Extended UE4 Tech Demo "Elemental" running on the PS4 in 1080p.

[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

 

What the hell makes you think the Ps4 will be able to pull off better physics?

Tessellation

I doubled them up. PS4 on the right. http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlY20pxEQM-A&start1=1&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdNuIzOxOfn8&start2=6&authorName=FAVkillzowned24

Why the hell hermits keep saying the PC footage looks better? I can only see a difference in color palette... hermits full of it, as usual...

God that looks like crap. Laptop consoles FTL.

Still filled with jags and low textures. Can't even run 1080p 60 FPS.

Cows got owned today.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"]I doubled them up. PS4 on the right. http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlY20pxEQM-A&start1=1&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdNuIzOxOfn8&start2=6&authorName=FAVVatusus

Why the hell hermits keep saying the PC footage looks better? I can only see a difference in color palette... hermits full of it, as usual...

Cows got owned today.

NFJSupreme

Well it looks rather choppy, but the thing is that I don't think tech demoes have ever been representative of anything we'll actually see on the console they're demoed for, so yah. I'm pretty disappointed by that.

[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"]Lol at you Hermits, the Engine hasnt even been optimized for the PS4 yet, it was a simple mashup they put together real quick for the presentation Plus Ill gladly take better physics on the Ps4 for a little less graphics when compared to PC gamesKinthalis

What the hell makes you think the Ps4 will be able to pull off better physics?

KZ:SF looks better so does the new battlefield. Eh

Cows got owned today.

NFJSupreme

[QUOTE="NFJSupreme"]

Cows got owned today.

Douevenlift_bro

[QUOTE="Douevenlift_bro"]

[QUOTE="NFJSupreme"]

Cows got owned today.

mastershake575

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

how can you people even tell frame-rate is bad or good when Youtube upconvert and downconvert videos? Youtube is not only capped at 30 frames but that's the only frame-rate it can play so don't bulllcrap us. Unless there is software running that tells you the exact frame-rate then it's not humanly possible to tell the difference with the naked eye.

Even if the demo was running at 60 frames Youtube would downconvert it to 30.

Kinthalis

Wow. 

The framerate might be capped at 30 FPS on a youtube video, but that doesn't mean the content can't go lower. And it's OBVIOUS when the frame rate takes a dive. Anyone with two funcitoning eyes can see. Or maybe even just one.

Looks fine to me. Shows that the PS4 can get close to what they can do with PCs right now which means the bottleneck of the conosles are more or less gone for a few years. 

PCs may be more powerful but engines need to be built around that power. Unreal 4, Frostbite 3, and CryEngine 3 are all good improvements that take advantage of a wide vareity of PC hardware and look to take good advantage of the next gen consoles (not the WiiU). 

Though I did see some framerate things and im sure that demo wouldn't be running at 60fps so you can still see the gap between the PS4 and a high end gaming PC. Considering the cost difference between the two I think it's fine.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

how can you people even tell frame-rate is bad or good when Youtube upconvert and downconvert videos? Youtube is not only capped at 30 frames but that's the only frame-rate it can play so don't bulllcrap us. Unless there is software running that tells you the exact frame-rate then it's not humanly possible to tell the difference with the naked eye.

Even if the demo was running at 60 frames Youtube would downconvert it to 30.

blackace

Wow. 

The framerate might be capped at 30 FPS on a youtube video, but that doesn't mean the content can't go lower. And it's OBVIOUS when the frame rate takes a dive. Anyone with two funcitoning eyes can see. Or maybe even just one.

Meh, doesn't bothe rne none. Devs don't know what the hardwar is capable of yet It happens every gen, nothing new or suprising.

:|

This is not news to anybody.

Cows got owned today.

NFJSupreme

Yeah totally expected the PS4 to be be equal to top of the gaming PCs....dork.

I doubled them up. PS4 on the right. http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlY20pxEQM-A&start1=1&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdNuIzOxOfn8&start2=6&authorName=FAVkillzowned24

I'll go through the differences I noticed:

1. The PC version has complex smoke effects in the beginning/PS4 version barely has any smoke

2. The PC version has visible light rays in the beginning/PS4 lacks them

3. The PC version has better anti-aliasing, but that's to be expected

4. The PC version has reflections off the fire guy's armor/PS4 doesn't

5. The PC version uses a depth of field effect when the fire guy's sitting on the throne/PS4 doesn't

6. The PC version has far more complex and detailed PhysX particle effects. In some areas, the PS4 doesn't even have those particle effects (the embers on the guy's shoulder, the embers coming out of the magma)

7. The PC version has considerably better shadows/shading/ambient occlusion. Around the 1:27 mark, the PC version has a considerable amount of shadows, where the PS4 version has little to no shadows/shading. This is probably the best place to compare as the differences are very noticeable. The PS4 version's torches aren't nearly as complexly lit as the PC version. The PC version also has a moving shadow during this time, whereas the PS4 versiond doesn't. At the 1:58 mark, you can see that the fire guy has far less complex shading/shadows on the PS4 version.

