Vognerful
Member
Have you played it ? It looks .. pardon the pun .. Unreal.
Also:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF: The Matrix Awakens: Demo vs UHD Blu-ray Movie, Series S Cutbacks, SSD Speed Tests
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
Demon’s Souls Remake loads data 4GB a second compressed.
Without Sony’s SSD I/O design and decompression, and them removing all bottlenecks, it couldn’t be done otherwise-
Please don’t compare a tech demo from a uniquely designed engine, made to function a certain way, and assume a full fledged game will use the same data requirements.
Sony developers PS5 games will make this demo look like Cartoon Network soon enough.
Without Sony’s SSD I/O design and decompression, and them removing all bottlenecks, it couldn’t be done otherwise-
Please don’t compare a tech demo from a uniquely designed engine, made to function a certain way, and assume a full fledged game will use the same data requirements.
Sony developers PS5 games will make this demo look like Cartoon Network soon enough.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
And yet the game looks nothing like the matrix. Its probably Still using a last gen engine that needs to pull that much data to look good and even then it can’t even come close to the matrix.
I think everyone just needs to switch to ue5 because their tech is on another level. If you are having to pull gb of data every second when 300 would do in a different engine then it’s time to switch engines
prinz_valium
Member
So Xbox Series silicon was indeed finalized later. Good to knowHave you played it ? It looks .. pardon the pun .. Unreal.
Also:
Wow, thanks for the catch.
Your numbers are absolutely right.
I wasn't figuring for compression or anything like that. I was just being dumb trying to do math while half asleep and somehow ended up using using 60fps frame times instead of the actual framerate in my math so my numbers ended up being based on 16.6fps
The only thing right about my math was the ratios between my numbers of comparison. I'll update them.
Last edited:
That’s not how game development works. Your letting a tech demo color your perception of what a full complete game can look like, GPU/data requirements.
Every game is not going to look the same and use the same kind of assets. The way BP designed the game it needs that much data. It’s not an inferior design because of it. That’s crazy talk.
And no every game should not use UE5. Bespoken engine designs are still beneficial to each developer and game.
Arioco
Member
If after looking at the visuals you still don't understand it I'm very sorry, but there's nothing we can do to help you understand, I'm afraid.
Smh, can you maybe see what I was replying to before making false assumptions?
I never said Insomniac claimed anything, no t sure why you trying to imply that I did. My comment was a refutation of a false claim that Ratchet cannot run on slower SSDs or that you need 5.5GB/s SSD for it to work. Same goes for UE5 demo, nothing on the market currently needs anywhere close to what PS5 SSD offers.
My original comment was also poking fun at all the tech experts on GAF who said there was no way UE5 demo can run on slower SSDs, which as many things claimed by GAF experts has proven to be false. PS5 SSD may as well be fully utilised at some point, but right there's nothing that comes even close and it will probably be a while before that happens.
Last edited:
This is just talking about having hardware decompression to avoid having to do decompression in software. That’s no different from the design philosophy of the Xbox Series.
You’ll notice the developers are comparing what they’re able to do with this gen vs previous gen with HDDs.
ABnormal
Member
I would be really happy if every developer switch to UE5. In the past, UE engines had some kind of pros and cons, regarding the ability to handle specific tasks and to achieve specific results. But UE5 seems really able to do EVERYTHING better than the other engines, and gives total freedom in terms of photograpy and style (a thing that was more limited in UE, especially UE3, giving the games some kind of a "UE aspect", which clearly is not good for variety. But UE5, as said, is more or less able to create any possible style, from photorealism to stylized aspects, and with an exceptional efficiency.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Precisely.
And don’t forget, epic bought quixxel mega scans and made them all available to ue5 clients for free. There’s millions Of assets available to every dev. No need to photograph or create assets yourself.
Fortnite must have given them a huge budget for ue5 because this is an incredible Leap in tech and feature set. They have the Matrix bullet time supervisor as their CTO, who knows what other talent they have acquired. They did get Hollywood studios like weta digital to help with the matrix demo so clearly they are investing in this engine in ways other devs with their own proprietary engines just can’t.
Tripolygon
Banned
I really hope not. UE does not do everything better than every engine but what is good about UE is that it gives established studios a starting point from where they can tune it to their needs and it gives smaller developers a complete engine to release a game. I would hope developers create their own specific engine that fits what they want to create rather than all use UE5 because it has a shiny new tech, something the industry will implement in their own engine sooner or later. Look at Bubble Bath engine used in Dreams, for example, doing software-based rendering, not a single level is "stored" on the console and loads in seconds from the cloud that is something UE5 cannot do.
