Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [EuroGamer] Inside the next Xbox: Project Scorpio tech revealed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[EuroGamer] Inside the next Xbox: Project Scorpio tech revealed - Page 27

post #261 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

None of these superseded high-end PCs at the time of their launch, though a few were close.
No it wasn't. I had an N64 shortly after release, and while some titles were impressive, it was never really a graphical rival to the best available PC hardware.

When N64 launched I had been playing Quake and Mechwarrior II at 1024*768 for for a year (I had a Pentium 75 @ 100MHz and a decent Tseng Labs graphics accelerator in 1995). Nintendo 64 was never able to come close to that and the only games that rivaled the IQ of the more impressive pre-3D acceleration 3D DOS titles had to be run at 320*240 on N64.
Really curious how you were playing Quake a year before the N64 came out, when they both launched within one day of each other in 1996 rolleyes.gif

Also super curious how you were playing Quake 1 @ 1024x768 in 1995 on a Pentium 75 with a Tseng Labs card. Considering Tseng Labs only made 2D accelerators, and Quake 1 will barely manage 20 FPS in software mode at 320x200 on a Pentium 75, nevermind 1024x768.

http://thandor.net/benchmark/33
post #262 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Really curious how you were playing Quake a year before the N64 came out, when they both launched within one day of each other in 1996 rolleyes.gif

Also super curious how you were playing Quake 1 @ 1024x768 in 1995 on a Pentium 75 with a Tseng Labs card. Considering Tseng Labs only made 2D accelerators, and Quake 1 will barely manage 20 FPS in software mode at 320x200 on a Pentium 75, nevermind 1024x768.

http://thandor.net/benchmark/33

Lol
post #263 of 543
I was still using a 386DX 33MHz on Win3.1 back in 1995 so I can't say much about high end PC's back then but I know the N64 was lauded as the most powerful gaming machine at the time. Wasn't it also the first to do 64-bit?
post #264 of 543
theres no possible way this will be 4k 60fps. for those that have mentioned that 1080ti can barely do it in some games. this be will upscaled just the p4 pro. I just benched ghost recon @4k Ultra with not one BUT TWO Titan Xp that I got today. sli doesn't scale in game but with one and overclocked I got 44fps. not happening on console maybe two more generations. maybe
Aurora B
(18 photos)
  
Reply
Aurora B
(18 photos)
  
Reply
post #265 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

Do better than what I did. So far you are making stuff up.

Until then...

Making stuff up?

It is actually a fact that the Xenon processor uses three, dual-issue, in order, cores vs. two, much wider, out-of-order, three issue cores in an Athlon 64 X2. It's a fact that it has 165 million transistors vs. 233 million in an Athlon 64 X2. It's a fact that they were made on similar processes by similarly (at the time) capable companies. It's also a fact that the console CPUs were low power parts.

If you think a low power part with 65% of the transistor count is going to outperform a larger part of a contemporaneous architecture on a similar process with four times the power consumption, as a general purpose CPU, you're insane.

Saying the XBox 360 Xenon is faster than an Athlon 64 X2 is like saying the Pentium N3530 is faster than an i3- because it's got more cores.

The Xenon was 2005's Jaguar equivalent. Multiple, slow, low-power cores to do what needs to be done in a console while fitting in power, cooling, and budgetary needs...not some fantastical, physics defying super-chip. Impressive, in many ways, to be sure, but it was never going to be a faster general purpose CPU than the leading desktop x86 parts of the time, which lacked such constrains.

Some architectural details:

https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/06/xbox360-2/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/3

http://gprime.net/board/showthread.php?t=5989

Some benchmarks of the PPEs in the Xenon and the Cell BE:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090725004016/http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance


In the end you have a part whose cores are weaker than a Pentium 4 core and that will never come anywhere near it's theoretical performance figures except in perfectly optimized vector code...which does not exist.

