70°

Deus Ex Human revolution off-screen PC video

Here you can see two videos from PC version of DX:HR presented on AMD technology day, it plays with mouse and seems to have a different interface from console versions. The first part is the presentation, the second one is gameplay. The game also features DX11 support as well as eyefinity.

Read Full Story >>
gamevideos.1up.com
pr0digyZA4950d ago

Definitely one of my most anticipated games for next year, PC version is looking very nice.

Pandamobile4950d ago (Edited 4950d ago )

Jesus Christ, that NPC has more polygons than Nathan Drake.

edit:

Knowing N4G, this will be enough to spark a flame war. G'night :)

Eamon4949d ago

It seems to still be calm. It's because the Sony fanboys don't click on any article that isn't exclusive

ProjectVulcan4949d ago (Edited 4949d ago )

Even without tesselation it has a lot of geometry. Good. Its about time some multiplat games started using the PC performance available to them. More resolution and better framerate is good, but it should be more, there should be better geometry and textures at every turn.

Traditionally Pc games used to have different geometry levels, and massively higher than the consoles of the time. Three years ago crysis could peak over 3 million polygons per frame, nothing can realistically match that on console. Most of these multiplats nowadays though use identical geometry from the lowest setting to the highest settings and just adjust the texture or shader effects.

Meaning even on maximum settings, the game still has circles that look like hexagons even though a good PC can knock out huge amounts of triangles.

Pandamobile4949d ago

Yeah, the amount of geometry a midrange GPU can pump out nowadays is absolutely ridiculous.

humbleopinion4948d ago

I wass pretty much sure that Crysis could push way over 3 Million Polygons. Halo Reach for example is a console game, and Bungie already mentioned that the game itself peaks at 4 Million polygons *more than Halo 3*.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010...

So considering that, I would expect a PC game like Crysis to push an even higher number overall. Modern graphic cards can do more than that, but you need a strong art/modeling team to back that performance up.

ProjectVulcan4948d ago (Edited 4948d ago )

There is a difference between the figure i quoted and what Bungie were talking about. I was talking about PER FRAME, i.e, what can be seen on screen, in a single rendered frame. A fast PC could manage say 40+ frames a second at that load depending on resolution, meaning well over 120 million polygons a second.

Considering that the peak THEORETICAL (peak theoretical meaning absolutely perfect situation which never exists in 3D rendering) maximum of PS3's RSX rendering nothing but simple polygons with no texturing, shading, NOTHING else related to running a game is little more than double that (275m polys/s), you can see how impressive cryengine 2 is on a powerful machine.

As you highlighted, Bungie actually used the phrase ''4m MORE than halo 3.'' Thats not entirely clear, but pretty much indicates they werent referring to polys/frame. Possibly it refers to polys/sec or environments/characters total, which of course you dont see every last bit of on screen at once, only a fraction of it. 4 million more polygons/sec accounts for 133k more polygons per frame for a 30 frame game like Halo Reach. Certainly that figure sounds realistic, achievable and reasonable especially looking at the baseline of Halo 3 which didnt exactly have the most complex geometry i ever saw....

A game like uncharted 2 peaks around 2m polygons per frame just for reference. So roughly 60 million polys/second, or half Crysis on a good PC.

Letros4950d ago

Good to see they are making use of PC tech, game looks fantastic. Nice Eyefinity setup they are running too =)

ALFAxD_CENTAURO4949d ago (Edited 4949d ago )

Yeah.

I just don't like some developers make use of Nvidia PhysX (which is nice Tech) in some games like Cryostasis, because the ATI Cards run the game with average FPS, the optimization is not good.

I hope developers don't make games that is meant to be played better (like PhysX) on Nvidia or ATI like I mentioned before.

Eyefinity looks good, and looks like this Tech won't compromise the optimization for Nvidia Cards.

tdogg060519914949d ago

I hate the fact that the charecters look beautiful but the mouths are so fridgid. Needs more work but yea ery sexy

Show all comments (16)
270°

AMD gaming revenue declined massively year-over-year, CFO says the demand is 'weak'

Poor Xbox sales have affected AMD’S bottom line

Read Full Story >>
tweaktown.com
RonsonPL10d ago

Oh wow. How surprising! Nvidia overpriced their RTX cards by +100% and AMD instead of offering real competition, decided to join Nvidia in their greedy approach, while not having the same mindshare as Nvidia (sadly) does. The 7900 launch was a marketing disaster. All the reviews were made while the card was not worth the money at all, they lowered the price a bit later on, but not only not enough but also too late and out of "free marketing" window coming along with the new card generation release. Then the geniuses at AMD axed the high-end SKUs with increased cache etc, cause "nobody will buy expensive cards to play games" while Nvidia laughed at them selling their 2000€ 4090s.
Intel had all the mindshare among PC enthusiasts with their CPUs. All it took was a competetive product and good price (Ryzen 7000 series and especially 7800x3d) and guess what? AMD regained the market share in DYI PCs in no time! The same could've have happened with Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000 and Radeon 7000.
But meh. Why bother. Let's cancell high-end RDNA 4 and use the TSMC wafers for AI and then let the clueless "analysts" make their articles about "gaming demand dwingling".

