Tim Sweeney D.I.C.E. 2012 Session

Epic Games' Tim Sweeney geeks out on technology and gaming in the next 20 years at D.I.C.E. 2012.

[hardcore1912]

high-end PCs can do this type of visuals already. The Wiiu has no chance if the rumors are true (only twice as powerful as Xbox360).

[FrigidDARKNESS]

We know that but the story is not about hi end pcs . It's about next gen consoles capable of producing hi end graphics. Epic games must know all the all the hardware specs of the next xbox I wish they would share them with us.

[torchic]

and people want a PS4 and Xbox720 in 2012.

HA!

[nveenio]

Epic may not be showing their interpretation of the literal "next gen". They also have an engine to license, so we have to take their tech demos with a grain of salt. Of course they're going to show things as the best they can be. That doesn't mean that they're saying, "This is what the next generation will bring." They're just saying, "This is what the engine can do if the hardware is there." And that's what I've always thought when watching this demo.

[honkyjesus]

I wish they would, too. The development kits have been out for a while, no doubt Epic was part of the first to have them.

[MysticStrummer]

Personally I'd rather see advances in AI than graphics for the next gen consoles. Resolution gets to be a case of diminishing returns beyond a certain point, and lighting is at a "good enough" stage as it is. Nothing takes me out of a game's world faster than seeing bad AI in action.

[denawayne]

"Personally I'd rather see advances in AI than graphics for the next gen consoles. Resolution gets to be a case of diminishing returns beyond a certain point, and lighting is at a "good enough" stage as it is. Nothing takes me out of a game's world faster than seeing bad AI in action."

I have to agree with this statement. Take a game like Skyrim for example. The AI is just flat horrible.

[PLASTICA-MAN]

Well, the PS4 needs to be at least 20 times more powerful than the PS3 to display UE4 in 4k resolution. I hope Sony won't fail us this time.

[Anon1974]

Let's not kid ourselves here. The talent and money required to produce this level of visuals in games is beyond most developers. And the ones capable of producing visuals like this, one misfire would probably bankrupt them.

We're already seeing this happen today. Developers taking fewer chances with their games, and developers going under when a decent game sucks dry their entire resource pool only to be ignored by gamers and drive their company off a cliff.

New tools and better hardware might make this level of visuals closer, but it doesn't suddenly slash the man-hours and talent requirements.

As it is now there are few company's who have the talent and resources to push the current gen's hardware. Next gen isn't going to suddenly change gaming overnight.

[PLASTICA-MAN]

darkride66, I totally agree with you. You can have the strongest quantum computer with infinite power, such good graphics won't come by themselves like by magic. Tell those people who did this tech demo to make an entire game with the same level consistency, you will find some places where the game looks like a PS1 game. People here in N4G don't understand that yes a good hardware helps getting those types of graphics, but you need more manpower, more TIME, more money and not only that but also game developers aren't scientists or researchers or software makers, they just don't have enough knwoledge to produce better physics or AI or lighting engines and they need to seek external help from specialized companies like Havoc or Geomerics. You can have infinite power and still produce not jawdropping games whereas you can get marvelous graphics on some decent hardwares thanks to SOME developers' talent and genius coding.

[sikbeta]

Holy S***! X360 *10 = Samaritan

@_@

DO IT MS! :)

[dcbronco]

It may take more money and time to develop games that look that way, but it will happen next generation. I disagree with Darkride66. Sony now understands that tools are important. Microsoft always understood that. It takes less time and money to develop a game for the 360 than it does for the PS3 because of the architecture and the tools.

In the next generation developers will most likely be working more powerful versions of the same consoles. On the PS3 it will be an updated Cell with more cores and a new Nvidia GPU. The 360 will be another Power PC chip fused to an ATI GPU. There will be updates to the chips, but the learning curve won't be nearly as steep. Developers are not working with multiple cores for the first time again.

It will be much more expensive if they add additional content. If they use the added power for AI and destruction, it should be more expensive. But not excessively more.

[dredgewalker]

I don't doubt the Wii U can run this game. The question is how much resolution and effects the game will lose.

[kB0]

Clearly you don't know, most people stating that the Wii U is anywhere from 1.5-2x stronger than 360...and the article clearly states:

1080p= 10x Xbox360, 720p= 4.4x Xbox360

Please read before posting.

The Wii just like all Nintendo Consoles since the Gamecube will not be competing for best graphics. It's about the games and the none hard core market.

[nveenio]

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the WiiU is going to look any better than the 360. It's not getting any new releases, just re-releases, and even if it IS more powerful, any new releases will still be built for 360 and PS3 first.

Has anyone even mentioned its power compared to the PS3?

[dredgewalker]

It is only a tech demo at the moment. They have time to refine and optimize it. I doubt any developer would earn money if their games required super computers to run it. I'm not saying that the Wii U will run it in full, I'm saying it can run it with a lot of sacrifices. Clearly you are not being open minded.

[Shackdaddy836]

@KB0 - Wrong. Wiiu is rumored to be anywhere from 2x x360 to 8x more powerful than the x360 (rumor was 20% less powerful than x720 which was 10x more powerful than the x360).

Honestly people here have no clue how to launch a next gen console. They aren't going to release some super new high tech device that can run games as good as a $1500 high-end computer. No, they're going to release machines that will cost between $350 and $500. That price is NOT 10x more powerful than current gen. If they go anywhere above $500, they lose all but their loyalest fans. That's just horrible business sense...

[ProjectVulcan]

If WiiU has something akin to a Radeon 4870, a high end RV770 as purported, then that = around 4-5 times faster than 360 in raw performance. As stated on Epic's slide 360's GPU performance is 0.25Tflops, 4870 is officially 1.2Tflops.

However the other rumours state it is 'only' about twice as fast as 360, which suggests something closer to a 4670 level GPU. 4670 is officially 0.48Tflops.

So by Epic's own calculations of an optimised versions of the Samaritan demo, an RV770 equipped WiiU could run this at a HD res, 720p.

Anything less means sub HD, only 2x performance means forget it totally.....

[stragomccloud]

I agree, if anything it'll be able to run the game at the same resolution as the console Call of Duty games. Regardless, I'm not worried.

[Arnon]

I guess most people didn't realize that the HD Zelda trailer shown for the Wii U was running in-engine.

http://youtu.be/arHNcSMXaBk

Pretty sure the Wii U will be able to stand on it's own.

[BitbyDeath]

@shackdaddy, when you buy things in bulk they become cheaper. You may find your $1500 high end PC or higher could be possible in a 200-400 machine.

Just think at the time when Sony first put Blu-ray into the PS3 it was costing over $1000 in stores and that's without mentioning any other hardware components.