Using those GFLOPs figures is even worse than trying to use LINPACK performance to compare processor performance on PC. My 5820K is four times as fast in LINPACK as my X5670 at the exact same clock speeds, and twice as fast as my 4930K. There is essentially no real-world application that will show anywhere near that differential. Theoretical GFLOPS figures are even more useless, as they aren't derived from any actual benchmark, synthetic or not...they take the clock speed and retire rate of the biggest VMX instructions the part can do and just multiply them together...not even the most synthetic benchmarks will reach those figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Really curious how you were playing Quake a year before the N64 came out, when they both launched within one day of each other in 1996 rolleyes.gif

Demo came out in February 1996. So I was off a bit, but this was still well before the N64 launch. I am recalling stuff I did more than twenty years ago here, so you'll have to forgive me being ~6 months off on some of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Also super curious how you were playing Quake 1 @ 1024x768 in 1995 on a Pentium 75 with a Tseng Labs card. Considering Tseng Labs only made 2D accelerators, and Quake 1 will barely manage 20 FPS in software mode at 320x200 on a Pentium 75, nevermind 1024x768.

http://thandor.net/benchmark/33

A good 2D accelerator made a big difference in Quake (which had no hardware acceleration on launch) and many other games.

Those benchmark results seem unusually low to me, though I never ran the timedemos (im not sure they were in the demo), I used 'timerefresh' at the difficulty/chapter select stage, which was pretty demanding. At stock a Pentium 75 at 320x240 would pull in more than 30 fps with even a mediocre 2D accelerator.

At 100MHz + with a good 2D accelerator, I recall the game was smooth at 640x480 and mostly playable at 1024x768.

Edit: Take a look at the second part of the benchmarks you posted. Those are mostly 2D accelerators and in the case of the 3D ones, the 3D component wasn utilized...the CPU used is shown in parenthesis.

Those figures look plausible and I may have been using a faster CPU than my OCed Pentium 75 by late 1996. My next part was a Pentium 200MMX that I ran at 266MHz, but I'm not sure if that was 96 or 97.

Edit2: Fount my receipt folder...it wasn't until early 1997 that I purchased the Pentium 200MMX, so I still had the 100MHz P5 part when N64 dropped.

Edit3: Compared 'timerrefresh' at the start of the game to the timedemos and the time demos are indeed slower, but probably a better representation of some of the most demanding areas. I was probably using 512*384 or 640*480 to get Quake playable on my late 1995 setup. Regardless, this was not the fastest PC available at the N64 launch, and still ran Quake better than the N64 version that didn't show up until 1998, which had to be downgraded relative to the original PC version of two years prior because of lack of RAM and storage.
Edited by Blameless - 4/11/17 at 12:13am
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #266 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

I was still using a 386DX 33MHz on Win3.1 back in 1995 so I can't say much about high end PC's back then but I know the N64 was lauded as the most powerful gaming machine at the time. Wasn't it also the first to do 64-bit?

I was a bit more reckless with my money, and a bit more prolific with my video gaming purchases, at the time and usually had pretty high-end setups.

The Nintendo 64 was powerful and, especially prior to release, (when it was called the Ultra 64) had specs that seemed incredible at the time. It was also the first console that actually had 64-bit registers, yes.

However, these were the days when we went from 100MHz to 1GHz x86 CPUs with three times the IPC in the span of five years, and by the time the N64 actually launched, there was no way for it to match what a high-end gaming PC could do.

If you had a top-shelf gaming PC at the end of 1996 you had a P54C @ 200MHz (more if you were an OCer, or maybe even a Pentium Pro if you were loaded) 32MiB of EDO memory, an ET6000 2d accelerator, and the first incarnation of a 3DFx Voodoo...and nothing the N64 ever had would match the performance or graphical fidelity of the games that took advantage of that hardware.

Edit: Some info on the MIPS 4300, which was the CPU used in the Nintendo 64..

http://www.alexvoica.com/great-mips-chips-of-the-past-30-years/
http://www.cpushack.com/MIPSCPU.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=v5YwX3auv0cC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=MIPS+R4000&source=bl&ots=8iw0gRsx97&sig=HOXuQk-vJBp0ZB76I0jy1ayeHQs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjZmb5pvTAhUIxoMKHS0wBd0Q6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=MIPS%20R4000&f=false

Theoretical performance was on par or slightly below that of the Pentium of similar clock speed and looked so impressive at the time it was originally nnounced because the fastest Pentium was a hot running 66MHz part. The P54C was contemporaneous with the actual release, and had more theoretical performance, but was still higher power.