8. The rock debris on the PC version has realistic shading, whereas the PS4 rock debris looks out of place in the enviornment due to a lack of shading.

9. The PS4 version has noticeable framerate drops, particularly when there's a physx effect/rock debris. 

10. The PC has slightly better textures, although the difference isn't that considerable. 

11. The magma is less detailed on the PS4 version. 

12. The volcano smoke in the PC version is much more dynamic, whereas the PS4 version looks almost entirely static. 

Altogther, the differences arent' that considerable. The main area the PS4 fails at is the shading and particle effects. 

looks good to me and let's be honest Epic probably hasn't fully utilised all 8 cpu cores fully and who knows if this was made with the 8gigs of the magical DDR5. particle effects look very solid and the lava looks great, along with object based motion blur. only thing that lets it down is the lack of shadowing and lighting(dynamic global illumination) all in all for a quick demo seems fine Wii U wouldn't get 6 frames a second even at 720p.

Not looking good for Ps4 performance. :(

PC with 680 is more powerful than ps4. What else is new?

Am I the only one that, despite being a die-hard PC gamer, is very excited for the possibilites for games like Kh3, new FF, new Persona etc, running on tech like that?

Also, it will propably be much easier to emulate later, with the tech being so similar to pc tech and all.

I watched them side by side. Clearly PC version is better but one thing I noticed is the inconsistencies of the particle effects on the PS4 version, in some parts it matched the PC version and in another part they are missing.

Unoptimized is my guess.

I watched them side by side. Clearly PC version is better but one thing I noticed is the inconsistencies of the particle effects on the PS4 version, in some parts it matched the PC version and in another part they are missing.

Unoptimized is my guess.

Blazerdt47

i noticed this too, when the lava reaches the first piller and it lights up the particle effect match the pc version easily and the lava flowing in the background is great but then you look at the snow particles when the door is opened and there is a downgrade. i think people need to watch it again and look at the little things it's not bad for early tech demo with perhaps an unfinished dev kit. 

looks way worse in the ps4 than i thought it would. the poor thing is already outdated before release. :(KarateeeChop

Why so butthurt ?

Obviously not even close to take advantage of the hardware, KZSF looked so much better. This is the weakest showing of all next gen tech demos. gpuking

The Pc version has superior depth fo field, shadowing, and particle effects, as well as a better frame rate.

It's also likely that the PC demow asn't fully optimized either.

So obvisouly the PS4 can't do what a PC witha  gTX 680 can do.

 

Is this news to anybody not a console fanboy?

 

I think we all knew that already. Still, it looks pretty damn good. And now we know it''ll look that much better on PC.

Kinthalis

Nope, not news to anybody, not sure why you stated it, Cpt. Obvious.

Differences are actually much smaller than I would expect.

Obviously not even close to take advantage of the hardware, KZSF looked so much better. This is the weakest showing of all next gen tech demos. gpuking

Its the unreal engine, it presents how the industry standard average graphics shall look and is nowhere near the top. Just like this gen.

[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"][QUOTE="MBirdy88"] Can you just account suicide already? your boring. /shoo.faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"] Im just speaking the truth, there is no HSA design on the PC yet that you can apply CU's freely to physics, plus the 8 core processor will be great for multi threaded thingsPC_Otter

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]I'm pretty sure HSA will be on PC by the time PS4 actually releases. And why hell would anyone use CPU cores for the physics? That would completely cripple it.faizan_faizan

Obviously not even close to take advantage of the hardware, KZSF looked so much better. This is the weakest showing of all next gen tech demos. gpuking

The Killzone demo just used a ton of bloom and lens flare to look good. Those features aren't remotely demanding. The only features that the PS4 really struggles with are the complex shading (which is to be expected as good shading is very demanding) and physx particle effects/debris (also very demanding).

My main concern is the lack of sparse voxel octree global illumination. It really seems to make a huge difference, as seen in this vid showing off UE4's features:

Both looked good, and it is obvious that some things were skimped on in the PS4 version. I realize that the PC version is better, but I think both could have been better.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Because devs have been exploiting CPU cores for physics for a very long time, and they know how to do it already. Just because a dev can do it, doesn't mean they have to use the GPGPU features available to them. The 8 Jaguar cores at 1.6 GHz will provide about 128 GFLOPS on their own which is enough for most game types, and GPGPU would be of no real benefit except in "effects physics" like perhaps dynamic smoke or water.  PC_Otter

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"] Im just speaking the truth, there is no HSA design on the PC yet that you can apply CU's freely to physics, plus the 8 core processor will be great for multi threaded thingsPC_Otter

Your comments would be based from Windows PC's perspective not from PS4's perspective.