I'm sure low-end, very overpriced and barely faster if not slower RDNA4 will turn things around. It will have AI and RT! Two things nobody asked for, especially not gamers who'd like to use the PC for what's most exciting about PC gaming (VR, high framerate gaming, hi-res gaming).
8000 series will be slow, overpriced and marketed based on its much improved RT/AI... and it will flop badly.
And there will be no sane conclusions made at AMD about that. There will be just one, insane: Gaming is not worth catering to. Let's go into AI/RT instead, what could go wrong..."

Crows9010d ago

What would you say would be the correct pricing for new cards?

Very insightful post!

RonsonPL10d ago

That's a complicated question. Depends on what you mean. The pricing at the release date or the pricing planned ahead. They couldn't just suddenly end up in a situation where their existing stock of 6000 cards is suddenly unsellable, but if it was properly rolled out, the prices should be where they were while PC gaming industry was healthy. I recognize the arguments about inflation, higher power draw and PCB/BOM costs, more expensive wafers from TSMC etc. but still, PC gaming needs some sanity to exist and be healthy. Past few years were very unhealthy and dangerous to whole PC gaming. AMD should recognize this market is very good for them as they have advantage in software for gaming and other markets while attractive short term, may be just too difficult to compete at. AI is the modern day gold rush and Nvidia and Intel can easily out-spend AMD on R&D. Meanwhile gaming is tricky for newcomers and Nvidia doesn't seem to care that much about gaming anymore. So I would argue that it should be in AMDs interest to even sell some Radeon SKUs at zero profit, just to prevent the PC gaming from collapsing. Cards like 6400 and 6500 should never exist at their prices. This tier was traditionally "office only" and priced at 50$ in early 2000s. Then we have Radeons 7600 which is not really 6-tier card. Those were traditionally quite performant cards based on wider than 128-bit memory bus. Also 8GB is screaming "low end". So I'd say the 7600 should've been available at below 200$ (+taxes etc.) as soon as possible, at least for some cheaper SKUs.For faster cards, the situation is bad for AMD, because people spending like $400+ are usually fairly knowledgable and demanding. While personally I don't see any value in upscallers and RT for 400-700$ cards, the fact is that especially DLSS is a valuable feature for potential buyers. Therefore, even 7800 and 7900 cards should be significantly cheaper than they currently are. People knew what they were paying for when buying Radeon 9700, 9800, X800, 4870 etc. They were getting gaming experience truly unlike console or low-end PC gaming. By all means, let's have expensive AMD cards for even above $1000, but first, AMD needs to show value. Make the product attractive. PS5 consoles can be bought at 400$. If AMD offers just a slightly better upscalled image on the 400$ GPU, or their 900$ GPU cannot even push 3x as many fps compared to cheap consoles, the pricing acts like cancer on PC gaming. And poor old PC gaming can endure only so much.

MrCrimson10d ago

I appreciate your rant sir, but it has very little to do with gpus. It is the fact that the PS5 and Xbox are in end cycle before a refresh.

RonsonPL9d ago

Yes, but also no. AMD let their PC GPU marketshare to shrink by a lot (and accidentally helped the whole market shrink in general due to bad value of PC GPUs over the years) and while their console business may be important here, I'd still argue their profits from GPU division could've been much better if not for mismanagement.

bababooiy9d ago

This is something many have argued over the last few years when it comes to AMD. The days of them selling their cards at a slight discount while having a similar offering are over. Its not just a matter of poor drivers anymore, they are behind on everything.

RNTody9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

Great post. I went for a Nvidia RTX 3060Ti which was insane value for money when I look at the fidelity and frame rates I can push in most games including new releases. Can't justify spending 3 times what my card cost at the time to get marginal better returns or the big sell of "ray tracing", which is a nice to have feature but hardly essential given what it costs to maintain.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 9d ago
10d ago Replies(1)
KwietStorm_BLM10d ago

Well that's gonna happen when you don't really try. I want to support AMD so badly and give Nvidia some actual competition but they don't very much seem interested in challenging, by their own accord. I been waiting for them to attack the GPU segment the same way they took over CPU, but they just seem so content with handing Nvidia the market year after year, and it's happening again this year with their cancelled high end card.

MrCrimson10d ago

I think you're going to see almost zero interest from AMD or Nvidia on the gaming GPU market. They are all in on AI.

RhinoGamer8810d ago

No Executive bonuses then...right?

enkiduxiv10d ago

What are smoking? Got to layoff your way to those bonuses. Fire 500 employees right before Christmas. That should get you there.

Tapani10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

Well, if you are 48% down in Q4 in your Gaming sector as they are, which in absolute money terms is north of 500M USD, then you are not likely to get at least your quarterly STI, but can be applicable for annual STI. The LTI may be something you are still eligible for, such as RSUs or other equity and benefits, especially if they are based on the company total result rather than your unit. All depends on your contract and AMD's reward system.

