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

Forums - PC - Battlefield 4 demo ran on an AMD Radeon HD 7990 ‘Malta’ Video Card

Tagged games:

Captain_Tom on 28 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:

So that demo was run on an AMD 7900 Graphics card? That transfers 2,176 Gfloss of Data right?

PS4's Graphics Card is capable of 1,840 Gflops (Which is about as powerful as a 7850-7870).

This means that the PS3 version will be about 90% as good as that video, not bad. Wait! Was the demo on a 7900 or a 7990? There is a big difference, a 7990 has 6,963 Gflops of data, which would put the PS4 version running at 30% of the demo's capabilities.

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/36725-amd-radeon-hd-7990-specification-leaked/

For reference, the 1st number represents the series humber (7th series) and the second number represent the .... power level? So the PC is at 9, the PS4 is at 8. The other two numbers I think are like update numbers ( Like version 1.1, 1.2, etc)

Also X-Box and PS3 are about 240Gflops, so let's see how they turn out with just over 10% the graphical power.

----

Funny, I don't see a HUGE jump this gen, despite PS4 being nearly 9x more powerful then the PS3.

I would argue that PS4 is much more than 9x more powerful than PS3 (RAM, alone, jumped x16). Besides, as always mentioned, launch games won't tell the full story.


The PS4 is roughtly 10-15 times stronger than the PS3.



Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 28 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Captain_Tom said:
CGI-Quality said:

I would argue that PS4 is much more than 9x more powerful than PS3 (RAM, alone, jumped x16). Besides, as always mentioned, launch games won't tell the full story.


The PS4 is roughtly 10-15 times stronger than the PS3.

Which covers my point ;)

No yeah I was agreeing with you.  I don't think some people realize that this generational leap will be graphically the same as the one between the xbox and xbox 360.  Compare Halo 2 to BF3.  That is what we are getting people!



zarx on 28 March 2013
hinch said:


Thats what I've been saying.. >_>

Just going to leave this here -

You can't just compare hardware 1:1 for the like.


On an outdated API like OpenGL3.2 on Windows sure (what RAGE was running) but OpenGL drivers on Windows have been trash for years. A well optimised game on DX11.1 or OpenGL 4 in Linux (at least with recent Nvidia drivers) will close that gap considerably. And as Carmack has said as hardware becomes ever more complex and multiplatform becomes more important (and now the system architecture across all platforms is much closer) platform specific optimisation becomes ever harder to do and less important. Sure first party exclusives get to spend years optimising every little aspect for the specific hardware but multiplatform games are going to do what is best on average across all platforms which will limit the gap, games already cost tens of millions without creating 3 versions of everything to better optimise for each platform. You should read this http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47500419&postcount=58

No it's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's not a completly different ball game anymore. 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

hinch on 29 March 2013

^ Yep, that's true. I just put a random example up so people would stop making stupid comparisons, since it doesn't work that way. Interesting read btw.



Lawlight on 29 March 2013
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:
zarx said:
Lawlight said:
CGI-Quality said:
Lawlight said:
And the source for the 4 times more powerful?

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7850/Pages/radeon-7850.aspx (7850)

http://www.techpowerup.com/180923/AMD-Redoing-Radeon-HD-7990-Under-New-Codename-quot-Malta-quot-.html (7990 "Malta")

Alternate source for Malta


Still not seeing anything about the 4 times. But I'm still seeing that you're ignoring that DF said that the PS4 GPU is more powerful than the 7850.

The PS4's GPU is slightly ahead of the 7850 yes but slightly 1.84 TFlops PS4 vs 1.76 TFlops for the 7850 but it's still the closest comparison. The HD7990 offers 7.57 Tflops of compute performance which places it at just over 4x (4.11 if you want to be exact) now there are other factors at play but in general terms the 7990 that powered the BF4 demo is 4x as powerful as the PS4's GPU. And likely backed up by a CPU that is almost 4x as powerful as well. 


So, no mention of the optimization that games undergo for consoles? Just looking at the Digital Foundry analysis of Bioshock Infinite for PC vs PS3 and, visually, there's not much between the 2. Negligle is probably a good word to define the difference between what would be provided by the PS4 and the PC.

if higher resolution output and higher resolution texture assets are, as you put it, only "negligle" differences, then the difference in the PS3 and PS4, to you will only be "negligle" too, you can't have it both ways.

Graphics have reached a plateau for a long time now. It's the artstyle that have mattered for some years now. Why do you think games like Uncharted, GoW and Journey beat out a lot of PC games when it comes to best graphics awards? And PS4 will bring console gaming back to console gaming. No more waiting for installs, patches, etc...

Uncharted, Gears of War (Or god of war, if you want to stick to sony only games) and Journey, are indeed beautiful games in their own right, but theyre also exclusives with no direct comparison for PC or other consoles which detracts from the ability to do a proper comparison, but i can tell you - having been working in the games industry for the past decade, working on several extremely well received games that the PS3 and 360 have always been behind graphically, compared to PC's, and the same is true for the next generation of consoles, what you, and many other console fans seem to neglect when thinking about things, for the most part major multiplatform releases are designed with "the consoles" in mind, which results in the PC versions up to now being often either a shell of what they could be, or direct console ports - when developers actually push the games to give current high end hardware a good roasting, consoles don't stand a chance. - Bumping up the baseline with a new breed of console just means that multiplat games won't suffer as much, giving PC users better quality games that utilize their hardware better.

