Support NeoGAF

[Dictator93]

clock per clock, the i3 4xxx CPU is at the very least twice faster than a Jaguar core.

So you would think that at 3.2ghz, an i3 4xxx CPU would be on par with a 8 core 1.6ghz Jaguar CPU. Although, the reality is the i3 is likely clocked higher than that and the PS4 CPU only has access to 6 cores.

Then there is the problem of parallelizing everything in a game engine. So you will extract more performance probably from something that is clocked higher then something that is 'wider" afaik.

 

[ioriyagami]

Then there is the problem of parallelizing everything in a game engine. So you will extract more performance probably from something that is clocked higher then something that is 'wider" afaik.

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

 

[Gurgelhals]

I know I'm quoting myself but what have Bethesda been like historically in fixing stuff post release? Never really got into their Fallout and Elder Scrolls games before.

Bethesda? Don't bet on it. On the other hand, the modding community is reliable (which is probably one of the reasons why Bethesda tends to not give a shit about proper post-release support).

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Incredible.

 

[Felspawn]

Was going to get this game on the XBOX ONE since it comes with Fallout 3 but now not sure what to do..The PS4 version looks great but the framerate on the XBOX ONE version is pretty bad, is that just a bug and has already been fixed, going to do the buy 2 get one free at target so need to know which version to get

The studders are the problem with the Xbox one release and I can almost guarantee they are going to be patched. The frame rate otherwise pretty comparable. If the frame rate is your biggest worry I say get it on the PC if that's an option

 

[Bl@de]

Game is running great on my Xeon1230v3/GTX770 combo.

Mixture of High/Ultra (Godrays Low, Motion Blur and Lensflare off). 1080p, TAA/16AF.

60FPS with minor dips when many NPCs appear (Worst case was 45-50fps for a short time during the evacuation scene in the intro).

VRAM on ultra textures = 1,7GB.

Great stuff on my 3 year old machine. Looking forward to play some Fallout tomorrow^^

 

[Zombie James]

I know I'm quoting myself but what have Bethesda been like historically in fixing stuff post release? Never really got into their Fallout and Elder Scrolls games before.

Well, it took them over two and half months to release a patch that enabled compiler optimizations in Skyrim.

 

[Dictator93]

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

Well it is not just 1:1. There are some redundancies when you parallize something and some caveats from what we have seen so far.

Naughty dog paralleizing some stuff in TLOU for example led to the game having 1 extra frame of latency.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

So can anyone confirm if the texture streaming issue seen here on the pc version a constant problem or a one time oddity as seen in this pic. I know this isn't an Arkham Knight or Blops 3 PC fuck up butconfirmation would be nice.[/QUOTE]

Wow, that's crap - even PC can't get a break.

 

[Kezen]

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

There are many very well multithreaded games and the Core I3 still holds its own.
Games like BF4 or COD for instance.http://bf4central.com/2013/11/battlefield-4-uses-95-cpu-power-found-ps4-xbox-one/

So it's not restricted to poorly multithreaded games, the Core I3 really is faster overall.

 

[CLEEK]

The dude is on fire today. I prefer his TR one:

http://i.imgur.com/nSG7c15.png

 

[SnakeXs]

I know I'm quoting myself but what have Bethesda been like historically in fixing stuff post release? Never really got into their Fallout and Elder Scrolls games before.

It took a long while but if you play Fallout 3 on PS3 with a current build it's rock solid.

Spoiler

No it's not.

 

[Suikoguy]

Then there is the problem of parallelizing everything in a game engine. So you will extract more performance probably from something that is clocked higher then something that is 'wider" afaik.

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

Programming for multi cores is what made the PS3 Cell Processor such a difficulty among other issues. Single thread programming is easier than Multi threading. Getting the most out of multiple cores is very difficult. Getting the most out of EIGHT cores has to be incredibly difficult depending on what you are trying to do.

Since they are apparently working with a modified Gamebryo engine, it would be no surprise that an engine that was not designed with an 8 core processor in mind might have trouble running on consoles that were designed with cores over speed.

 

[jelly]

The Jaguar is netbook class. We aren't talking AMD struggling in comparison to Intel, it's not on the same tier as i3, i5 or AMD's other CPUs.

 

[braves01]

Has anyone made a video for 0 fps with that crazy Spanish/Portuguese laughing guy? There was one for The Order: 1886 about how it was so short.

 

[GhostTrick]

Then there is the problem of parallelizing everything in a game engine. So you will extract more performance probably from something that is clocked higher then something that is 'wider" afaik.

Exactly. Then again, just based on the architecture itself, there's already this difference. Now to make sure that your engine parallelize the tasks and instructions efficiently across more cores... yup, it's even more problematic in term of performances.