[yabhero]

Well if you look up the rumored WiiU specs (4870 and a power CPU power7 3-3.5 GHZ) that places about 5 times more powerful than PS3 ( which is a little stronger than 360) so the WiiU should be able to run this at 720p as should the xbox 720 according to IGN

[dcbronco]

Shackdaddy836, actually you need to study a little more yourself. Console makers own their chips. They can take them to who ever is willing to make them the cheapest. IBM or ATI might help make them based on their parts, but they are modified using MS or Sony money.

The 360 cost $526 per console to manufacture when it launched. After die shrinks, fusing the GPU and CPU, moving manufacturing from place to place and other improvements the cost of making a 360 is much cheaper. Industry experts believe it is surely less than $150 and maybe even under $100. Another die shrink and it has to be under $100.

The new consoles will have parts that are upgraded versions of the current parts. That will be cheap. And there is a huge difference between the parts from 2004 and the parts now. Price and power. Computer parts have gotten a lot more powerful and a lot cheaper.

[Dee_91]

WII U is not a next gen console.
Didnt Satura say that awhile back?

[DeadlyFire]

Even if the WiiU had the 4890 in it. It's GPU would only have half the power of what I am expecting from next Xbox and Next PS GPUs.

I am estimating that next gen. PS4, X720 GPUs are aiming for something with 21-26+ GPixels with a TDP around 100-150+. Still aiming around 1.2 Tflops though. Current gen has around 4.x GPixel GPUs in the PS3/X360. The most Gpixels the WiiU could have in the R700 series is 13.6 unless they have 4850x2 or 4870x2 which are powerhouse + heat. Not likely in the console.

WiiU probably will run Unreal Engine 4.0, but likely on a lower resolution or with a little less. hmm...1024x768 possible I believe maybe? I know 720 is 1200x720.

Either way. Nintendo has admitted that WiiU will not be an equal to Xbox 720/PS4. From what I have read.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/new...

Either way I expect graphics to be possibly around 2-3 times better than PS3/X360 graphics. Which are high enough quality to make a console platform last I believe as many claim this gen has many years left in it. Nintendo grabbing in third party developers as well will bring life into their console cycle. As most of what was missing with the Wii was recognizable multiplatform titles that we all love.

[Optical_Matrix]

No one cares. The gameplay alone of the next Mario game alone, which will be HD and look better than any PS3 or Xbox 360 game, will have better gameplay than anything Epic will ever release in their company's life time.

[xAlmostPro]

No offence but i doubt mario will ever look as good as some high end ps3/360 games.

Unless the completely change the whole art style, it wouldn't feel or play like mario if it had crazy graphics. My thinking anyway.

[BlmThug]

The same Mario that hasnt changed its gameplay since it started and has the same storyline? You are very disillusioned

[SuperK]

@Opticalmatrix. A high end 1080p facepalm for your comment comming up.

[NiKK_419]

.

[Play2Win]

But this must be a very expensive PC. You need more like 2 or 3 really fast GPUs and a strong CPU to run such visuals smooth.

Even the next Xbox wont be able to pull out such visuals in true 1080p. But it's just a Tech-Demo.

[dedicatedtogamers]

EPIC said that - with optimization - they could run Samaritan on about 1/3rd the specs of the original demo. So, I don't think we'll need insane specs on the next gen of consoles to make this work.

[Angels3785]

To be fair the demo if I remember correctly was running on THREE gtx 580s in SLI and one of the highest end Intel CPU's on the market today and god knows how much RAM (google it and you'll see). So lets do some math on your statement. 3 GTX 580s divided by three gives you ONE gtx 580 and lets cut down the CPU and RAM. Assuming that this CPU was HIgh end (it would have to be to run all those cards) like Epic has said lets go with something in the middle like an Intel i7 980x CPU (not too high not too low to be fair because we don't know) and lets assume we are using 16 gb RAM on this system (again they probably used more, but lets keep this somewhere in the middle). So after dividing it down you'll end up with a system that is something like this: 1 gtx 580, maybe an intel i5 processor, and 4gb of RAM. That is a type of computer that most PC gamers today don't even have!! Why would they put that in a console that takes years of R&D to make? it would cost roughly 600 bucks for just those three parts!!!!! Not including the disk drive, casing, motherboard, power supply and hard drive. Not to mention the fact that companies like Sony/Microsoft mark up the prices to high hell so in the end if they went cheap on the rest of the parts (which would kill you on hard drive because games are just getting bigger) you'd still end up with a system that costs 1000+ just for the parts without a markup and it would be deeply flawed as the cheap parts wouldn't be good for the high end parts used, creating a bottleneck. So if a system that did launch with specs 1/3 of what the demo used it would be 1) Unreliable/ deeply flawed 2) astronomically expensive and 3) not worth the price. I say not worth the price because when ever a developer says "Oh we can optimize it" do you really think no visual quality will be sacrificed? This game will probably be SEVERELY toned down and not look even close to the demo. So back to your statement the specs may not be as insane as they initially were, but they are still considered high end by todays standards. Plus with rumors of microsoft using the AMD 66xx series which is nowhere near 1/3 the specs of the system (its probably 1/20 what 3 gtx 580s are capable of) it doesn't look like the Samaritan game is coming in its real form unless its played on a PC.

[vortis]

@angels, um yes a lot of PC gamers do have 1 GTX 580, Intel i5 and 4GB of RAM.

You can get a bare-bones PC from a few places like pricewatch with a top of the line CPU/Mobo combo for under $250.

I have a mid-ranged PC and it's sporting Crossfire cards with 6GB of RAM and an OC'd quad-core CPU @ 3.66ghz and this PC is old. I was able to get this all for under $350.

[HappyGaming]

$600 for the ram CPU and gfx card today? But by the time the PS4 and 720 are out the price of those components would have dropped even for PC gamers... and the PS3 used to cost $800+ to produce when it came out way above $600!!!

[Angels3785]

@Gumtrol

Um yes, but you have to remember that companies are making models NOW for next gen tech so in a few years yes the price will drop, but (if the consoles already launched) so would the consoles. The PS3 was NOT 800+ it was $799 to start an how did it do at launch btw? Oh yea thats right it did TERRIBlE until 2008 when they dropped the prices waaaaayyy down. NO the ps3 did NOT cost $800+ to produce LOL that was an old rumor to say that sony was selling ps3s for less than they were worth. The prices drop as the tech ages, but when you build tech now for something that launches in 2013 you have to pay TODAYS prices.

[dcbronco]

People seem to forget is that PCs push horsepower to get things done. Consoles don't need as much because the specs are known. It's like the difference between snow tires and all-terrain tires. All-terrain works okay. But snow was made for that purpose. Consoles are optimized platforms.

