Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tim Sweeny interview, mostly about tech-specs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Interview Skills

    Originally posted by Doc Shock View Post
    The website of the german mag "PC Games Hardware" features an article about Unreal Engine 3, containing an interesting interview with Tim Sweeny.
    Unfortunately there's no english version available, so I had to write a rough translation (I hope you don't mind my mediocre interview skills). It's quite an interesting read, pointing out lots of the technical features UT3 will utilize.
    Enjoy!

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overview of the most important rendering features:

    - multi-threaded renderer (4+ threads)
    - 16 Bit per componenent HDR-Pipeline
    - runs on 64 Bit operating systems
    - (confirmed) performance advantages through SLI (most likely Crossfire as well)
    - post-processing effects (some examples): motion blur, depth-of-field blur, bloom
    - deferred shading
    - physics: Ageia PhysX engine
    - 300 - 1.000 visible objects per scene
    - huge scenes typically consist of 500.000 to 1.500.000 triangles
    - normal maps and texture maps usually have a resolution of 2.048 x 2.048

    --- Edit: The translation has been edited out. Though I credited PCGH, I didn't ask them for permission, my apologies for that. But my post here provoked that they released the original interview, so my work wasn't totally in vain. So, here's the link to the german article and here's the one to the new original english interview.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That's it, I hope you guys had a good read.

    Greetings,
    Doc Shock
    thank you !!!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DX-GAME View Post
    Releases?
    Can you say DEMO?

    Im tired of upgrading. Im tired of new games comming out that the mainstream cant hope to play. Ive got a thousand other choices.

    If it doesnt run good with a Intel P.D 2.8, GF6800 PCIE, and 2gigs of ram, then Ill not be getting it any time soon. The funny thing is neither will the majority of online FPS players, who have specs lower than mine according to quite a few serveys hosted by top gaming companies.

    I dont give a rats butt about Vista, DX10, or 2006 hardware. If thats the target, and the target is mainstream, Epic missed the shot and killed the family cat.

    Like you've said, I'm not upgrading my PC again, I just went out and brought a new car so there's no way i can afford another £2,000 upgrade.

    This badboy better run on my gf7800 or im gonna be mighty ******.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Indeed. They're quite a step up from Intel Extreme Graphics.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by durtytarget View Post
    I really doubt people are going to buy a DX10 card just to get a DX10 experience even thought the actual performance of the card sucks. IMO one would rather buy a 8800 (save up) or stay with a great DX9 card like the X1950 or 7950 series.
    A 8600gt OC'ed is surprisingly good for the price if you don't use AA or very high res

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by durtytarget View Post
    I really doubt people are going to buy a DX10 card just to get a DX10 experience even thought the actual performance of the card sucks. IMO one would rather buy a 8800 (save up) or stay with a great DX9 card like the X1950 or 7950 series.
    I'm getting a dx10 card along with dx10 on vista just so I can enable AA+64bitHDR.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I really doubt people are going to buy a DX10 card just to get a DX10 experience even thought the actual performance of the card sucks. IMO one would rather buy a 8800 (save up) or stay with a great DX9 card like the X1950 or 7950 series.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by roadrash View Post
    I honestly can't help but wonder if the 8600 series is only meant to be the third GPU people purchase. If you look at the big picture that makes sense. 680i ships with 3x pcie x16 slots, the middle one only works at x8 electrical and is meant for an 8 series card to run physics. SLI can not display over multiple monitors, so you must be using a second GPU to run multiple displays without toggling. And since you already have a beefy 3d system the fact that the 8600 series kicks *** at HD video yet is slow in 3d is a bonus.

    If you look at it from that standpoint it makes sense.



    Who knows, I don't think anybody has really looked at it. It's rather like the debacle the Halo port was. Ran great on inferior console parts, but ran like *** on PC no matter what you did.