 

[Kezen]

Programming for multi cores is what made the PS3 Cell Processor such a difficulty among other issues. Single thread programming is easier than Multi threading. Getting the most out of multiple cores is very difficult. Getting the most out of EIGHT cores has to be incredibly difficult depending on what you are trying to do.

Since they are apparently working with a modified Gamebryo engine, it would be no surprise that an engine that was not designed with an 8 core processor in mind might have trouble running on consoles that were designed with cores over speed.

There are only 6 cores available (to games) on PS4,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782997

 

[TerryLee81]

Has anyone made a video for 0 fps with that crazy Spanish/Portuguese laughing guy? There was one for The Order: 1886 about how it was so short.

Hehe that would fit perfectly.

 

[Dictator93]

Programming for multi cores is what made the PS3 Cell Processor such a difficulty among other issues. Single thread programming is easier than Multi threading. Getting the most out of multiple cores is very difficult. Getting the most out of EIGHT cores has to be incredibly difficult depending on what you are trying to do.

Since they are apparently working with a modified Gamebryo engine, it would be no surprise that an engine that was not designed with an 8 core processor in mind might have trouble running on consoles that were designed with cores over speed.

Well that is the thing. The PC version reportedly has great, even thread utizilation up to 8. So there is no reason why that would not be even better on console.

Rather, I imagine that along with being able to use a lot of threads, the game also wants beefy threads as well.

The game just seems CPU heavy, and not unjustifiably so necessrily given its apparent thread utizilation.

 

[FranXico]

There are only 6 cores available on PS4,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782997

Same as the number of available Cell SPUs on the PS3 then. Not that it is directly comparable in any way.

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Please tell me there is going to be a patch to fix those shadows.

Bethesda honey sucked console owners.

 

[EvB]

Wouldn't zero frames a second be when the console crashes?

 

[cyberheater]

Think of it this. 6 slow ass cores versus 2 very fast ones. You can spread the load but it's still very slow in comparison.

clock per clock, the i3 4xxx CPU is at the very least twice faster than a Jaguar core.

So you would think that at 3.2ghz, an i3 4xxx CPU would be on par with a 8 core 1.6ghz Jaguar CPU. Although, the reality is the i3 is likely clocked higher than that and the PS4 CPU only has access to 6 cores.

I keep forgetting how comparably weak the PS4 CPU is. It's such a shame they gimped that part of the design.

 

[ValfarHL]

0 fps for that cinematic feel, right?

 

[Suikoguy]

There are only 6 cores available on PS4,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782997

Point still stands.
The only game I've seen so far to adequately use the 4 cores of my i7 is Cities Skylines. But that's the nature of the beast, the tasks the game needs to do run in parallel incredibly well.

Well that is the thing. The PC version reportedly has great, even thread utizilation up to 8. So there is no reason why that would not be even better on console.

Rather, I imagine that along with being able to use a lot of threads, the game also wants beefy threads as well.

The game just seems CPU heavy, and not unjustifiably so necessrily given its apparent thread utizilation.

Hmm, interesting. I'll have to see the utilization of it tomorrow. Do you know if it's maxing out multiple cores, or near it?

 

[ChaoticBlue]

*Does a little PC is the master race dance*

that's the last dance you'll be doing. see ya.

 

[HTupolev]

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

Actually it doesn't. Worst case scenario for a twice-as-fast system relative to a twice-as-wide system is that a task is perfectly parallelizable with zero overhead; in this case, each core in the twice-as-fast system can just run twice as much work as the twice-as-wide system, and it'll still finish at the same time. In any other case, the twice-as-fast system takes the lead.

Parallelization efforts can help to mitigate the disadvantage of your performance being parallelized versus sequential, but it's always a disadvantage.

Naughty dog paralleizing some stuff in TLOU for example led to the game having 1 extra frame of latency.

That's arguably more "pipelining" than "parallelism", although the notions are intertwined.

 

[KKRT00]

I'd love to see this shot with uGridsToLoad at 11 or so.

Anyone up to it?

Ok, i've done comparison with uGrid 9 and 2715x1527@1080p, because those are my settings:

Digital Foundry - Ultra vanilla

uGrid 9 and some light downsampling

 

[Possumowner]

I'm so glad I have a PC to go to,I think all this was expected though going in there past record

 

[Dictator93]

That's arguably more "pipelining" than "parallelism", although the notions are intertwined.

if you have a good link on the semantical difference I would love to see it

 

[Kezen]

Point still stands.
The only game I've seen so far to adequately use the 4 cores of my i7 is Cities Skylines. But that's the nature of the beast, the tasks the game needs to do run in parallel incredibly well.