Another forgotten thing is that when the 360 was released, it was better than most PCs. It had more cores on the CPU. And was the first mass production unified shader GPU. The next consoles will have advantages too.

It will take you $1,500 to do what the next consoles do when they release. It's always that way.

[dark-hollow]

Next Gen not only will run Samaritan like graphics, but couple years into the next Gen consoles life span and games will blow this demo out of the water!

The key is optimization.
Do you know how outdated the ps3/360 gpu but yet we get games like uncharted 3 and gears 3!!
Because PC games are not as optimized as console games they use brute force instead.

PC games won't surpass next Gen consoles before they arrive.
Sure the specs are here but the games are not. That was always the case through the years and no game/tech for the PC from the Xbox/ps2 era looks better than today's games on consoles.

[kcuthbertson]

I'm a borderline PC Elitist (still love my PS3 and 360 and even Wii though), but I totally agree. PC is the most terribly optimized thing for gaming. It is understandable though seeing as there are literally thousands of combinations of specs.

It really is amazing to see what 360 and PS3 can do with the hardware that they are using. You couldn't dream of games looking like Gears 3 or Uncharted 3 on PC's using comparable graphics cards.

[ProjectVulcan]

Arguable. It depends on what your definition of 'looking better' is. You see PC games are typically designed to be scalable whereas console games are designed to run for a set resolution.

Battlefield 2 or F.E.A.R for example looked at least as good as anything i played that came later on 360's INITIAL wave of launch games, but it was also possible to run these 2560 x 1600 and 60 FPS on a top end PC, a resolution and speed faaaar beyond anything the current consoles have ever done. PC never lacks the speed for this even if you would say the game is 'unoptimised'. PC has always been more powerful, and the hardware is always around to beat the consoles even when they are brand new.

Another example is something like COD2 or Quake 4 that were launch games for 360, PC already easily outstripped the settings, res and framerates that 360 managed before the machine even launched.

Typically designers for PC games before a new console generation tend to be conservative so they build games to enable them to run at the highest resolutions with existing hardware. So more people can play the game from those with slower systems up to those with top end gear.

You COULD build a PC game that looks better than anything on a console generation before it launches, but then that means no system would be able to run it 2560 x 1600, only high end ones 1080p/30FPS or whatever.

It is less about the ability to do that, it more about the philosophy of the designer.

Consoles do tend to move the goalposts for game quality, but then the thing that moves the technology goalposts forward to ALLOW consoles to move the game visuals forward is PC. This is why the industry needs both to survive.

[Play2Win]

Nearly every good PC Game looks overall sharper and better than Uncharted 3 or Gears 3. Due to resolution and advanced Settings a console game will never touch PC visuals.

[Darkfocus]

Eve online in 2003 looked better than a lot of 360 and ps3 games now and now eve's even better looking....

edit:2003 launch trailer http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[Shok]

Haven't you heard? If the rumors are true, the Wii U is actually twice as powerful as the 720, NOT the 360.

The 4870 is roughly 2x stronger than the 6670 rumored to be in the 720.

[h311rais3r]

Lol

[DrJones]

Wow.. Epic retard.

[osamaq]

@DrJones... LMAO
u just made my day....+bubble

[Yodagamer]

He isn't lieing if you compare the rumored gpus of the xbox 720 with the wii u's gpu the wii u has a lower clockrate, but the fill rates and everything else is about 2x as powerful as the 720's rumored gpu

[Shok]

Do your research people before you start going around calling people retards.

4870

Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/sec
FLOPS: 1200 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 12000 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 30000 MTexels/sec

6670

Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/sec
FLOPS: 768 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 6400 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 19200 MTexels/sec

I know what I'm talking about. You people just refuse to get out there and educate yourselves.

[OpenGL]

There's no way the Wii U is using a Radeon 4870 running at desktop clock speeds because the TDP will be far too high even on 40nm for the Wii U's tiny case. Even the Mobility Radeon 4870 would likely have too high of a TDP.

Anyway, Nintendo is more likely to use something based on the Radeon 4670 because the die size is considerably smaller, and the thermal envelope would fit more with the form factor of the Wii U.

[Convas]

First of all Shok, Why the feck would you be parading around using rumored specs for both machines and tossing about your opinion like it's the gospel truth?

Neither of the consoles you mentioned have specs that have been confirmed, so your "careful research" is STILL just rampant speculation at this point.

If you jump the gun, you need to take the consequences like a man. Stop using rumors to back up your arguments.

[Shok]

@Clizz

Dude, I said "if the rumors are true." I totally acknowledge that what I was about to say was based purely off of speculation. I was not making it out to be 100% confirmed information. I was saying, BASED off the rumors.

Apparently you got upset over what I said or something lol. Why didn't you get on the first poster? What he said was purely based off rumors as well. Why target me? I smell some bias here lol.

[LX-General-Kaos]

Good job with the amazing defense Shok. + bubble

[SilentNegotiator]

Before someone twists this into "consoles are holding us back, ZOMG!", consider some things:

1) This demo took 3 gtx580s. How many PC gamers have this? 2 rich guys, maybe? The average PC gamer doesn't have anything close to ONE gtx580, nor will they for a VERY long time. "high-end PCs can do this type of visuals already" - If by high end you mean super computer, sure. You're obviously not considering the taxing fine details in the Samaritan demo.

2) Look at what is becoming more popular....Laptops, tablets, etc.....the standard of PCs are almost going down to accommodate portability. Consoles make a better standard than the average laptop/tablet that is coming out. If not for 200+ million consoles, the lowest common denominator would be WAY lower and the market would become even more filled with games to accommodate low power machines.

3) The comparison is rather silly. A demonstration that takes a veritable supercomputer takes an exponential power of a consoles to run? Shocker. Plus, it doesn't exactly work that way. You need different unified hardware that works differently....it's not like you'd SLi 10 systems together. It's really not a good comparison.

4) This won't even exactly happen when it's reasonable for PC gamers to have setups with the power of 3 gtx580s. Remember when in the demonstration, they controlled the character live and made him throw rubber chickens at the bad guys? No? That's because there weren't any gameplay mechanics at all. Gameplay mechanics require taxing calculations all of their own. With fast turns and such, processing would have to be even MORE powerful to do exactly what the demo did.

[KingOfOldSkool]

My sentiments exactly

[frostypants]

The PC fanboy crowd hates to acknowledge that only 1% of them have the god-hardware they like to think all PCs have.

[Dude420]

And you guys fail to acknowledge the reality of PC hardware. Sure this game might have currently taken 3 GTX 580's which is quite expensive, but is the game out now? By the time this game comes out, you won't even need 3 GTX 580's, what would be the point? There's going to be even better hardware out there, which in turn make previous generation cards cheaper. Didn't they also say that they can still optimize it to run on less than 3 GTX 580's?