From http://www.slideshare.net/zlatan4177/gpgpu-algorithms-in-games

With current Windows DirectX/driver model, real time GpGPU physics is only usefull for visual based effects.

On PS4, the physics effect's results can be feed back to the CPU thus affecting gameplay. On the PC, it's one-way ticket for physics effects i.e. only for visual effects.

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] They are obviously going to use both, What I meant was, why use all 8 of them?04dcarraher

http://www.overclock.net/t/1364086/sweclockers-amd-temash-apu-a6-1450-in-cinebench-r11-5

8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @1.4 Ghz would score about 2.78 i.e. about half of Intel Core i7-2600K (quad core/8 threads) @ 3.4Ghz

If PS4 has 8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @ 2.0Ghz it could score 3.97.

If PS4 has 8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @ 1.6Ghz it could score 3.17.

Note that this is with AMD Temash's slower laptop DDR3 memory speeds e.g. 1066 Mhz or 1333 Mhz types.

AMD Kabini supports the faster 1600Mhz DDR3 memory type.

 AMD has already stated jaguar is suppose to be 15% faster on average then bobcat and that chart shows it. . Temash is all out performance per watt. Comparing a quad core to a dual core.... the A6 1450, being a quad core cpu at 1.4 ghz and yet still cant really out process a gimped i3. These cpu's are for tablet and low ended laptops/netbooks. No where near desktop level of performances. Comparing FX 8350 at 4.6 ghz vs i7's is pointless. Heres the point we are looking at a 1.6 ghz jaguar based 8 core cpu that is designed for low power usage and will that wont be any faster then Phenom 2's X4's clock per clock.

You ain't gonna run at that settings with terribly unoptimized PC gpus. Unless you pay for a piece of soon-to-expired $499 hardware.

You ain't gonna run at that settings with terribly unoptimized PC gpus. Unless you pay for a piece of soon-to-expired $499 hardware.

Mr_BillGates

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Should note that every CU they use that will be 103 GFLOPS taken away from the gpu to use for the game's graphics. So 2 CU would put the PS4 gpu's performance below a 7850. Also the 8 core jaguar core performance is pretty low, only being 15% on average faster then AMD bobcat series clock per clock.A modern quad core cpu will be able to match and or surpass that cpu with ease. 04dcarraher

http://www.overclock.net/t/1364086/sweclockers-amd-temash-apu-a6-1450-in-cinebench-r11-5

There are differences between scalar and vector workloads e.g. IBM PPE generally has poor scalar performance, but it's VMX/SIMD is not bad e.g. dot products performance is pretty good.

Intel Core iX can allocate (via out-of-order processing) up to four (retirement) X86 scalar instructions for a single thread while AMD Bobcat/Jaguar can allocate up to two (retirement) X86 scalar instructions for a single thread. AMD didn't design the AMD Jaguar to replace AMD Streamroller (for Kaveri APU) i.e. it can allocate up to four (retirement) X86 scalar instructions for a single thread.

On 128bit vector/SIMD workloads, AMD Jaguar's vector units acts like Intel Core iX's 128bit ADD SSE and 128bit MUL SSE.

I'm not into "averages" when there are specfic target workloads e.g. physics can be vectorised.

AMD GCN's CU includes it's own scalar units with it's own register storage i.e. that's 18 scalar processors for 18 CUs. Mostly vector workloads (i.e. graphics) will leave CU's scalar units idle.

AMD Jaguar was also designed to be cost competitive against ARM Cortex A15 i.e. similar chip size.

CPU core count comparsion is meaningless when you could fit 3 or 4 AMD Jaguar cores for every Intel Haswell CPU core.

Comparing FX 8350 (4.6 ghz) vs i7s wasn't my point i.e. I'm not going to waste my time easing that item from the graph.

[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"]Lol at you Hermits, the Engine hasnt even been optimized for the PS4 yet, it was a simple mashup they put together real quick for the presentation Plus Ill gladly take better physics on the Ps4 for a little less graphics when compared to PC gamesKinthalis

What the hell makes you think the Ps4 will be able to pull off better physics?

[QUOTE="xboxiphoneps3"][QUOTE="Tessellation"] that has already been debunked at B3D your wet dreams don't work in real life :cool:Tessellation

One could guess it would be faster than AMD Temash or Kabini i.e. PS4 is not a tablet/laptop device.