You have not looked hard enough, there are many games which use 6 cores.
You make it sound like extracting performance out of a multicore architecture is a daunting task, it's not easy for sure but devs are very good at it now.
Battlefield 4 is said to have magnificent scaling on consoles, and look at this :

You know what ? Even GTA 4 used 6 cores :

Sorry but I don't buy the story that it's Bethesda which need to properly take advantage of the 6 CPUs available to them on PS4.

 

[Ahasverus]

So the Bethesda engine still loads areas in "quads" instead of streaming continuously and every time you leave one "quad' and traverse to the next one, it has to load the next area in real time and that causes the game to chug.

This has been the same problem since Oblivion.

Embarassing, this hasn't been a thing since San Andreas or something.

 

[Elandyll]

The studders are the problem with the Xbox one release and I can almost guarantee they are going to be patched. The frame rate otherwise pretty comparable. If the frame rate is your biggest worry I say get it on the PC if that's an option

Smh.

Thats a pretty thinly veiled way of saying "whatever you do, please don't get it on PS4!", whether that was your intent or not tbh.

 

[Zombie James]

So the Bethesda engine still loads areas in "quads" instead of streaming continuously and every time you leave one "quad' and traverse to the next one, it has to load the next area in real time and that causes the game to chug.

This has been the same problem since Oblivion.

Sounds like such an antiqued design.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

The dude is on fire today. I prefer his TR one:

http://i.imgur.com/nSG7c15.png

Wow that got me good. Gave me a hearty laugh.

 

[EGM1966]

Yup that's a Bethesda open world game alright. I'll buy it, I'll enjoy it but I'll wait for a patch or two first. No rush it's SP and there's too many games releasing already I'm interested in plus this will be an obvious time sink.

Damn though given the sales of Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim I cannot believe they didn't put more effort into the engine than this. Will likely go PC as usual and look to modders to tidy things up.

 

[Fafalada]

That's arguably more "pipelining" than "parallelism", although the notions are intertwined.

It is pipelining (making it one of the easier ways to extract paralelism). It's also something that's been a staple of major releases(and engines) for past 10 years, including PC centric codebases.

 

[Conduit]

There are only 6 cores available (to games) on PS4,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782997

But that was more a year and a half ago. SDK surely improved.

 

[JP]

Bethesda? Don't bet on it. On the other hand, the modding community is reliable (which is probably one of the reasons why Bethesda tends to not give a shit about proper post-release support).

Well, it took them over two and half months to release a patch that enabled compiler optimizations in Skyrim.

It took a long while but if you play Fallout 3 on PS3 with a current build it's rock solid.

Spoiler

No it's not.

Thanks, that doesn't sound promising for me as a console user.

One thing I am hoping gets added at some point are simple sliders to calibrate the image. Somebody posted some PC shots in one of the other threads that used something called SweetFX and it simply seemed to increase the saturation and it was such an improvement to me.

 

[Kezen]

But that was more a year and a half ago. SDK surely improved.

I can only go by what has been officially revealed. There is nothing to suggest they have offered more cores to the applications.
Should not be a problem either way, many games can use 8 cores as demonstrated.

Until proven otherwise I'll assume 6 cores are still what games need to do with, and 80% of a 7th core on Xbox One.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

An i3 is only dual core right? Compared to 7 working cores for the PS4.

7 half speed mobile cores vs proper desktop CPU. Fallout is almost certainly single thread constrained due to its engines legacy.

 

[cyberheater]

7 half speed mobile cores vs proper desktop CPU. Fallout is almost certainly single thread constrained due to its engines legacy.

Yep. I was wondering that. As I said earlier in this thread. I would love to see the cpu graph of a PS4 when it's running this engine.

 

[Suikoguy]

You have not looked hard enough, there are many games which use 6 cores.
You make it sound like extracting performance out of a multicore architecture is a daunting task, it's not easy for sure but devs are very good at it now.
Battlefield 4 is said to have magnificent scaling on consoles, and look at this :
[IMG ] http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Call_of_Duty_Black_Ops_III-test-blackops3_intel.jpg[/IMG]

You know what ? Even GTA 4 used 6 cores :
[IMG ] http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Retro-Grand_Theft_Auto_IV-test-GTAIV_intel.jpg[/IMG]

Sorry but I don't buy the story that it's Bethesda which need to properly take advantage of the 6 CPUs available to them on PS4.

I appreciate the reply, and it's good to see developers start to create engines and games capable of utilizing the multi-core architecture. But in a way you are also reinforcing my point a bit. The benefits of multi-core is not equivalent to a faster single core creating a "speed bump", if you will, in the development cycle. Looks like significant progress has been made, at least in the two examples you provided in using 4 cores. I won't go into further discussion, simply because it's getting too off topic, but my underlying point is, while progress is being made to better utilize multi-core, results like Battlefield are still atypical.

 

[ioriyagami]

7 half speed mobile cores vs proper desktop CPU. Fallout is almost certainly single thread constrained due to its engines legacy.

Lol. No way. The Fallout engine (at least some aspects of it) were already multi-threaded in Fallout 3. There is no way a current-generation open world game runs in console without heavy parallelism. If anything, the >1 second-long frames are actually caused by (bad cases of) multi-threading.

 

[HTupolev]

if you have a good link on the semantical difference I would love to see it

Pipelining frames is a form of parallelism (executing systems from multiple frames in parallel), which can allow you to get better utilization out of a parallel hardware system. But in and of itself the way the pipelining is a form of parallelism is on a bit of a different level than the way the in-frame systems are parallelized and such; it sort of feels odd to say "the latency is high because parallelization" versus "the latency is high because they pipelined frames to improve the performance of their parallelized systems."
On the other hand, you don't actually need parallelized systems to squeeze extra performance out of a parallel hardware system, if you're pipelining your frames. For instance, a game could be running step 6 of frame 0 on core 6, step 5 of frame 1 on core 5, step 4 of frame 2 on core 4, etc.
At the end of the day I suppose it's sort of a square-is-a-rectangle situation.

I guess it's not really that important, since everybody is being intelligible (with possible exception to myself).

 

[Dictator93]

Pipelining frames is a form of parallelism (executing systems from multiple frames in parallel), which can allow you to get better utilization out of a parallel hardware system. But in and of itself the way the pipelining is a form of parallelism is on a bit of a different level than the way the in-frame systems are parallelized and such; it just winds up feeling a bit odd to say "the latency is high because parallelization" versus "the latency is high because they pipelined frames to improve the performance of their parallelized systems."
On the other hand, you don't actually need parallelized systems to squeeze extra performance out of a parallel hardware system, if you're pipelining your frames. For instance, a game could be running step 6 of frame 0 on core 6, step 5 of frame 1 on core 5, step 4 of frame 2 on core 4, etc.
At the end of the day I suppose it's sort of a square-is-a-rectangle situation.

I guess it's not really that important, since everybody is being intelligible (with possible exception to myself).

Hah, Nah... your explanation helped my understanding of it. It does make me wonder how much extra input latency has come into games though over time vs. if we just had really fast pentiums single cores...

 

[ioriyagami]

Actually it doesn't. Worst case scenario for a twice-as-fast system relative to a twice-as-wide system is that a task is perfectly parallelizable with zero overhead; in this case, each core in the twice-as-fast system can just run twice as much work as the twice-as-wide system, and it'll still finish at the same time. In any other case, the twice-as-fast system takes the lead.

Parallelization efforts can help to mitigate the disadvantage of your performance being parallelized versus sequential, but it's always a disadvantage.

My point was that good paralellization strategies reduce the traditional synchronization overhead of running your system concurrently, and gets the game closer to the 90-100% CPU utilization, but of course a system twice-as-fast is going to be always faster than a system twice-as-wide.

 

[nowheretorun]

1080p/60fps PC version of FO4 on ultra settings (from the PC performance thread). Looks great to me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0CzFpWoZJY&feature=youtu.be

Was just about to post his video. Looking impressive. Pretty much consistent 60 fps with a 970 on Ultra.

That looks lovely and for me personally, the level of what I'd expect as a next gen version of Fallout.

Does anybody know how much would it cost to build this myself (UK) including an operating system. What kind of case could I have (would a mini one be ok?).

 

[Turin Turambar]

That depends on how good your parallelization efforts are, of course. e.g., Naugty Dog...

Even if you are Naughty Dog, it still applies. There is diminishing returns and ever-increasing complexity a your try to make bigger and bigger parallelization, unless the nature of the task you are trying to do is inherently parallel (eg compress a video). But videogames are interactive experiences that aren't that way.
A 10ghz single core is always going to be better than a 10 1ghz cores cpu.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Lol. No way. The Fallout engine (at least some aspects of it) were already multi-threaded in Fallout 3. There is no way a current-generation open world game runs in console without heavy parallelism.

You can be heavily multi threaded, and still constrained by the main thread. Some tasks just don't parallelise easily.

[edit] Did you think I meant "single threaded"?

If anything, the >1 second-long frames are actually caused by (bad cases of) multi-threading.

Only if by "bad" you mean "broken". Those long frames are going to be a bug, unless there's something seriously screwed up with the One's OS. Which seems unlikely.