The HD 7970 is out now and it has been shown to be much faster than the GTX 580. So instead of shelling out for 3 GTX 580's, you only need to shell out for two HD 7970's, which also means less PSU requirements and save money (fun fact, the HD 7970 uses less power than GTX 580, go figure). No, people won't have that godlike setup, but the point is that there always be new videocards coming out that will wipe the floor with the other and eventually we'll need only 1 high end card to run Samaritan at high or max settings.

The fact is, PC hardware in general is getting cheap and you're argument on how we need godlike setups will be thrown in the trash.

Edit: For SN's point on #2, desktop PC's believe it or not are actually getting popular nowadays since anyone who can do proper research can build a PC by themselves (and the hardware is cheaper). Consoles will, and always have been more popular in standard gaming, but it doesn't mean PC's are decreasing in popularity either. Last semester in Uni, I've met a lot of people who built their own computer who I would never of thought would.

[girevik]

I heard the "rumors" were that the next Xbox was 20 percent more powerful than the wii u. Can't really draw conclusions based on rumors.

[Muffins1223]

Besides when a developer works on one graphics card they use alot out of it,because consoles are limited and they will try to take advantage of all it has.Most graphic cards are under used and aren't put to there true power because the developers can develop on other graphics cards,but the ones on console,they only have one to develop on.The next xbox is said to have Radeon HD 6670,which if developed enough on,will be very good graphics.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Well you're not off topic at all..

[Megaton]

Extremely high end. Triple-SLI GTX 580's were required to produce Samaritan. Would probably cost around $2000 - $3000 for a PC on that level, depending on the non-GPU parts. GPU cost is $1500 alone.

[CarlitoBrigante]

High end PCs cannot do this kind of graphics. You need atleast 3 types of GTX580 to render Samaritan. Until only 1 card can pull this off, there is nothing we should be excited about.

[CarlosX360]

How this article got approved is beyond me. It's a post from neogaf. A forum post.

I might as well get some of my forum posts on n4g.

[yabhero]

the rumors actually say a little more than 5 times as powerful ( according to IGN)

[ardivt]

I really hope that the true next gen consoles will at least be able to display samaritan like graphics.
I know it ran on three GTX 580 and I doubt that next gen will have such power. But still I think because of optimization there's a slight chance of seeing graphics like this.

[Kennytaur]

It could be possible, if people wouldn't mind it running in 720p or at a lower framerate
(I know I wouldn't).

[ToonarmY]

x3 GTX 580s would be far to expensive at this moment in time and probably still in years time

[Shikoro]

People really need to stop saying this because they have no clue. 3 GTX580s doesn't mean that the performance is 300% of one GTX580, more like 200-250%. There is some big difference here. Also, it was running at a resolution of 2560x1440 with cranked up SUPERSAMPLING, plus it was unoptimized.

Man, who am I talking to? No one understands this... :/

[ardivt]

yeah einstein, it's pretty hard to understand...

maybe we can just agree that it's very doubtable that next gen consoles will have graphic cards comparable even to just one gtx 580

still I think such optics are possible next gen, just not in this resolution.

[Angrymorgan]

Wha...what he say???

[Voxelman]

actually it was 1080p 60fps with differed MSAA 4x which is why it still had some jaggies...

[Shikoro]

What I'm saying is, people should at least expect Samaritan graphics in the next generation. Why? Because there will be no need for consoles to do more than 1080p, because consoles won't use supersampling and because consoles are closed configurations. Developers don't need to be careful whether their game is going to work on this GPU, on that GPU, with this processor, with this much memory and sooooo on.

Also, you can't looks at the price of the graphics cards for PC and say - man, if the GPU is this expensive, the whole console will have to be over $599. NO! There aren't any cards there. They are chips, heavily engineered to be as small and as cheap as they can be. They are ordered in bulk and that is why they are that much cheaper, but more powerful than their PC counterparts.

I'm out of sense here so I'll just stop. Let's just wait it out and see it for ourselves, shall we? :)

@Voxelman
I'd like the source, please.

[Angrymorgan]

@shikoro
Thanks for clearing that up ....(seriously) :)

[ExitToExisT]

and only 1 pc.

[TheMailman]

Uau, PCs have games like this? Then I must be blind because the PC games that I see are not even close of the graphics displayed in Samaritan demo..

I need to check my lenses ASAP..

[iamgoatman]

Who said anything about having games like this? He said you only need 1 PC, as in 1 PC to RUN this. It's a tech demo, no one is saying PC games already look like this.

Maybe you should check your lenses, or perhaps your reading comprehension.

[Shackdaddy836]

This is a tech demo. Not a game. Big difference.

Plus, the Samaritan demo was run on a PC so I really have no clue what you're talking about in the first place...

[Kennytaur]

Not if it was a pc like mine, then it would require at least 10 for 1080p.

The PC that ran this was large, expensive and used a lot of power (electricity); quite the opposite of what a console should be.

Please do exit, and take your elitist ways with you.

[xAlmostPro]

Exit.. this took 3 gtx580's to run fully maxed out.

Pretty sure your PC does not contain that power ;D

[kcuthbertson]

I have one GTX 580 and THAT killed my wallet.. no way in hell I'd buy 3 lol.

[xAlmostPro]

haha exactly

[frostypants]

Depends on the PC, doesn't it? It would take 2 or 3 mainstream PCs. I'm going to not go out on a limb at all by saying you don't have a PC that could run this.

[Pintheshadows]

The video for Samaritan is massively impressive. Three GTX 580s. It made my metaphorical PC willy seem small. I only have dual GTX 570s.

[Mikhail]

Off-topic: Your dual 570's vs dual 580's are almost on par with each other because of some bottlenecks.

For the article, I believe with enough optimization next gen consoles can do this. Though there must be some sacrifices in other aspects of the game.

[Orpheus]

Thats theoretical calculation only considering the pixels but that demo had other things running , like the physx effects and thats why it took 3 X 580GTX to run and if that type of graphics is brought to a game it would require even powerful machines due to AI calculations and other stuffs that were not there in the demo. So to run a game of that quality we need twenty times the power of a XBOX 360 even if it is well optimized.

[KingOfOldSkool]

Likely price of the PC that ran the demo = 15x XBOX360.

Not saying the likes of this demo aren't impressive, but gaining graphical advantages such as this by just exponentially outspending on hardware does not impress me in the slightest. High price/performance ratio is what will turn my head.

Critics comparing the power of freshly purchased top 1% high end PC to that of 6 year console nearing the end of it's cycle has always come off as a bad joke to me.. one that I feel simply serves to comfort ego than prove any real world point.

