By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - DF article: Sources say Samaritan running on next Xbox dev kit

Argh_College on 24 March 2012

Next Xbox to be a fucking beast



Around the Network
Millenium on 24 March 2012

From what I gather, Epic has previously stated they could optimize the Samaritan demo running on 1 GPU instead of the 3 that the original was running on.

Now perhaps the ''Next-Box'' won't have hardware quite so ''strong'', but considering consoles are closed hardware packages, it's not entirely impossible that this rumour is true.

Exciting years ahead!



BenVTrigger on 24 March 2012

If they could actually make gameplay on the next Xbox look like Samaritan I would be beyond happy.

That being said unless the console isn't coming till late 2013 or 2014 we will probably not see quite that level. I mean Samaritan was one of the most impressive real-time in engine displays ever made, and to make a console that could run that in true gameplay would be cost a fortune to develop.

Either way here's hoping its true, I'd be willing to wait out a little longer to get the next Xbox if I knew it would be capable of running graphics like this.



Sal.Paradise on 24 March 2012
Millenium said:
From what I gather, Epic has previously stated they could optimize the Samaritan demo running on 1 GPU instead of the 3 that the original was running on.

Now perhaps the ''Next-Box'' won't have hardware quite so ''strong'', but considering consoles are closed hardware packages, it's not entirely impossible that this rumour is true.

Exciting years ahead!


The demo was indeed run on a single GPU, the GTX 680, a card that Nvidia released two days ago that costs above £400. 



Andrespetmonkey on 24 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
Millenium said:
From what I gather, Epic has previously stated they could optimize the Samaritan demo running on 1 GPU instead of the 3 that the original was running on.

Now perhaps the ''Next-Box'' won't have hardware quite so ''strong'', but considering consoles are closed hardware packages, it's not entirely impossible that this rumour is true.

Exciting years ahead!


The demo was indeed run on a single GPU, the GTX 680, a card that Nvidia released two days ago that costs above £400. 


The demo we saw ran on 3 GTX 580s, then at GDC they showed it again but running on a single "kepler" card.



My Music

Around the Network
Sal.Paradise on 24 March 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Millenium said:
From what I gather, Epic has previously stated they could optimize the Samaritan demo running on 1 GPU instead of the 3 that the original was running on.

Now perhaps the ''Next-Box'' won't have hardware quite so ''strong'', but considering consoles are closed hardware packages, it's not entirely impossible that this rumour is true.

Exciting years ahead!


The demo was indeed run on a single GPU, the GTX 680, a card that Nvidia released two days ago that costs above £400. 


The demo we saw ran on 3 GTX 580s, then at GDC they showed it again but running on a single "kepler" card.

Yes, that is the GTX 680. 



Andrespetmonkey on 24 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Millenium said:
From what I gather, Epic has previously stated they could optimize the Samaritan demo running on 1 GPU instead of the 3 that the original was running on.

Now perhaps the ''Next-Box'' won't have hardware quite so ''strong'', but considering consoles are closed hardware packages, it's not entirely impossible that this rumour is true.

Exciting years ahead!


The demo was indeed run on a single GPU, the GTX 680, a card that Nvidia released two days ago that costs above £400. 


The demo we saw ran on 3 GTX 580s, then at GDC they showed it again but running on a single "kepler" card.

Yes, that is the GTX 680. 

The one at GDC right? Coolio



My Music

averyblund on 24 March 2012
NightDragon83 said:
VGKing said:
greenmedic88 said:
Running Samaritan on an HD 6670 is an impressive feat, but I think if anything it will only illustrate the growing gap in visuals and performance between consoles and dedicated gaming PCs that will likely increase a lot faster in the 8th gen than in the 7th.

There's still room for surprises with the Xbox 3, but based on alleged specs alone, it does seem more like a piece of hardware that was designed to stay current for 4-5 years rather than the 7-8 the Xbox 360 is currently coasting with.


Well PC graphics are held back by console. Most games are now developed on console as the lead platform.(This includes the fastest selling title in Steam history, Skyrim)

 

@bold
Yeah, sadly. Doubt we will ever see such a long generation like this one ever again.

