of 30gb of data.

    It's like that chump a couple of years back with Unlimited Detail that was trying to sell point sprites to the world, extolling all the virtues and completely ignoring all the drawbacks. Such as MASSIVE data requirements and, of course, no animation at all.

    I don't know how you're so naive as to think that game development is going to change in such a radical way overnight just because you read some outdated nonsense about an experimental graphical technique.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 23:39:57 14-04-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 14 April 2013 23:41:51
    Dirtbox wrote:
    I had no idea you were refering to that, yeah, I read it a few years ago and watched pretty much everything about it become quickly obsolete. Efficient sparse voxel octrees and voxels aren't quite the same thing, but good work mangling your context. They're still pointless and will always be pointless. IIRC, they had a demo with the interior of a small building like a church and it was something along the lines of 30gb of data.

    It's like that chump a couple of years back with Unlimited Detail that was trying to sell point sprites to the world, extolling all the virtues and completely ignoring all the drawbacks. Such as MASSIVE data requirements and, of course, no animation at all.

    I don't know how you're so naive as to think that game development is going to change in such a radical way overnight just because you read some outdated nonsense about an experimental graphical technique.
    So you haven't read it and are now claiming either reading incompetence of my comments or claiming to have read something you haven't? The conversion of polygon data to voxel/contour was 1.5bytes to 5bytes, eg 3.3 times the amount. So 2GB of gddr5 might become 6.67gb. Sound familiar?

    Maybe you can shed some light on why nvidia's website piece on UE4 directs people to that document if it is all irrelevant as you wildly claim?
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 23:48:54 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Because it's using voxel cone tracing for the lighting.

    Not modeling. Lighting.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 23:51:00 14-04-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • RobTheBuilder 14 Apr 2013 23:54:59 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Because it's using voxel cone tracing for the lighting.

    Not modeling. Lighting.
    Ouch.
  • webespresso 14 Apr 2013 23:56:38 89 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Dirtbox is right here. SVO's are essentially static for all intents and purposes. There is some work done on Animating SVO's though, but the only paper I've seen written on it was by a final year University student.
  • SpaceDave3000 14 Apr 2013 23:58:00 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Vizzini clearly doesn't understand anything about yet another subject that he's claiming expertise in.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 15 April 2013 00:03:37
    vizzini wrote:
    Your point about animation isn't really that relevant, as most of the work done (and wasteful overdraw) in rendering is of assets that don't move. So rendering polygons for foreground animations is fine, as it allows for accelerating the ray-casting even more (by removing rays where opaque framebuffer pixels already exist). Using voxels for background animation would be efficient, either by having low fidelity voxel data for each animation frame streamed in from disc/disk, or updating the low fidelity representation in situ.
    @webespresso

    Was I really disagreeing about animation?
  • SpaceDave3000 15 Apr 2013 00:10:24 78,285 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Either way, they aren't using it for modeling anything, vizzini. Nice work fundamentally misunderstanding it all though. Haven't you been flapping that pdf around for a couple of weeks now as if it's the future of graphical technology or something? lmao

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • webespresso 15 Apr 2013 00:17:29 89 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @vizzini

    apparently not.
  • Skirlasvoud 15 Apr 2013 00:19:01 233 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    ibenam wrote:
    Skirlasvoud after seeing this thread collapse into a "Vizzini" thread :
    *CENSORED*
    Eeewwww, no, thank you for the mental image.


    I don't get what the animosity between people is about, but I appreciate all the input nonetheless. :-) To a layman such as me, you're all champions of hardware specs.

    I'm more like this when pouring over the articles:




    To me, voxels sound more like something out of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, but I'll give it an unbiased look-over on the internet.

    Call me pedantic and a fool, but for now I'll stick to the fancy words I do know and the odds that I'll go with RobtheBuilder's rig in two months are overwhelming. :-P

    Edited by Skirlasvoud at 00:21:15 15-04-2013
  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

Log in or register to reply