Trying to find some Windows NT benchmarks of MIPS 4000 series systems, but I'm not having much luck.
Edited by Blameless - 4/10/17 at 11:55pm
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #267 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbravo33 View Post

theres no possible way this will be 4k 60fps. for those that have mentioned that 1080ti can barely do it in some games. this be will upscaled just the p4 pro. I just benched ghost recon @4k Ultra with not one BUT TWO Titan Xp that I got today. sli doesn't scale in game but with one and overclocked I got 44fps. not happening on console maybe two more generations. maybe

"Ultra" settings is just there to waste your money, I'm sure Nvidia absolutely adores developers and benchmarking websites for using the Ultra preset so much.
Do yourself a favor and go through the settings menu and look at the performance hit that every setting incurs, mark how much FPS overhead you get at lowest settings, and then spend your available performace until you have an average 60fps.
Your game is now optimized to run at 4K 60, and you didn't even have to complain to the developers.

Chances are anyone with anything better than a 970 can hit 4K60 on most games.
post #268 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

"Ultra" settings is just there to waste your money, I'm sure Nvidia absolutely adores developers and benchmarking websites for using the Ultra preset so much.
Do yourself a favor and go through the settings menu and look at the performance hit that every setting incurs, mark how much FPS overhead you get at lowest settings, and then spend your available performace until you have an average 60fps.
Your game is now optimized to run at 4K 60, and you didn't even have to complain to the developers.

Chances are anyone with anything better than a 970 can hit 4K60 on most games.

While I agree that there are generally rapidly diminishing returns as on jacks up IQ presets, some of these changes are still better than the improvement of increasing resolution.

I don't really consider anything outside of GP102 parts to be "4K" capable as the only reason I'd be running 4K is to improve IQ, and the trade offs required for many games run on GPUs with performance less than this, aren't ones I'm willing to make.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #269 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

"Ultra" settings is just there to waste your money, I'm sure Nvidia absolutely adores developers and benchmarking websites for using the Ultra preset so much.
Do yourself a favor and go through the settings menu and look at the performance hit that every setting incurs, mark how much FPS overhead you get at lowest settings, and then spend your available performace until you have an average 60fps.
Your game is now optimized to run at 4K 60, and you didn't even have to complain to the developers.

Chances are anyone with anything better than a 970 can hit 4K60 on most games.

While I agree that there are generally rapidly diminishing returns as on jacks up IQ presets, some of these changes are still better than the improvement of increasing resolution.

I don't really consider anything outside of GP102 parts to be "4K" capable as the only reason I'd be running 4K is to improve IQ, and the trade offs required for many games run on GPUs with performance less than this, aren't ones I'm willing to make.

In terms of consumer PC parts, yes you run up with a lot of problems on older hardware, but it's mostly a bandwidth and compatibility problem.
The Xbox One and PS4 could have had full 4K compatibility if the display market had been ready in time.

The farce of the situation is that just about every time I hear someone say that they would rather have other things instead of 4K, most of the stuff on their list is CPU bound (physics, draw calls) or memory bound (textures).
If you took a high quality game and optimized it from the ground up for both 1080p and 4K, and sat an average person down in front of both versions, I guarantee the vast majority of people would rather play the 4K game.

Quite frankly, as far as I can tell developers just don't know how to practically use the power available in any meaningful way right now, 4K is the best option even in games that don't have any shooting or pointing mechanics, graphical effects just need to be produced for that target spec and performace will be fine.

If someone could demonstrate some amazing new game design that absolutely needed to be run below 1080p then I would gladly make that sacrifice, but that certainly has not happened in this generation, and with the way computer architecture is bottlenecked on the CPU right now (not just on consoles) it probably never will happen. Moving forward the disparity in the pace of GPU and CPU progress is only going to get bigger.
After messing around with 8K supersampling for the last year, it looks like we're a lot closer to 8K gaming than even I had anticipated.
If the current industry practices with production methods and game design keep going as they are, I'm betting 8K gaming is almost an inevitability if for no other reason than that people just can't think of anything else to do.
Edited by ILoveHighDPI - 4/11/17 at 3:59am
post #270 of 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

If you took a high quality game and optimized it from the ground up for both 1080p and 4K, and sat an average person down in front of both versions, I guarantee the vast majority of people would rather play the 4K game.

I'd probably rather play the 1440p game, as that's where my ability to resolve fine details at the screen sizes/view distances I prefer starts to taper off.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [EuroGamer] Inside the next Xbox: Project Scorpio tech revealed