If anything, both the extended lifespan and the performance squeezed out of the XBOX360/PS3's ancient hardware has kind of shown up modern PC gaming. A sizable lead in price and 'theoretical' capabilities don't mean as much they should if the proper development to maximize potential is not put in.

Simply put.. multiplats over the last few years obviously do look measurably better on the PC, but thanks to various factors, NONE of them actually look 5x to 10x better as their PC's price or capabilities suggest they should.

[T900]

"Simply put.. multiplats over the last few years obviously do look measurably better on the PC, but thanks to various factors, NONE of them actually look 5x to 10x better as their PC's price or capabilities suggest they should. "

I would disagree here specially with your idea of the PCs price. A console costs 300usd later costs to go online, which is a repeated cost and has expensive accessories plus paying more on every game.

A good PC that will max out every game will cost about 700usd, so the price difference is about 2x. When you consider other factors like mentioned above or the fact that a PC does alot more then a console can, then PC is about the same or cheaper on the cost arguement while providing better graphics.

[KingOfOldSkool]

You're stretching quite a bit to even get as low as 2x conclusion though.

For example, using a $250 PS3 with included hard drive, wi-fi, and free online is around 3x cheaper than the lowest end gaming PC range you referenced.. a range that while still certainly serviceable, will certainly not "max out every game" or likely have features such as Blu-Ray.

Accessories are a wash between the two, the price of a second controller is less than a decent keyboard/mouse combo etc. and headset costs are about the same. Games are usually about $10 more expensive, but then again there really isn't a used gaming option on the PC.

Lastly, the PC's "can do more" defense is something I never really take seriously. I can't use that as an excuse for the added cost since no one buys a gaming PC with a dedicated graphics card and 8gb+ of RAM to use Word or play Farmville. With more people already having smartphones and tablets that can do most of what they would use their PC for, I see that excuse as becoming even less viable.

Not trying to slam PC gaming, I enjoy it as much as my other gaming platforms, but the difference in cost is still way too high compared to what I'm actually getting IMO.

[Dude420]

You're statistics are laughable, 1% top PC's? It seems you don't realize how many people actually buy high end components for their PC's. There was an article back in 2010 where 6 million people purchased AMD DX11 cards within 3 months. That's not even counting all the OTHER cards that are out there. The best part is they eventually get cheaper as do other parts. 8gb of RAM for $50? Sure!

So what if your $250 PS3 has all of those bells and whistles, it still can't perform as well as a $1000 PC. However, that's you're opinion, while you're there enjoying games at 720p at 30fps with low textures, I'll be enjoying mine at 1080p, 60fps and high textures (like BF3). We can agree to disagree.

Accessories are a wash between the two? What do you throw out your keyboard every 3 years? I have been using this keyboard for 8 years and works perfectly, while my mouse I got for $30 on sale. Besides if you're really good at shopping you can find a decent combo on sale for as much as a controller.

As for games, no, there aren't used games for PC, but clients like Steam will offer games (even recent ones) for %10 - %50 off, that makes a huge difference, on top of the fact that PC games are $10 cheaper.

I don't care if you're not trying to slam PC gaming, but learn the facts before you argue about it.

Oh for the 15x the price Xbox 360 comment, I'm going to use the $300 model since the $200 model don't come with an HDD. that's $4500. If you do it right, you can get a capable processor, power supply and RAM and run 2 7970's (if you get them on sale) for $2000, this is assuming you already have a 1080p monitor (pretty common nowadays), much like you already have an HDTV for a console. That would be 6.67x the price of an xbox 360. So you're over exaggerating the cost quite a bit aren;t you?

[B1663r]

We have been hearing about how the iPhone would make computers go away for... 5-6 years now? Then we are about three years on for the iPad which was going to do the same?

And yet all the people I know who have iPhones and iPads are all still daily PC users...

Post PC is a few years off still...

[KingOfOldSkool]

@Dude420

The only thing laughable in this discussion is how badly you cherrypicked my comments, ace.

The 1% comment was referring to the fact that the demo was using THREE GTX 580's among other top end components. '1%' may be sarcasm.. but how many people do you honestly believe are going out and buying triple-SLI gaming rigs with the highest end nVidia card right now?

Also, for the sake of the argument I was using the $200 XBOX360 model for the 15x comment(which, coming in at $3000 for the beast that played the tech demo, is quite conservative). If you want to play the angle of throwing that SKU out for the sake of online play, I'll again use the $250 PS3 which would be at 12x as an equivalent in that argument. Still a stark contrast in my eyes that adds a bit more balanced perspective.

Anyways, all your worn BF3 elitist babbling aside.. this in part stems from actual personal experience. Recently buying a $250 PS3 and $1250 gaming PC and having them both play on the same model and sized 1080p LCDs, I can honestly say that while the PC multiplats without a doubt look better.. I feel they in no way with an actual unbiased perspective look and play '5x' better let alone all the other absurd numbers being thrown around.

[Dude420]

"The only thing laughable in this discussion is how badly you cherrypicked my comments, ace."

Actually what's laughable is how you word your argument. You should be more specific next time as to what high end PC you're talking about. Having a GTX 580 is considered high end and yes, there are many people who have that card.

What's also funny is that you use a $200 Xbox which doesn't even have a HDD. Sure it can still run games without it, but it sure is a pain when you want to install your games on it, especially the little ones.

If you want to use the $200 Xbox, then fine. The computer I just came up with is still 10x the cost, which seems to be proportional with the article's estimate (Btw the 7970's are faster than the GTX 580 atm, plus drivers are a bit sketchy with new cards).

I'm not being a BF3 elitist here, I'm just trying to put in some perspective for you. Right now you're just jumping straight into conclusions without even doing research. Did you ever consider the fact that Tri-sli may have not been fully optimized for this demo, let alone the demo itself being fully optimized for any card? You might not even need that expensive of a PC to run it at max or close.

[KingOfOldSkool]

@Dude420

Alright this isn't heading anywhere, whether by intention or not you seem to be missing the main points I was trying to make(especially in relation to actual topic at hand). So to be a bit more "specific" I'll quickly summarize a few points and be done with it:

1) The "x" number of systems is only referring to the estimated price of the triple-SLI rig reportedly used to run the demo and that specific rig 'alone'.. not these other hypothetical PC builds you seem intent on bringing up.

2) I will reiterate, the likes of the 1% comment was not me somehow questioning how many people buy video cards or even how many people buy GTX 580's as you seem set on thinking for some reason.. it was a comment aimed towards questioning how many people actually buy triple-SLI GTX 580's setups as was used to run the demo the article was covering.

3) The entire basis of my first "15x" comment was to point out that yes, the demo is impressive and the performance increase over the XBOX360 is high.. but all those numbers also came at a rather disproportionate cost.