I love these kinds of excuses by PC gamers... 5 generations of video cards since the launch of the 360 more than 6 years ago, and the best the PC can do visually is Battlefield 3.  At this point in every previous generation, there was absolutely no comparison between the latest PC games and their current gen console counterparts... they weren't even in the same league.   Go back and compare PS1/N64 games to PC games circa 2000, or PS2/GC/Xbox games to PC games in 2005/6... it's like night and day.

Now... even the best looking PC games are nearly identical to their versions on 6 year old console hardware, unless you have the latest bleeding edge cards in your rig or dual-GPUs of older cards.  Crysis 2, Witcher 2, Battlefield 3... games that a generation ago would have all been PC-exclusive or ported to next-gen consoles at least a year or two after their initial releases are able to run just fine on 6 year old hardware with still awe-inspiring visuals and no impact on gameplay.  Console exclusives like the Gears and Uncharted series routinely blow most PC-exclusive games out of the water in terms of visuals.

Don't worry though, I'm sure in the next year or two PC gamers will finally have games to justify their $1,000-plus rigs' existences, while us console gamers continue to enjoy the same games with almost negligible differences in visuals, all for around $300.

If you can't tell the difference between 720P at 30 or below FPS vs 120+ FPS at well over 1080P then I would say you need better glasses.

 

You are right that PC graphics are not as much better compared to consoles as they were in the past, but I think the argument is that this is based on devs targetting consoles and then porting over the assets with at best a higher res texture pack and some slightly improved geometry. That is very different from coding with PC's being the target where AI can be better, levels can be vast, and physics can be more realistic. Next gen consoles with PC like specs (at launch) will greatly benefit both camps and I for one can't wait. Until those too drag down future faster PCs as is the cycle. Can't blame devs for wanting to make money though, it's really hard to justify making a game that is simply unportable off of the PC even if you know it will be successful PC only. 



XBL: WiiVault Wii: PM me  PSN: WiiVault

PC: AMD Athlon II Quadcore 635 (OC to 4.0ghz) , ATI Radeon 5770 1GB (x2)

MacBook Pro C2D 2.8ghz, 9600m GT 512 iMac: C2D 2.0, X2600XT 256

 

selnor on 24 March 2012
Slimebeast said:

Look, Mark Rein hints of Kepler (Nvidia's brand new GPU) level performance in the next gen consoles. That's many times faster than a Radeon 6670 (whereever that stupid rumor came from).

Now for the Xbox 3 to literally be as fast as Kepler would mean it 's 12 times faster than the X360 which is unlikely to happen because of the high power consumption, but it still suggests there's hope we could see the 10 times increase in graphics that we all want, at least from the PS4.

How the hell did you get PS4 from this?

Epic are working with MS not Sony on next gen hardware. And Nvidia are talking about Xbox not Playstation. Lets not think because SOny have in 1 generation FINALLY matched the other consoles for best visuals, that PS4 will be uber powerful. Sonys track record really says the opposite. Emoton Engine anyone? 



greenmedic88 on 25 March 2012
Mummelmann said:
greenmedic88 said:
Running Samaritan on an HD 6670 is an impressive feat, but I think if anything it will only illustrate the growing gap in visuals and performance between consoles and dedicated gaming PCs that will likely increase a lot faster in the 8th gen than in the 7th.

There's still room for surprises with the Xbox 3, but based on alleged specs alone, it does seem more like a piece of hardware that was designed to stay current for 4-5 years rather than the 7-8 the Xbox 360 is currently coasting with.


Precisely what I've been saying. Development and hardware technology cycles , market branching and the overall fickle nature of the customer is forcing the market to move faster. The paradox in the 7th gen has been that even with tech cycles going ever faster, the development fazes have been prolonged a great deal. This won't do for the 8th generation, they need more opensource 3rd party out-of-the box tech to eliminate development time and cost.

I fully expect a lot more outsourcing from the likes of Epic, Valve, Crytek, Bioware, Naughty Dog and a few other monoliths (ND might not technicalyl be a "monolith" but is likely to become a lot more relevant in this regard in the 8th gen).

From a developer's standpoint, that right there is arguably the *most* important aspect for 8th gen consoles more than any other bullet features included to wow consumers. 

The other important feature, although again, not so sexy for the average consumer, will be the inclusion of generous system RAM and VRAM.