MrCrimson10d ago

Lisa Su took AMD from bankruptcy to one of the best semiconductor companies on the planet. AMD from 2 dollars a share to 147. She can take whatever she wants.

Tapani9d ago

You are not wrong about what she did for AMD and that is remarkable. However, MNCs' Rewards schemes do not work like "take whatever you want, because you performed well in the past".

darksky10d ago

AMD prcied their cards thinking that they will sell out just like in the mining craze. I suspect reality has hit home when they realized most gamers cannot afford to spend over $500 for a gpu.

Show all comments (33)
100°

Make your next GPU upgrade AMD as these latest-gen Radeon cards receive a special promotion

AMD has long been the best value option if you're looking for a new GPU. Now even their latest Radeon RX 7000 series is getting cheaper.

Father__Merrin20d ago

Best for the money is the Arc cards

just_looken20d ago

In the past yes but last gen amd has gotten cheaper and there new cards are on the horizon making 6k even cheaper.

The arc cards are no longer made by intel but asus/asrock has some the next line battlemage is coming out prices tbd.

Do to the longer software development its always best to go amd over intel if its not to much more money even though intel is a strong gpu i own 2/4 card versions.

270°

AMD FSR 3.1 Announced at GDC 2024, FSR 3 Available and Upcoming in 40 Games

Last September, we unleashed AMD FidelityFX™ Super Resolution 3 (FSR 3)1 on the gaming world, delivering massive FPS improvements in supported games.

Read Full Story >>
community.amd.com
Eonjay51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

So to put 2 and 2 together... FSR 3.1 is releasing later this year and the launch game to support it is Rachet and Clank: Rift Apart. In Sony's DevNet documentation it shows Rachet and Clank: Rift Apart as the example for PSSR. PS5 Pro also launches later this year... but there is something else coming too: AMD RDNA 4 Cards (The very same technology thats in the Pro). So, PSSR is either FSR 3.1 or its a direct collaboration with AMD for that builds on FSR 3.1. Somehow they are related. I think PSSR is FSR 3.1 with the bonus of AI... now lets see if RDNA 4 cards also include an AI block.

More details:
FSR 3.1 fixes Frame Generation
If you have a 30 series RTX card you can now use DLSS3 with FSR Frame Generation (No 40 Series required!)
Its Available on all Cards (we assume it will come to console)
Fixes Temporal stability

MrDead50d ago

I've been using a mod that allows dlss frame gen on my 3080 it works on all rtx series. It'll be good not to rely on mods for the future.

darksky50d ago

The mods avaiable are actually using FSR3 frame gen but with DLSS or FSR2 upscaling.

Babadook750d ago (Edited 50d ago )

I think that the leaks about the 5 Pro would debunk the notion that the two (FSR 3.1 and PSSR) are the same technology. PSSR is a Sony technology.

MrDead51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

I wonder how much they fixed the ghosting in dark areas as Nvidia are leaving them in the dust with image quality. Still good that they are improving in big leaps, I'll have to see when the RTX5000 series is released who I go with... at the moment the RTX5000's are sounding like monsters.

just_looken50d ago

Did you see the dell leaks were they are trying to cool cards using over 1k watts of power.

We are going to need 220 lines for next gen pcs lol

MrDead50d ago

That's crazy! Sounds like heating my house won't be a problem next winter.

porkChop50d ago

As much as I hate supporting Nvidia, AMD just doesn't even try to compete. Their whole business model is to beat Nvidia purely on price. But I'd rather pay for better performance and better features. AMD also doesn't even try to innovate. They just follow Nvidia's lead and make their own version of whatever Nvidia is doing. But they're always 1 or 2 generations behind when it comes to those software/driver innovations, so Nvidia is always miles ahead in quality and performance.

MrDead50d ago

I do a lot of work on photoshop so an Intel Nvidia set up has been the got to because of performance edge, more expensive but far more stable too. Intel also have the edge over AMD processors with better load distribution on the cores, less spikes and jitters. When you're working large format you don't want lag or spikes when you're editing or drawing.

I do think AMD has improved massively though and whist I don't think they threaten Nvidia on the tech side they do make very well priced cards and processors for the power. I'm probably going with a 5080 or 5090 but AMD will get a little side look from me, which is a first in a long time... but like you said they are a generation or two behind at the moment.

Goosejuice49d ago

While I can't argue for amd gpu, they aren't bad but they aren't great either. The cpu for amd have great. I would argue the 7800x3d as one of the best cpu for gaming right now. Idk about editing so I take ur word for that but gaming amd cpu is a great option these days.

porkChop49d ago

@Goosejuice

I have a 7800X3D. It certainly is great for gaming. Though for video editing, rendering, etc, I think Intel have the advantage from what I remember. I just mean from a GPU standpoint I can't support them.