Consider this, Crysis 3 looks amazing, as does battlefield 3, compare them to these console games youre championing, almost always sub-720p and struggling to hit 30FPS, where crysis 3 and battlefield 3 on high end rigs hit 70fps and 120fps respecctive on average - if you put in the effort to build a game that a PC would have to run at 30fps and sub-720p resolution - then that game would, by a country mile, blow away anything else you could come up with.

PC's run at whatever resolution you want, with much better processing and aliasing.

Before the consoles have even released the limitations of them is already starting to show it's head - don't believe me? go watch the shadowfall trailer - as he walks under the blossom trees petals on the ground go from invisable to visible due to the texture aliasing having banding issues from gradiated distance bias.

Of course, if you want to argue about this, i'll happily take every single game you can come up with and show you direct, damning examples of why these games are on every level technologically behind the PC counterparts.


What you're saying does not change anything to the fact that a lot of people consider games running on 7 or 8 years old hardware to be some of the best looking game of all time. Do you remember that scene in Journey where you're sliding on the sand with the sunken city in the sunset? Who can deny that that is nothing in Crysis 3 (running on the most powerful card available) comes remotely close in terms of beauty? And that's running on a $250 system.

Aesthetic preference is not technical capability, some people would consider one car "the best looking ever" but others would call it ugly, so the only subjective way to look at things would be comparing the technological advancements and overall complexity and attention to detail in creating a scene, and in those regards the benefits of the high end pc system are large strides ahead of the console counterparts.

Again, personal preference does not equate to overall graphical detail.

Additionally, you tout the benefits of a closed system in being more optimized - and yet despite these optmizations, despite API and OS overheads and driver overheads, PC versions of games are still visually on a level current (and in many ways the next generation) consoles are quite behind.


No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.



Around the Network
Tachikoma on 29 March 2013
Lawlight said:

No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.

Some SNES games looked great, i guess by your statement all consoles that came out after the SNES werent needed, because my view of the snes game looking good is all encompassing, right?

You're just arguing because you're a PS3 fan and don't like being told a Sony console is inferior in any way to something else.



HaloFailo on 29 March 2013
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:

No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.

Some SNES games looked great, i guess by your statement all consoles that came out after the SNES werent needed, because my view of the snes game looking good is all encompassing, right?

You're just arguing because you're a PS3 fan and don't like being told a Sony console is inferior in any way to something else.


This has nothing to do with liking Sony - This is just being stupid and unrealistic
Of course a console and its parts are going to get crushed by PC Hardware.No sane person will deny that.

But its for developers far easier to push for that "everyone has the same" hardware.
And people shouldn't forget a console needs a  lot less power to run stuff - A PC isn't completely focusing on the game cause it has so much other things to do while a console is only doing the game stuff.

Im pretty sure Battlefield 4 will look amazing on the PS4NextBox and im even more convinced Battlefield 5 will look and run a lot better cause it will be a lot more optimized than a transition game like BF4.
With the PS4 being as close as possible to a PC games won't be that far behind to their PC counterparts for at least a few years into the NextGen.
You can't forget DICE is mainly a PC focused Developer and not one of those that will hold back for the sake of consoles.

Well in the end i personally don't care - I will get it anyway on PC cause i can't stand playing a skilled MP focused Shooter on Console.
But it will be a good early game to see how big the jump will be over the PS360 Multiplats(not talking about PS3 Exclusives like TLOU but even they get crushed by Killzone for example)



Lawlight on 29 March 2013
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:

No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.

Some SNES games looked great, i guess by your statement all consoles that came out after the SNES werent needed, because my view of the snes game looking good is all encompassing, right?

You're just arguing because you're a PS3 fan and don't like being told a Sony console is inferior in any way to something else.


I'm not seeing 16-bit-looking games winning a lot of best graphic awards these days. And if the PS3 was really inferior, I wouldn't be gaming on it.



Tachikoma on 29 March 2013
Lawlight said:
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:

No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.

Some SNES games looked great, i guess by your statement all consoles that came out after the SNES werent needed, because my view of the snes game looking good is all encompassing, right?

You're just arguing because you're a PS3 fan and don't like being told a Sony console is inferior in any way to something else.


I'm not seeing 16-bit-looking games winning a lot of best graphic awards these days. And if the PS3 was really inferior, I wouldn't be gaming on it.

Deluded fanboy: confirmed.

User was banned for this post - Kantor



Lawlight on 29 March 2013
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:
Tachikoma said:
Lawlight said:

No point in being technically advanced and not looking good.

Some SNES games looked great, i guess by your statement all consoles that came out after the SNES werent needed, because my view of the snes game looking good is all encompassing, right?

You're just arguing because you're a PS3 fan and don't like being told a Sony console is inferior in any way to something else.


I'm not seeing 16-bit-looking games winning a lot of best graphic awards these days. And if the PS3 was really inferior, I wouldn't be gaming on it.

Deluded fanboy: confirmed.


So specsavers will help more games that look like SNES games win best graphics awards? I bet you're one of those people who get angry when a console game wins best graphics of the year awards.