DaGwaphics
Member
UE5 is just the first to show off. I'm sure we'll get upgraded engines from most of the studios that have done their own thing in the past. Hopefully soooon. Most of the big boys haven't even shown off current-gen only projects yet.
a multicultural team of v
Member
Kind of wonder how UE and other future game engines will handle fantasy and cartoon graphics. It sounds like so much of the content creation is geared around photogrammetry and other techniques that leverage real world objects and data. Flight Simulator using Bing map data is another example. What does this mean for the future of fantasy games? If devs have a choice between scanning an object in minutes to paste into the game or spending hours modeling a cartoon version, I worry games are going to shift even more towards "realistic" graphics.
I know Fortnite is a huge example of cartoon on UE - is there any insight on how content is created for Fortnite vs how they did for this Matrix demo?
I know Fortnite is a huge example of cartoon on UE - is there any insight on how content is created for Fortnite vs how they did for this Matrix demo?
Mike bithell brought up this topic kinda before. The fact that at the moment, when we think AAA games we generally think photo-realistic graphics. What happens when a shit tonne more developers can hit 95% of the photo-realistic graphic, how do those devs stand out? I think they are going to be forced to focus on gameplay and interactive systems within the game.
I am not worried about stylized games/graphics going out of fashion, we still get it in movies.
What they’re doing can’t be done in software with the amount of data they’re pushing. That’s the point.
We know nothing of Xbox I/O performance.
MS is good at naming things and making it sound cooler than it really is.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
That's impossible sir, please check if you actually have the series S and the X.. it could be an honest mistake, but the series S is incapable of any modern graphics, and it is in fact holding back the whole generation. There is a lot of information, from very reliable sources, that if the series s didn't exist, the Matrix awakens demo would've had 10x the fidelity, your son would've been blown away for real.
Now, if you confirm that you do in fact posses the series s, its recommended to safely place that in the garbage bin and order a PS5 so your son can actually enjoy next gen gaming.
oldergamer
Member
300 MB is a lot per second. I doubt ratchet and clank approaches that number. In unreal i think its a pretty even split between geometry and textures. I'd wager ratchet and clank is mostly textures as it wouldn't approach the same geometric detail as nanite. I said this before both consoles launched. How much is enough bandwidth to make a really big difference? People kept calling the xbox ssd slow, when it clearly was not.
However still possible R&C does, but it would have to be wasting a lot of bandwidth on things the user cant see, or it uses more due to rendering at a higher resolution? I dont know but worth speculating.
I realized back when epic first showed unreal 5 on ps5, that there was a very good chance they were not maxing bandwidth from SSD. Epic wouldn't show something that could only run on a single platform. They always demo cross platform features.
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
Ssd speed no matter what the system always only results in less waiting time. Think about it, what its really doing is allowing something to be loaded into memory faster.
What other advantage could you think about?
the matrix demo run 1080p at down till 21 fps on PS5 ...I have serious doubts that the I / O can improve anything ..probably it just need a better gpu
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Depending on how deep you design it in your system it can improve performance as it decreases the impact data missing at one level of the hierarchy will have as data is fetched or prefetched at lower levels.
Games are massive data moving machines, layout and efficient manipulation of data flowing through your pipeline being a big obstacle to performance. You are asking a very broad question… what could be better if getting data to memory were faster? Well, with speed and latency of SSD matching RAM you effectively add extra RAM, between HDD and RAM speed wise you are at least allowing to keep the streaming buffers smaller and make more effective use of the available RAM.
Last edited:
It was suspected ever since it was rumored that the PS5 had an I / O twice as fast as the others that ultimately the difference would not have impacted as much in multi-platform games. And now they have the practical proof in the engine that most of all could exploit the difference. The truth is that the data that can load an average SSD can saturate as much as these GPU into the consoles manage to render ...I don't mean that Cerny unbalanced the system and could have opted for a more powerful GPU instead of spending a lot of budget on I / O (budget partition which we really just assume) but after seeing the two consoles with practically identical performances, it certainly does not reward the design with an i / o so much more powerful .... and honestly I don't think many other situations where this i / o could make a difference ... probably they created it thinking about Sony's proprietary engines that having no nanite need a lot more bw to get similar results where then the situation becomes gpu bound (as in the Matrix demo)
Low Moral Fibre
Member
I played around with it some more and while I wouldn't want to play a game at 20-30fps I think some of the things this engine is doing are crazy leaps over what we've seen in the past especially for open world stuff. Being able to move very far away from something (say into the sky) without a huge loss in visible detail is the holy grail for many open world games.