4) Yes, BF3 is all pretty and shiny on the PC especially when compared to it's console counterparts.. that is not in dispute. What I am saying is that while it looks good, current PC games do not look nearly good as they should when taking the price of the hardware into consideration.

Right now, 5 times as expensive is simply not equaling games looking 5 whole times better. As it stands, devs are just getting more out of the PS3/XBOX360's potential than they do with modern PC hardware. That may change in the future if a shift in focus occurs, but that is the reality of the industry at the moment.

[Dude420]

Yes I see what you're saying about #'s 1 and 2.

For #3, that "hypothetical" PC build happens to have a GPU that is faster than a GTX 580, putting 2 of them will be nearly equal in strength to 3 GTX 580's (the 7970 is a new card and so isn't optimized as it should yet). This is at the cost of $2000. I know that the system used to run that cost about $3000, but you're implying that we need to spend that much to get those graphics.

The point I'm trying to make is that with my "hypothetical" PC, it's a proportionate cost. Besides, with the new 28nm chips coming out, less power is used which means people don't have to shell out more cash to get the proper PSU. This will also make previous generation GPUs cheaper in the future, which would decrease the price of what it takes to run the Samaritan demo.

For #4, The PC might be 5 times more expensive, but IMO, it's balanced by the price of the games you get for PC. Digital Distribution programs like Steam, Origin, GOG etc... are always having sales, even on recent games. I got BF3 for 40% off with Origin and Batman: AC for 50% off at Steam (I also saw Skyrim for 40% off at Steam during holiday sales). The best part is those sales go for everyone (or is it regional?).

For consoles, used games are limited at retail and you'll be lucky to get $10 off a fresh game. On top of that, those games on PC will run at 1080p, at 60fps, with all the bells and whistles turned on (if there are any). To me the price of a PC is justified.

What's also a reality is that PC hardware in general is getting cheaper, which is probably why a lot of gamers who own PC's don't have trouble running games like BF3, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Crysis, Crysis 2 DX11 on high settings.

[N311V]

I though Samaritan was a preview of next gen consoles but I guess that won't happen. Really makes me wonder whether next will be as big a graphical jump as we're used to.

[RandomDude655]

Epic thinks the next gen console specs are underpowered it seems, and Crytek wants 8 gigs of ram.

Main Stream Consumers: lol...$300 or bust

[PirateThom]

That's the trade off here.

Realistic market price vs Developers getting the sheer power they need.

Consoles will always have this issue.

Epic won't get three GPUs in a console and Crytek will be lucky to get 4GB of RAM.

[RandomDude655]

I really don't know how the ps5/xbox 1080 will meaningfully advance, when it seems that the heat/size/cost wall has been hit hard this gen/and possibly next.

Ray Tracing accelerators? A single very large heterogeneous architecture?

Why in the world would Crytek need 8 gigs of RAM anyway?

[RevXM]

3 GPU's is unlikely yes, but do you think 4GB ram is a tad unlikely?
Why?

Id say even 12GB even might make it in the next SONY and or MS console. RAM is so cheap even at regular consumer retail shops and loads of ram opens for so much to be done.

Again no chance for 3 GPU's, but 1 equal to the latest high end ones might be possible.

Im just gonna cross my fingers and hope neither Microsoft or SONY goes the cheap "instant" proffit route like Nintendo does.

I love both the VITA and Ps3 because they are so beastly, 360 was too. but wii and Wii-u.. well both just seems late to the game or they are just sailing their own seas.

Ps3 for instance was worth a lot more than the initial price when it launched and If it can make profitt in the end then why not do the same again if its what the fans want?

Maybe not quite as extreme this time seeing that BD was the sucker for Sony but some of that initial loss can be translated to SSD and more RAM this time and I expect a good GPU along the lines of the Nvidia GT660-80 for a 2013 launch.

Standalone BD players where way more expensive than ps3 and the cell was quite expensive to them also. both are now established technologies that can be used again for PS4. A new and better CELL and faster BD drive = gold.

Remember Consoles can turn a profit over time, when you buy electronics at retail they are priced so that they turn a profit real quick and the retailer prices are higher than actual production costs.

Just remember 360 and PS3 how beastly they were.
And now that BRAND and all new radical cpu arcitechures or disc mediums aint needed we could perhaps get a high end class gpu, wealthy amounts of ram and SSD.

I dont think Im too far of asking for these things in a 400-500usd range console that will live 8-12 years.

I hope Microsoft rumours are false, and I hope Sony will continue their beast trend with the ps4.

[kcuthbertson]

@RevXM

You clearly have no idea what RAM does...

Or how most technology works for that matter. There is no way that the new consoles will have cards rivaling a GTX 580 or 7970..those are $500+ cards.

[Frankfurt]

LOL at people comparing cheap-ass, slow-ass PC RAM to expensive, fast console RAM.

[RevXM]

@ kcuthbertson

I have no Idea what ram does now?
I did not even sy what it did right over there did I?

RAM is memory where The computer will store files and data that are to be processed/used by the system.

The more ram the better, it pretty much makes more and higher resolution textures possible, with more you can also do more at the same time, you can have a higher number of and or more advanced independent dynamics and AI running. it will also serve as memory for where things are in the game world. and a lot of other things.

IN fact I didnt even say how anything I mentioned worked, but I do know quite a bit, not everything but I've come quite a long way on my education to be an computer electronics technician so I would know about most stuff worth knowing.

GTX 580 or 7970 500$ cards too expensive?
At retail perhaps, but these cards will dissapear in 2-3 year or so right?
A console is around for 10 years.

Also console manufacturers doesnt pay retail prices and often sell consoles at a loss.

Because of R&D costs the playstation 3 was initally sold at a massive loss, but I think that it have paid back by now. Turned a profit.

When PS3 launched in 2006 it had a pretty decent card that you can say is equal to what the GT 560 is today. IT had the latest generation of Nvidia card there was 1 or 2 cards that were better from nvidia at the time... same is true for 560 isnt it? there is 570, 580 and the 590.. THats 3 CARDS/better models! So why couldnt the ps4 have a high end card of the lates gen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Says right there that the 7800 is a HIGH END CARD, and that is the card that is the ps3 RSX closest relative. RSX is even an upgraded/enhanced version of it.
IMPOSSIBRUUU DAT CARD WAS MORE THAN 400 DOLLARS!

Dont come here and tell me I do not know what Im talking about when I clearly do. try make valid points next time to prove me wrong instead.

Also while Im at it you will have to concider that the R&D costs for the components this time around will be lower or already earned back. like Blu-ray.
As I said in the previous comment STAND ALONE Blu-ray players were almost twice the price of the ps3 WELL SHIT GOT REAL cause the ps3 plays Blu-ray movies, and in the long run it was worth it for Sony, BD won the HD war and all.

