Carmack: There'll be "lots of 30hz games" in next-gen

[Bigdoggy]

the company hasn't existed for years now....or so i recall
branding was taken down a couple of years ago



are we talking system RAM or Video RAM?
i'd assume 4GB system ram would be more than enough for a console.....this thing only games (more or less)

trying to run a game in 1080p at 60fps, you will need both a really good GPU and A LOT of RAM, 4GB of ram will not cut it unless the game itself isn't that graphical hungry.

[Fijiandoce]

trying to run a game in 1080p at 60fps, you will need both a really good GPU and A LOT of RAM, 4GB of ram will not cut it unless the game itself isn't that graphical hungry.

i didn't say you wouldn't
what i was trying to get at was the type of RAM you were talking about. 1GB system RAM would be plenty for a console. PS3 only uses 256MB. A consoles OS isn't as complex as Desktop OS's
2GB vRAM would be something worthy of next gen. and HOPEFULLY next gen skips DX10 and goes straight for DX11 (or whatever the PS equivalent is)

-1080p
-30fps
-DX11 hardware
-and a fast Blu-ray reader to reduce load times....none of that 2x crap we got now.

this is what i personally think will be standardised next gen.

also, 1GB of vRAM is plenty for a console running at 1080p. Battlefield 3 uses 900MB or something at 1080p Ultra settings.....im not sure though, im just too lazy to check at the moment

[gangsta_795]

Didn't expect 60fps as standard anyway. But 1080p is a must.

[keefy]

RAM is dirt cheap thesedays, a few months ago I boght 8GB for £35 2 years ago I bought 4GB for the same price and in 2005 I bought 2GB for close to £200.

[bobtheduck]

HOPEFULLY next gen skips DX10 and goes straight for DX11 (or whatever the PS equivalent is)

That would be OpenGL. DirectX is owned by Microsoft. Sony would have to pay MS their due in order to use it. Hopefully OpenGL catches up to Direct X11 or 12 or whatever it will be at that time.

[keefy]

Not sure either console needs to use either API (direct X or OpenGL) since they have full acess to the hardware via the SDK kits and as Carmack says can code directly to the metal of the GPU.

it is unhappily true that we have these consoles here running at sixty frames per second, and we could have these massively more powerful PC systems that struggle sometimes to hold the same framerate because of unnecessary overheads. If we were programming that hardware directly on the metal the same way we do consoles, it would be significantly more powerful.”

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...armack-speaks/

The roiginal source is from his keynote last year a Quakecon but its over an hour long.

[D3seeker]

We better break the 1080p barrier, and with that 60fps is a must! If we go into the next gen still stuck at 720p i just may make the move to PC gaming till they get their sh*t together, if ever!! Hate being a part of this dam minority.....

[keefy]

This generation also had a big jump in resolution its not like the consoles have been stuck at 720p for 20 years like the previous generation consoles, no its onlyu been this way since 2005/6 when they went HD.

My old HD5770 can run BF3 at just about 60FPS at 1024x768 but at 1680x1050 no chance.

[itachi73378]

Guys, looking at a TV screen more than 6 feet away, you cant tell the difference between a 720p movie and a 1080p one. Now you may be able to tell in a game because of the aliasing reduction in the latter, keep in mind that the noticeable effect is minimal given the extra resource consumption.

PC gamer sit WAY to close to the screen so they have an excuse for higher resolutions...but for a living room environment, no need for 1080p yet if it is too costly. I'd rather have decent FXAA or something of sorts in my games. Games like uncharted have AMAZING AA so I'm not worried about anything going into next gen

[Fijiandoce]

Guys, looking at a TV screen more than 6 feet away, you cant tell the difference between a 720p movie and a 1080p one. Now you may be able to tell in a game because of the aliasing reduction in the latter, keep in mind that the noticeable effect is minimal given the extra resource consumption.

PC gamer sit WAY to close to the screen so they have an excuse for higher resolutions...but for a living room environment, no need for 1080p yet if it is too costly. I'd rather have decent FXAA or something of sorts in my games. Games like uncharted have AMAZING AA so I'm not worried about anything going into next gen

this is not true. especially for a game. 720p games look blurred compared to a 1080p game, you wouldn't know this because few games run at 1080p.

how many console gamers sit directly infront of the screen? i laze about on my couch....this is 7 or 8 feet away.

also, for want of a comparison, if you hook your PC up to your screen and keep settings identical and only switch the resolution the differences are more than clear.

[itachi73378]

I'm not denying that there is a difference, I'm weighing the difference and the costs it comes with

[Fijiandoce]

the cost to render at 1080p is significantly less than the cost to run at 60fps, in terms of visuals.

Screen resolution and AA are both linked to high vRAM, the higher the VRAM the better both will be...more or less.
but getting back to next gen, hopefully the next PS uses that APU thing from AMD and maybe some smart techno guy will come up with a means of achieving 4xMSAA for every game with it.

i dont see any visual gain going above 4xAA tbh. this should be standardised also...in some way
PS3 had the right idea with QxAA, but the compromise was a bit much for consoles.

[itachi73378]

the cost to render at 1080p is significantly less than the cost to run at 60fps, in terms of visuals.

Screen resolution and AA are both linked to high vRAM, the higher the VRAM the better both will be...more or less.
but getting back to next gen, hopefully the next PS uses that APU thing from AMD and maybe some smart techno guy will come up with a means of achieving 4xMSAA for every game with it.

i dont see any visual gain going above 4xAA tbh. this should be standardised also...in some way
PS3 had the right idea with QxAA, but the compromise was a bit much for consoles.

MSAA feels outdated and has a MUCH bigger memory hit than FXAA (no additional memory required) or nvidia's new AA technique (forgot the name)

For example Max payne 3 cuts your fps by 45-54% while using MSAA while FXAA has 1.7% performance drop while having near identical results
Source

[Fijiandoce]

oh yes indeed, but FXAA is similar to QXAA in that they are both post processing effects. which results in a blur to textures. i was just being optimistic when stating MSAA
ideally SSAA gets used abit next gen. but now im being crazy

i still use MSAA on the PC though
and SSAA for all UE games, i hate this engine.

[itachi73378]

I'm glad I don't notice such subtle effects like blurred textures due to AA so any kind of AA works for me. I think we've come far enough in gaming to seriously reduce aliasing next gen. Not saying we already haven't, but that's only in the AAA games.
If the next console gpu is powerful as even a gtx 560Ti then we can see some truly amazing visuals

[keefy]

I rarely use Anti Aliasing.

The only time I use it is to make nice screenshots or video clips.

[itachi73378]

I rarely use Anti Aliasing.

The only time I use it is to make nice screenshots or video clips.

Yeah, again sitting close to the screen makes the aliasing appear super ugly but in a console its manageable

[keefy]

Yeah, again sitting close to the screen makes the aliasing appear super ugly but in a console its manageable

I am talkiking about PC gaming the only games I used it are mostly Source engien games TF2 CS:S Portal and for the short period I played it COD2 (idtech3)etc those that do not have very demanding engines.

Visuals do not bother me too much I can put up with funky jaggy graphics its bugs that piss me off more.

[Fijiandoce]

I'm glad I don't notice such subtle effects like blurred textures due to AA so any kind of AA works for me. I think we've come far enough in gaming to seriously reduce aliasing next gen. Not saying we already haven't, but that's only in the AAA games.
If the next console gpu is powerful as even a gtx 560Ti then we can see some truly amazing visuals

if the visual discrepancy is less than we have now with QXAA and with only a 2% performance hit than FXAA is definitely a more viable option. even more so for devs
i was just musing on the reports stating the next PS will use an APU processor from AMD. and wondering if some whiz kid could find a magic section that soley works on proper AA.

not expecting anything to blow me away, but i would laugh out loud if either MS or Sony went with a dual GPU.
my jaw would need collecting up off the floor.