    At this point I'm not even sure if SLI works in it, I remember it didn't for a while. With all epics claims that SLI shows performance gains, and the fact that they were using SLI ultras for a while, the fact that R6 vegas doesn't work with it right there should raise a red flag on using it to guestimate UT3 peformance.
    Please, NEVER compare Ubisoft to Epic. I still regret buying Splinter Cell: DA, a horrible port, buying King Kong: Gamer's Edition, which runs horribly no matter what, and not to mention Vegas and the issues with places where the 360 would load data brings PCs to a crawl.

    Rainbow Six: Vegas should not be considered an example of how UE3 will run, otherwise Gears of War wouldn't run so good on the 360.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Which is why the 8600 are only good for HTPC not gaming, and not worth $200 price tag at this time. Even Tom's hardware admits that.
    I honestly can't help but wonder if the 8600 series is only meant to be the third GPU people purchase. If you look at the big picture that makes sense. 680i ships with 3x pcie x16 slots, the middle one only works at x8 electrical and is meant for an 8 series card to run physics. SLI can not display over multiple monitors, so you must be using a second GPU to run multiple displays without toggling. And since you already have a beefy 3d system the fact that the 8600 series kicks *** at HD video yet is slow in 3d is a bonus.

    If you look at it from that standpoint it makes sense.

    I can agree that, but I'd really like to see more *technical* details, no subjective arguments. Is the x86 code poorly compile, not using SSE2? Does the DX code path have more layers. Does this game only have load balance very optimized for triple-core? Does is use heavily the Xenos tesselator? What is it?
    Who knows, I don't think anybody has really looked at it. It's rather like the debacle the Halo port was. Ran great on inferior console parts, but ran like *** on PC no matter what you did.

    At this point I'm not even sure if SLI works in it, I remember it didn't for a while. With all epics claims that SLI shows performance gains, and the fact that they were using SLI ultras for a while, the fact that R6 vegas doesn't work with it right there should raise a red flag on using it to guestimate UT3 peformance.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MrLemur2U View Post
    Because the 7950 is cheaper than a 8600 and smokes it in performance.
    **** you guys A 7950gt costs here almost TWICE the price of a 8600gt.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by roadrash View Post
    Wrong the game is a pile of ****. Pong would be a better benchmark.

    It's a hashed together console game and a pile of ****. Again Pong would be a better benchmark.
    I can agree that, but I'd really like to see more *technical* details, no subjective arguments. Is the x86 code poorly compile, not using SSE2? Does the DX code path have more layers. Does this game only have load balance very optimized for triple-core? Does is use heavily the Xenos tesselator? What is it?


    You "might", but in other tests the 8800gts (let alone the gtx) thrashes the x2900xt. The x2900xt also uses more power. The 8800gts is cheaper (now) to boot.

    So other then the hope, that based off a ****ty console port that shouldn't be played at all, let alone used for benchmarks, and even then not all benchmarks report ATi winning.... you should buy a more expensive part that sucks more power and in some cases is proven slower.
    Who said again that is about *ME* or *BUY*? Do people only see themselves here? No chance to give someone an advice to *just wait*, or trying to help other people, staying away from buy buy buy?

    You'd be a complete idiot to purchase a product based off that. All that said I have great hopes for the 2900 parts, with better drivers they should really show some force, but currently they don't.
    Don't worry, I'm a complete idiot but on a few other issues not related with PC hardware
    Look, to buy a card that costs 300€, 400, 500€ or more, it is really wise to wait. So please stay away from be insist that someone shouldn't buy a X2900, but it's ok to buy a 8800 now independed of the price. It isn't ok, it's the same ****.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by roadrash View Post
    People need to realize that the 80 series is not about better frame rates, under the 8800 series it's all about pushing HD video, and it kicks *** at that.

    And for the most part, high end parts still smoke middle end parts of the next gen. Nvidia was kind with the 6600 and 7600 parts, partly because they had to be.
    Which is why the 8600 are only good for HTPC not gaming, and not worth $200 price tag at this time. Even Tom's hardware admits that.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MrLemur2U View Post
    I just got a 7950GT for $150 after rebates. (built a whole new rig for video editing ($600 w/ A4600 X2 /2gb ram).