So SONY could most likely squese in a high end latest gen card, powerful CPU, 8-16GB RAM and BLU-ray. An SSD shouldnt be a problem either, CA: 240 GB Low/Mid "end" launch models will do. Mass production over time will prolly lower the cost and earn back on initial losses... simple logic.

@ Frankfurt
I do not hope you aimed at me there I never compared really, but its true that the ram in ps3 is faster and more expensive than regular ram was at that time. :)

I just said that Console manufacturers can go with a lot of ram this time around, I do not think the speed have ever been an issue, but capacity has. and 1.8-2 GHz Main RAM should do the trick that isnt slow at all I think this time they should give in for more capacity. :)

[girevik]

Wasn't Crytek impressed by the wii u?

[--Onilink--]

yeah, most people here only want to remember the 1st rumor of the consoles power, when all devs that have spoken have said that Nintendo has constantly updated the dev kits to try and meet the requirements that devs ask.

The latest rumor says its around %20 less powerful than the 720, which is rumored to run on an arquitecture of the 6970, that card is 6x more powerful than current gen, so optimized for consoles it could be around 8x, which puts the wii U around 6x more powerful

[Rage_S90]

It's all PR mate, there not gonna go around disrespecting nintendo.

[r21]

that Samaritan is pretty impressive. it also looks like a superhero game from Epic which i gotta say looks to be awesome :D is it a next gen game? or just a demo?

[rattletop]

intersting. also i think it's time epic stopped making just tech demos for pc and make some actual games.

[Rayko]

To be honest I don't think that Samaritan demo is that impressive. Looks close to Mass Effect/Gears of war graphics, just a bit better.

[MWH]

share some of that dope you're having.

[Rayko]

Why don't you share me some of yours, so everything normal will be hyper amazing, as in your world.

[ardivt]

Yeah tbh I also think it doesn't look so many generations ahead of what we now have.
At least frostbite 2 and cryengine 3 also can produce stunning visuals.
I'm not talking about the technical side, but about how it looks to me as the consumer.
And e.g. gtaIVs icenhancer looks more realistic to me. Again, I'm just talking about how it looks, not about how good and complex the engine is.

http://youtu.be/OBw0R1AUU64

[torchic]

I had that impression when I watched it the first time, then I played a bit of Killzone 3 then watched it again. for a game to look like that realtime is an exciting prospect. the lighting effects are amazing, very life like.

I would be the happiest man alive if games could run like this realtime, most beautiful cutscene I ever saw in my life (looks a million times better when actually running off a PS3 on 1080p TV)

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[baodeus]

I don't know torchic, you would need tones of men power, development times, a very high tech hardware, etc.....all of these while keeping the game within $60, because most people already complain about the game price, and what if it doesn't sell well?

Seems practically impossible to do since who would take such an impossible odds for a little profit if any?

If the clouds pickup steam quickly, attaining a powerful hardware may not be necessary. However, cloud also have a problem of it owns like it needs extreme fast connection to be standardized globally. That might not happen anytime soon, but who knows.

[MWH]

take it easy Rayko, i was just playing with you ;)

[GamersRulz]

PS3 can do 2 Tflops !! using Epic numbers PS3 can run this 720p easily ?! strange!

[WetN00dle69]

LMFAO!!!

[bahabeast]

i dnt know about all the high tech graphics chips and card mumbo jumbo but i wuda liked if they showed how much the ps3 needs to run the demo
IMJUSAYIN.

[neogeo]

re read this in 10 years and LOL. My toilet paper will have my power with a Nano ass wiper tech.

[Omega Zues]

Honestly, i'm just glad to see developers pushing the envelope for power and the sheer scope of games.

Console or not, im just glad that some studious are willing to put the extra effort to create visuals like this.

I think its sad that of course people bring this in to a PC vs Console battle while missing the whole point that games could look like this in future. I dont care what system could perform visuals like this. As long as I have it, im just fine.

[matey]

Honestly this is a load of rubbish.

WiiU was twice the graphical power of 720 last march/april with kits that were roughly the power of a HD4850/4870 Iwata's words thsts the very 1st dev-kits the Japenese Garden/Zelda/Street tech demo's all ran on 1st dev-kits FACT.

The more recent almost final dev-kits were much more powerful than expected a giant leap from E3 build and about 5x the ps3 in raw power raw graphics 2x that again.

720 has a 6670 its a weak chip about 40% less powerful then a 4850 and that was about the power of wiiu in its 1st stage so in all respects a 6670 is about 4 times the power of 360 graphics wise,4850 is about 8 times 360 in pure graphics FACT.

The WiiU has a HD5000 series chip in final design about 10x the power of 360 and can run better graphics than SAMARITAN DEMO thats 4 sure EPIC isnt the graphics king CRYTEK are and they will show you the wiiu doing better graphics than that from the off.

WiiU has 1gig of EDRAM 360 had 10mb/ps3 none/pc none

tons of EDRAM and lots of threads/cores is what makes Watson Super Computer so clever basically the tech in that custom Multicore cpu 4 WiiU is a beast EPIC no longer has a say every dev could beat them graphics just working with WiiU.

[CynicalVision]

Is it possible, a Wii U fanboy?

[ninjahunter]

Face slap.
When a facepalm is just not enough.

[BubloZX]

None of the specs this guy listed are even finalized. Lmao where did he get these specs?

[dcbronco]

You really believe a GPU two generations later will be less powerful than the ones before it? the 6670 is a third more powerful. And I believe MS will be running dual GPU's.

[OMEGAZONE]

I honestly don't think the PC is relevant as a gaming console.

[kcuthbertson]

I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about Troll.

[gypsygib]

So the Next360 should be able to do it in 720p at least.

[emekcrash]

Its Xbox 720 because that's the max resolution you will be able to play your games on it.

[SAE]

all we want is to not have limits in gameplay , graphics isn't importent like the gameplay , there should be no limit in creating games so the problems of the lag and stuff like that would be alot less , it would be more realistic , they should be able to creat more then a 1000 warrior with full details and stuff like that , no limit please ...

[raytraceme]

Instead of more visuals I really do want devs to focus more on 1080p 60fps gaming with far more physics effects. This Gen has a deficit in games with really good physics beside bf3 and armageddon. Visuals could get better but these 3 things to me are more important. And to the people that think they know a lot about ram... for 1080p gaming you don't need more than 2gb of gddr5 video ram. System ram oth more means better multitasking with the os. If the ps4 keeps the cell but makes it a 16-32 core varient, physics would be seeing a nice generational leap. If the ps4 also has a gtx680 with 2gb gddr5 the Samaritan demo will happen on the ps4. Don't forget sony owns the cell plant and nvidia gives them gpu's at a huge discount since it is in bulk. With these specs I can see a ps4 for $400 and Sony might be making profit as well.

[xtreampro]

So judging by all the rumours and this article I can firmly say that the most graphically demanding games next-gen will run at True 720p 60fps, and lower end games will probably run at True 1080p 30fps or 60fps depending on the game and what the devs can achieve.

[ninjahunter]

I doubt 60fps will ever be the norm. Alot of games Can double or triple their visuals at a 50% performance hit. As long as graphics are an influence in the market 60fps just wont take priority. Not to mention that none of the rumor are remotely strong enough to even playing current gen games at 1080p 60fps.
720p will likely be the norm with 1080p being that occasional game.

[xtreampro]

True 720p at 60fps will most likely be the norm seeing as many games this gen run at near true 720p 30fps. So judging by that it shouldn't be hard for a good dev like ND to release a graphically stunning game running at true 720p 60fps.

You have to remember that true 720 just like 1080p can look really good. I personally would like to a see a new Burnout game running at full 1080p 60fps but I don't think that will happen (for consoles anyway).

[--Onilink--]

so the 720 is rumored to be close to a 6970 which is around 6x more powerful, add the optimizations done to the card when its made for consoles maybe we get 8x...that means we can get 1080p with some settings lower or 720p with full settings.

As for the WiiU, funny how most people here seem to only remember the 1st rumor and the one that makes Nintendo look bad... the latest rumor which makes all the sense in the world since they have been updating the dev kits acording to what 3rd parties have requested put the WiiU around 20% less powerful than the 720, which would be around 6x more powerful than this gen, so it should do 720p full setting without a problem, once the engine gets optimized maybe it could go all the way to 1080p full settings

[emekcrash]

No the 720 is rumoured to have a 6670. Unless you made a spelling mistake. Microsoft is not going to use a GPU that currently costs 300 dollars in their next console, it would kill them.

ps. According to rumours, the WiiU has a better GPU. Yes, the 4850 is better. If you disagree than you should not even be arguing as you know nothing about GPUs.

herp derp bigger number means better

[--Onilink--]

yeah it was mispelling, i meant the 6670...and i wont disagree with the 4850 being better because i havent checked honestly, i simply meant that the latest hardware rumors sugested that the 720 would be about 6x more powerful than current gen and WiiU and 20%less powerfull than that, and considering that cards in consoles are optimized and achieve better results than the PC counterpart we could easily see Samaritan running on both WiiU and 720, maybe even in 1080p full settings once the engine is optimized and developers learn more about the hardware

[FutureTechnologies]

So this prop means 720p again...

[SnowBlu]

im tired of people praising the pc like its their lord

console is fun and convenient for me and has better fram rate

while my pc has frame problems on minor games when it can run bf3 on high

and seriously who cares about graphics that much?the graphics look fine make a new console when the current ones cant run new games anymore

[Zephol]

The next gen out in 2013

[jmac53]

Well Epic convinced Microsoft to put in extra RAM in the 360. So maybe Microsoft will bump up the power of the 720.

[hazardman]

dude you know your shit. I hope MS listens one more time!

[CrimsonEngage]

Does that kid have enough tabs open in Chrome?

[ninjahunter]

T_T Laptop too weak, only 400 Gflops
Can play any game maxed at 720p with the exception of SSAO.
Would only play samaratin at 11 FPS T_T

[kesvalk]

oh no, the "comparing gigaflops" cycle has started again...

brace yourselves, the nerd wars are coming...

[Reaper9937]

Debut of the Samaritan Demo, it looked really impressive, now...not so much.

[Voxelman]

What has come out that blows it away in your opinion?

[Reaper9937]

Nothing and nothing will come out this console gen that will ever be able to blow that away in any way or form.

All I'm saying IMO is games such as Uncharted 3, Gears 3 and now The Last of Us have pushed the visual boundaries of what is possible on such ancient hardware to such extremes, that something like the Samaritan Demo running on ridiculous HW does not look as impressive as it once did.

[hazardman]

Dude I'll take those visuals on a console any day!! If the game looks like that when your actually playing it, then Im in, simple as that. I have PS3 and Xbox360 and theres nothing even close to running that pretty, Nothing!!

[tubers]

All I want is better resolution and textures for today's console games.

looks like mud on several occasions.

A lot of 3D model/meshes look great anyway.

[Bob570]

If this is true, then there is no excuse for next gen consoles not to be able to output visuals that are at least that good in 1080P.

[theeg]

i hope ms and sony don't cheap out on hardware

we need something like an i7-920 and at least 4gb ram with something like a 560 ti gpu

thats almost 10 times ps3/360

console games could look really sexy with that power:)

[Mikhail]

In the end, gamers would always complain.
If the hardware is high spec, it would be costly. People would complain about price.
If the hardware is low spec, it would be cheaper. People would complain about itmbeing outdated and holding back the PC.
If the hardware employs new gimmicks such as the Wii U, it would give new gameplay opportuniy. People would complain about it too casual andmgimmicky.
If the hardware only has graphical upgrades, People would complain about it lacking innovation.

In the end, I think all 3 console manufacturers would go to cloud gaming making their concoles serve as a modem of sorts to stream their services/games but also has the capability of playing retail copies.

[kcuthbertson]

I'd be OK with graphics not advancing that much if we could get some decent AA and 1080p, and some sharper textures. Geometry is OK where it is right now for me anyways.

[Pandamobile]

Lol'd when he said "Here's a screenshot from Samaritan", and then showed a screenshot from Crysis 2.

[TABSF]

That is Crysis 2, what a mistake by Epic let alone Tim Sweeney. oh dear :/

[TABSF]

Just to clear it up for people that don't understand this
HD xxxx malarkey works

Here is a couple of examples

HD 4870
The '4' signifies the series in with the card belongs
The '8' signifies weather its low end, midrange or high end, (in this case high end)
The '70' signifies where it sits in its range (this case third behind 90 and 70 x2)

HD 6670
The '6' signifies the series in with the card belongs
The '6' signifies weather its low end, midrange or high end, (in this case mid-low end)
The '70' signifies where it sits in its range (this case first)

So
HD 4870 is in a high end range second or third in that range however you wish to look at it
HD 6670 is mid-low end range and sits first in that range.

So
HD 4870 has 800 cores, 40 Texture Units and 16 Raster OPs
HD 6670 has 480 cores, 24 Texture Units and 8 Raster OPs

HD 4870 > HD 6670
http://www.hwcompare.com/10...

[mechlord]

whatever the case, one thing i know: God of War 4 will look stunning when it comes out on PS4.