I think toned down a bit so it isn't crushing the console GPUs and there will be some crazy open world games possible (or even super highly detailed linear games thanks to nanite).
The upscaling is definitely noticeable even to the untrained eye as there is very obvious shimmering but the overall scene doesn't look like 1080p if that makes sense so TSR looks a decent option.
I think toned down a bit so it isn't crushing the console GPUs and there will be some crazy open world games possible (or even super highly detailed linear games thanks to nanite).
The upscaling is definitely noticeable even to the untrained eye as there is very obvious shimmering but the overall scene doesn't look like 1080p if that makes sense so TSR looks a decent option.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I disagree. Ultimately it is either wrongly balanced or not. Unless you are saying that the consoles would have not benefited from additional GDDR6 RAM, the SSD is too slow rather than too fast for the rest of the system.
We will see how the balancing of these systems is overall and overtime, what devs find easier to tap and what they get for free and what they can unlock performance wise if they dig deeper in a previously easy to use system. I do not think you take this particular demo to judge how an additional 2 TFLOPS of sustained guaranteed performance looks like like we may not want to use it as the ultimate SSD master.
SSD (flash + controller + DRAM cache) + Kraken HW decoder + Oodle Texture license for all the devs + I/O complex (and all its co-processors) + SSD extension bay are to be taken as a whole (in both systems… MS made it easier to benefit of XVA in BC titles and cross-generation ones). You have seen a pattern of titles considerably smaller for PS5, you have seen first party (I guess some third party ones if I am not mistaken) games which were able to transform the games more than others (not being cross gen helps), and we have seen that developers are finding PS5 easy enough/pleasant to code for (which again is nothing to underrate) but again for both consoles it is pretty early on.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Yep. Games will ultimately be GPU limited for the entire gen. I don't expect third party games to use the I/O at 100% capacity for at least another 3-4 years. I still wouldn't call it a wasted effort though, you need to start somewhere.
Werewolfgrandma
Banned
You mean to tell me it's not perfect in every way? That every system has a bottleneck.
I'm talking about real tangible differences that could make me (user) change my mind about which console to buy and why. If the games, as some users tried to pass the idea, they would have been revolutionary towards the competition thanks to UE5 and the extreme performance of the i / o in the PS5 and how these two went hand in hand .... well that would have been a case where i for first after seeing clear differences would have prefeer to buy a ps5 but as I suspected and as many experts on the subject have been saying for some time these consoles will be GPU bound much sooner than i / o bound ... now we have multiple proofs of how ue5 works and how it performs on both machines and the difference in performance of the i/o which is not bringing any tangible benefit. Instead I'm sure that in more extreme situations the GPU will make a difference. In all honesty, putting aside our personal interest in the industry and speaking as a customer instead I shouldn't care which of the two systems is easier to use .... the PS3 was very complicated but had wonderful games.I shouldn't care which of the two systems is easier to use .... the PS3 was very complicated but had wonderful games I have never seen any user complaining to Sony about how naughty dogs and guerrillas had to study and work more to get to know the console
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
Wait what do you mean? All the information on the xbox io is available. Do you mean data on real world tests?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
… but people certainly complained that multi platforms would be worse on PS3 for the longest time and people did also complain that first party studios were not more prolific… well
.So far neither the GPU difference nor the SSD I/O difference is making a big difference, no pun intended. Which console to buy if the game is very similar on both, depends on the ecosystem of games available, the OS experience, the controller, etc…. Happy to have gotten the Dual Sense instead of money being thrown at other things for example.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
R&C loads entirely new environments in like 2 seconds though. The Matrix demo just streams in additional detail for stuff you're moving closer to. Nanite doesn't load everything at full detail all at once, it does it bit by bit, that's the point.
So I'm absolutely certain R&C reaches much higher peak data throughput in those transition moments, BUT it probably streams less than this demo while you're in a certain "level".
Last edited:
It’s the same experience with a few cutbacks visually
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Resolution, lesser draw distance, lesser spot lights in explosions etc.
Otherwise the entire thing is 1 : 1 in terms of content and world.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Ratchet isnt even maxing out the PS5. DF was able to test this with a 3.2 gbps ssd and a 7 gbps ssd and they both performed the same as PS5's 5.5 GBps SSD. So clearly the SSD speeds dont really matter for those loading transitions. The I/O or the CPU is the bottleneck there. Otherwise those 2-3 second transitions would be faster on the 7 GBps SSD.
