[IGN] Report: PS4 Dev Kits Surface - Page 42  

Hehe - I'm not the betting kind of guy although if I would I would have no problems taking such bet as probability of loss would be very small in my understanding. Afterall all it would take would be one game over the next 5 - 10 years on that console to be in native 4K mode and its good probability that some will - if for nothing else then for marketing reasons.

You know that even one of my 6970s just shrugs off 3x1080 eyefinity minecraft, right? Even a 6870 shrugs it off as i saw on axipher's rig at Extravalanza. And you think a 7850 cant do it? You are very much overestimating the power indie games take.

Being fair, I'm seriously doubting the BF3 numbers posted earlier here...Either my HD7850 runs way faster than most others or nVidia has way faster performance in BF3 because my 470 was pulling higher numbers than that at similar settings with an AMD setup, and the HD7850 is faster than it.

Yeah...Just like how nothing was going to support 1080i in the PS2 generation, right? Some games will support it because for that particular game it's a cheap marketing bullet point even if only 0.5% of customers use it.

The HD7850 runs it at 120FPS at 3840*1080, guess what the FPS is at 1920*1080? 120fps. Minecraft could easily be ran at 4K with stock textures, etc.

Minecraft supports 4K out of the box, it also supports 8K and really any resolution your display is capable of thanks to the interface scaling as necessary. Minecraft is heavily CPU limited and that doesn't really increase as the resolution does, if there's Minecraft on the PS4 you can bet that eventually down the line (Assuming Notch/Jeb/Dinnerbone are actually actively working on it and not passing it off to a 3rd party ala the Xbox 360 version) that it'd have 4K support.
What about purely 2D games? Or games that just don't have that many polygons? You have to be kidding me if you think a HD6550D, let alone a HD7850 wouldn't support a game like Osmos at 4K.

You're also seriously under-estimating the power of the HD7850 and how well it scales with res..Adding in the HD6550D for FXAA, Hybrid CFX, etc just adds to this. There definitely will be at least one game that is 4K supported.

And you're very much under estimating Indie developers, you give them a machine with a 6x power jump and expect them to not use it?

You will not see any games in 4k next generation, mark my words... Even from a coding point of view it's extra work that would not be worth it.

/me looks at minecraft

No, I'm not. Minecraft does not use all my CPU, it does not use anywhere close to even half my GPU. It has been that way since day 1.

You are showing your ignorance in thinking that everyone everywhere will max out everything, and to top it off, you're being incredibly stupid in trying to do so while the topic is on minecraft of all games.

I told Minecraft to go all out on my 6970. Guess what:



Oh that's right! I'm CPU limited! 200 FPS at 6020x1080, and my GPU wasn't even breaking a sweat since it was only at 43% usage for this. That gives me a theoretical max of 463 FPS at 6020x1080 if I didn't have a CPU bottleneck.

Now, according to the wiki, 4k is 3840 × 2160. Alright, So. 8294400 pixels vs my 6501600.

6501600 / 8294400 = 0.7838 x 463 = 362.9
(for those who want to keep track, this is well over half, I'm still CPU limited to 200 FPS)

That's serious overkill. But wait! We're doing this on a 7850, not a 6970!

Well I'm lazy, so I'll use HWCompare. http://www.hwcompare.com/12075/radeon-hd-6970-vs-radeon-hd-7850/

Hmm... That puts the 7850 53% of the 6970 at it's absolute weakest point. Realistically speaking, since MC doesn't have any anisotropic filtering, lets call it 30% weaker on the whole.

So after my e-peen recovers, lets do a .7 x 362.9.

254.

Ok, well.... I'm still CPU bottlenecked into 200FPS. Even with a 7850 at 4K.

So Minecraft could run at 4K 60FPS even with just an A10 and 7850, using under 25% of the GPU, and around 40% of the CPU.

But ya, no games ever will run 4K.
Edited by KyadCK - 11/15/12 at 2:47am

Minecraft is often CPU-limited because of all the occlusion culling calculations it has to do. It's a very special case, as most games don't have to do nearly as much culling calculations each frame. Minecraft running at 4K isn't much more expensive than running it at 1080p. Yes you'll need 4x the fillrate just like any other game, but most other games are using a lot more complicated pixel shading to begin with, so having 4x more is usually a deal breaker.

You guys do realize with all the console specific black magic , device specific coding devs bring out, this may be able to rival some mid-high range hardware right?

I mean, show me a graphics card from 2005 that can run anything even remotely like Uncharted 3, (a low-medium setting) Crysis 2, etc.

The point is, with optimization, the devs don't need a while lot of brute strength.

Ya, that was kinda the point. But Minecraft is not special in being an Indie game that does not demand 100% of everything.

If you do the math, the CPU of an A10 is more then capable of producing 60FPS with cycles to spare, and Mojang doesn't go and push it harder just because of that, as almighty15 implied indie devs do.

Not to mention that if the console manufacturer has a goal in mind, they can manipulate the hardware in ways we can only dream of to achieve it. When you say "we want 50,000,000 units over five years" I'm sure the chip manufacturer will bend over backwards to help achieve your goals.