    Why?

    Because the 7950 is cheaper than a 8600 and smokes it in performance.

    Maybe it doesn't support DX10, but let me tell ya I just 86'd Vista and went back to MCE2005, because it really needs a service pack or two before it runs as well as MCE2005 (IMHO) for my needs.

    As far as UE3 goes The LP demo runs avg 40fps at 1280x720 w/ details on high.

    Even without DX10 goodness I imagine I will be very happy with how UT3 will run.
    People need to realize that the 80 series is not about better frame rates, under the 8800 series it's all about pushing HD video, and it kicks *** at that.

    And for the most part, high end parts still smoke middle end parts of the next gen. Nvidia was kind with the 6600 and 7600 parts, partly because they had to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by OblivionLord View Post
    The x1950Xt and 7950gt may play anything of today but they are but 1 year old. Hardly considered outdated compared to something thats 3 years old like the 6800Ultra. Besides that.. both of these cards on Newegg cost $200-250 outside of rebates. That also proves still how modern they are compared to the price performance of 6800Ultra which Ebay is about the only place youll find it on if any...
    I just got a 7950GT for $150 after rebates. (built a whole new rig for video editing ($600 w/ A4600 X2 /2gb ram).

    Why?

    Because the 7950 is cheaper than a 8600 and smokes it in performance.

    Maybe it doesn't support DX10, but let me tell ya I just 86'd Vista and went back to MCE2005, because it really needs a service pack or two before it runs as well as MCE2005 (IMHO) for my needs.

    As far as UE3 goes The LP demo runs avg 40fps at 1280x720 w/ details on high.

    Even without DX10 goodness I imagine I will be very happy with how UT3 will run.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    It is a good or bad benchmark as any other. You can benchmark correctly if you use lots of them.
    Wrong the game is a pile of ****. Pong would be a better benchmark.

    Sorry but it's currently the only junk that can evaluate UE3.
    It's a hashed together console game and a pile of ****. Again Pong would be a better benchmark.

    Being a bad benchmark doesn't invalidate the fact that you may really have that price/performance ratio on UT3. I just posted this so that peeps don't rush.
    But I see where this thread would go, so let me tell you that have only NVidia cards
    You "might", but in other tests the 8800gts (let alone the gtx) thrashes the x2900xt. The x2900xt also uses more power. The 8800gts is cheaper (now) to boot.

    So other then the hope, that based off a ****ty console port that shouldn't be played at all, let alone used for benchmarks, and even then not all benchmarks report ATi winning.... you should buy a more expensive part that sucks more power and in some cases is proven slower.

    You'd be a complete idiot to purchase a product based off that. All that said I have great hopes for the 2900 parts, with better drivers they should really show some force, but currently they don't.

    And that sir is why you might want to stay out of the PC gaming industry. You would lose sales for your company and be out of work untill you realize that you have to market a realistic return. Upper-Midrange/High End systems are only a small percentage of the return in any game.
    So then stay out of it, or leave it completely. Either way your argument is trash. A lot of people do have above a 6800 (which you keep crying about) that don't played dated games like say source.

    As soon as you make a PC game that is targeted for low end, it will lose all the advantages PC gaming has and die off. So yes, let's have people push out **** products that don't compare to consoles on any level just so little timmy doesn't have to give an extra blow job out back of his private catholic school to pay for an upgrade. Genius!

    By your logic and reasoning we should all have PC games that are inferior to their console ports, just to run them on low end computers.

    But lets look at your statement. The only consol that you can really play a FPS on is the PS3 as it allows for a keyboard and mouse. Assuming the game is coded to accept it. So after the PS3, the game, the internet subscription(being pay to play) the peripherals, you are right back up to the price of a 8800 again, maybe more since you have to pay for the online subscription.
    Hows that a solution?
    An 8800 or the PS3 costs less then an entire system... and you can even get an 8800 for half the cost of a PS3.

    So your argument isn't based in reality or facts. Try again.

    Before calling me kid, you might want to be over 70, and before replying to my posts, you might want to drop the "I dont care about the community, I got mine" sentiments. The reason I post is because Im concerned about the player population, which you do not seem to be.
    Kid, kid, kid, kid

    You're acting like a kid, a spoiled brat at that. "Mommy my box is not as good as Marks, get me a new box, or make that evil company lower their quality so the game will run on my box. The entire world is after me mommy, people should not have better toys"

    That's what I hear in every single one of your remarks. And to top it all off you back it with "opinions" on things like SLI and price that honestly show you don't know what you're talking about at all.

    The only player population you care about is you, and you're upset that (heaven forbid) you might have to spend money on an upgrade... which might just reduce the number of Denny's ultra breakfast combos you can fork out on a hot date Friday night.

    Now time to respond to a post from somebody who isn' a....

    SLI would be a good idea if video card prices dropped significantly enough to make it worthwhile. That is to say, the card you buy for $300 today should go for $75 in two years. However, it seems like the prices don't always drop fast enough. Take the 6800 GT's, for example. They were still going for about $250-300 only two years ago and their prices never really dropped down to under $100, at least not until it would no longer make sense to put two of them together for SLI.

    I think it would be better to just buy a newer best-bang-for-your-buck card and then sell your older card on eBay or just put it in your second computer.
    SLI only matters for extremely high resolutions with large amounts of AA. For the most part you're talking LCD's in the price range of well over 1000 USD. CRT's with high res aren't cheap either.

    So anybody with a display that would require SLI, is already purchasing displays in the extreme high end. The people that plunked over 2000 bucks on a 30inch LCD aren't going to get fussy over dumping 800bucks into SLI. It's the same group of people that buys intel extreme chips, or AMD FX. These people do not even fall into the gamer category.

    So really price isn't the issue here. Go check out some actual PC sites, not sites full of gamers with no cash screaming that they can't afford something. You'll notice that SLI is the least over priced item involved.

    I have lian-li case, 250-300 right there, pc power and cooling psu, over 300 right there, asus striker which is down to only 330 now it was over 400, 4gb of dominator ram at over 400 per 2gb. The water cooling block for the CPU alone runs at 80 bucks and it's the least over priced part of the loop.

    It's funny because, though that sounds expensive, it's not compared to what most other 8800sli users have. What's extra funny is that most of them game on old games, ala quake1 or UT. The systems are built to overclock and have fun in benchmark competitions, or, when required. max out FEAR because you can't do it any other way.

    I can also tell you for a fact that SLI is slower at 1280x1042 then a single card (in most situations), it's only at upper resolutions that it really helps, and above 1920x1080 the gains are massive, below that not so much.

    I'm sure at the detail settings I plan on using for UT3 online my other systems will work just well. I have great faith in epic give past experiences and what I ran their games on. Though being able to benchmark it on my best build will be fun as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I hope that it would run on my x800xt (actually an x800 GTO unlocked to 16 pipelines and overclocked to x800xt speed). However, I'm sure we should be able to find cards that will run UT 2007 just fine for under $200 at Newegg once the game is finally released.

    Regarding SLI--I decided to go with a single PCI-E slot motherboard when I built my rig a year-and-a-half ago becuase I concluded that SLI jus wasn't a very good deal.

    SLI would be a good idea if video card prices dropped significantly enough to make it worthwhile. That is to say, the card you buy for $300 today should go for $75 in two years. However, it seems like the prices don't always drop fast enough. Take the 6800 GT's, for example. They were still going for about $250-300 only two years ago and their prices never really dropped down to under $100, at least not until it would no longer make sense to put two of them together for SLI.

    I think it would be better to just buy a newer best-bang-for-your-buck card and then sell your older card on eBay or just put it in your second computer.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X