Devs definitely wanted SSDs. Even the Avatar devs said that the SSD is crucial to flying at faster speeds and creating denser worlds without many loading zones that have plagued so many open world games this gen. However, 5.5 GBps is clearly overkill. The GPU is and always will be the bottleneck. Going all out on SSD and I/O instead of the GPU is the reason why the performance of this demo on the PS5 is so bad even at 1080p.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Sure, but 3 GB/s is still 10x more than 300 MB/s.
It does the same on Series X with 12TF of GPU compute .
avin
Member
Thanks. If it's a visual compromise, but nothing else, I'm personally good with it. For what it's worth, in my admittedly limited experience, the demo seems to run smoother on my S than my X.
avin
I'm glad that the matrix demo was finally able to tap into both of these console's individual strengths, proving that neither better I/O or more TF can improve performance in any other possible scenario in any other game.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Has there ever been a XSS game that released with fewer levels or characters compared to the PS5 and XSX versions? Some here seem to think it won't be able to continue to play games this generation because of its lower speced GPU.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, and outside of some visual enhancements like RT or higher frame rate modes, I don't expect games on Series S to release with pared back content/core game features either.
Barakov
Gold Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Sounds like the Epic demo hyperbole all over again. The PS5 SSD is very nice but let's not act like it has redefined gaming. This is especially true if Sony is planning on putting more games on PC. Those PCs won't have the PS5 I/O.Who is laughing at this?
Well, Well. What a surprise.
skit_data
Member
Well, considering the introduction of RTX I/O and the RDNA counterpart its probably gonna be on par or exceed PS5s I/O within a couple of years.
The consoles are designed for what will be the standard in the future, not how hardware is built now.
Physiognomonics
Member
I really don't understand what's even the point of benchmarking SSDs here. I mean, except in order to create a narrative about the supposed useless (again) PS5 I/O speed.
But again, this demo has being coded to run on slow PC SSDs so it's limited internally by the engine. Whatever the speed of the SSD you test, it will never be faster than the maximum internal speed limit.
We know when they develop a game they set a I/O speed limit. Insomniac used 20MB/s on PS4 Spiderman, which will be the same limit used on the game running on PS5 via BC (without a patch).
The same way we know Ratchet and clank has a software bottleneck as they were far from using all of SSD speed. They had said that (that the PS5 I/O was actually faster than what they could render with it) and it was tested by DF (but of course with all their wrong conclusions).
So it's obvious why DF do this, but their logic is flawed. The same way it's wrong to assume XSS isn't limiting next-gen graphics by doing an analysis based on a game runnning on all hardware as devs will need to restrict their engine (mostly available memory) somehow in order to run on XSS.
But again, this demo has being coded to run on slow PC SSDs so it's limited internally by the engine. Whatever the speed of the SSD you test, it will never be faster than the maximum internal speed limit.
We know when they develop a game they set a I/O speed limit. Insomniac used 20MB/s on PS4 Spiderman, which will be the same limit used on the game running on PS5 via BC (without a patch).
The same way we know Ratchet and clank has a software bottleneck as they were far from using all of SSD speed. They had said that (that the PS5 I/O was actually faster than what they could render with it) and it was tested by DF (but of course with all their wrong conclusions).
So it's obvious why DF do this, but their logic is flawed. The same way it's wrong to assume XSS isn't limiting next-gen graphics by doing an analysis based on a game runnning on all hardware as devs will need to restrict their engine (mostly available memory) somehow in order to run on XSS.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Alex explains the point. Many people (on NeoGAF too) were under the impression that UE5 can only run on PS5 because it needs very high SSD speeds. This has now been debunked repeatedly. That's the point.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I took these from the XSX version, its seems they dont have noise shown in your video. Perhaps hes using the series S version.
dr guildo
Member
I took these from the XSX version, its seems they dont have noise shown in your video. Perhaps hes using the series S version.
Same location ? Photomode or drone mode ?
He used dronemode for his demonstration.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its a fundamental thing because one of the major reasons UE5 stuff looks as good as it does is because the engine is capable of taking huge assets and intelligently chopping them down into chunks such that only the stuff that matters ends up being drawn.
Its not creating detail, its simply preserving it way more efficiently along the render/rasterization path than older technologies.
What this means is that essentially its a data solution as much as anything else, and so the i/o side is under way more stress than is usual.
Last edited: