It was far more efficient both perf/watt and perf/mm^2 than nVidia's.
Not in DX-11 Tessellation.
go and work for NASA as a replacement for the hubble space telescope.
Not in DX-11 Tessellation.
Fell out of my chair loling at that.If you really believe there's a significant difference YOU should leave the video forums and go and work for NASA as a replacement for the hubble space telescope.
Tried really hard on the tessellation, but was attracted by something else, can't resist.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQydWGlMVeM&feature=related
Watch at 1:13 (Dynamic Tessellation)
The closer we get to the model the more tessellation we get
It is possible that Crysis 2 DX-11 patch uses Dynamic Tessellation and it seams like extensive tessellation when we have a look up close.
http://techreport.com/r.x/crysis2/barrier-dx9-full.jpg
http://techreport.com/r.x/crysis2/barrier-dx11-full.jpg
This is what people are using as an example of what isn't needed? Seriously?
Where to start- Look at the top of the barrier where the hooks are to move it. On the shader setup the near hook is washed out and flat looking, the second hook almost vanishes completely due to gamma impacting the shader routine too much. The geometry example is nice and clear on both. The plate on the side that has marking on it on the shader example blurs to be one blob with the concrete within a short distance off from camera, the geometry example offers a crisp differentation from near field all the way through. These aren't something you need to do a pixel compare on, these aren't even remotely close. If you want to get into finer levels of detail you can still see the farthest hook on the second barrier in the geometry example.
A lot of people on these forums gripe about the differences betwee then uber high AA settings and the AF optimizations used by either company. If you can not instantly see a very clear difference in the barriers in these shots then you seriously need to shut your mouths on fine IQ differences. You can do a per pixel breakdown if you'd like, but these tesselation shots show significantly greater differences then moving from 4x to a hybrid 8x AA mode or using a better optimized AF routine- it isn't even remotely close.
Anyone who thinks that this level of detail improvement isn't worth the performance impact needs to leave the video forum if they care about anything other then cheerleading their team of choice. We are deep into diminishing returns, IQ improvements are going to keep getting smaller and are going to continue to get even more demanding on hardware. Wait until you see the kind of performance hit radiosity has versus shader based lighting compared to the IQ difference. Seriously people, if you can't clearly see the by comparison huge differences between the barriers, it's time for you to get a new hobby.
Come on BFG, the kids may not know but I know you know that it is inate on the render sort order of the engine if they are capable of doing that or not. If the render sort isn't set for front to back on a given item then they can't cull it. That is outside of the codepath of a render routine, that is a core element of the engine.
Can tesselation be turned off if it's not wanted in most if not all games?
Now is the correct time to make the change.
Terry Makedon said:I also have to give kudos to Nvidia for coming out with CUDA and pushing the whole GPGPU market in a certain direction.
AMD didn't write the articles. It was independent review sites. They are the ones pointing out too much tessellation.
As far as AMD switching architectures goes, it's a new process. Because they've changed for the upcoming process doesn't mean that the VLIW5/4 were wrong for the older processes. It was far more efficient both perf/watt and perf/mm^2 than nVidia's. On 28nm they can have far more GCN type "cores" than they could have on previous processes. That's why it makes sense to change now, where it didn't before. Consider they went from VLIW5 to VLIW4 @ 40nm because it was getting too difficult to feed all those shader units. Now imagine 28nm and trying to feed +3000 SPU. Now is the correct time to make the change.
Really no reason to get personal and call people names just because you disagree with them.
Oh really?
Show me were I said AMD wrote that garbage?
If not, your fallacy can go over in the corner and down and die.
But since you brought up what AMD didn't write, let me show you what they did write.
AMD before Fermi: http://blogs.amd.com/play/2009/06/02/why-we-should-get-excited-about-directx-11/
AMD after Fermi: http://hardocp.com/news/2010/10/20/benchmark_wars
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...e-constant-smell-of-burning-bridges-says-amd/
They went from thinking the had the sizzle(due to their experince with "TruForm") and promoting DX11 (Mainly due to a "beast called tesselation") to whining about too much teselation because NVIDIA made their tesselation implementation look dated.
It the same boring *beep* as with GPU physics...AMD will badmouth it (just like tesselation) as long as the competition has them beat.
So in my eyes the underdog is stalling progress...and no amount of PR will change that stance.
So in my eyes the underdog is stalling progress...and no amount of PR will change that stance.
Thanks to some of the work that nVidia did.
Oh really?
Show me were I said AMD wrote that garbage?
Before "fermi" AMD hyped tessellation as the sizzle...now they really to to down play it and even talks about to much tesselation.
If not, your fallacy can go over in the corner and down and die.
But since you brought up what AMD didn't write, let me show you what they did write.
AMD before Fermi: http://blogs.amd.com/play/2009/06/02/why-we-should-get-excited-about-directx-11/
AMD after Fermi: http://hardocp.com/news/2010/10/20/benchmark_wars
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...e-constant-smell-of-burning-bridges-says-amd/
They went from thinking the had the sizzle(due to their experince with "TruForm") and promoting DX11 (Mainly due to a "beast called tesselation") to whining about too much teselation because NVIDIA made their tesselation implementation look dated.
It the same boring *beep* as with GPU physics...AMD will badmouth it (just like tesselation) as long as the competition has them beat.
So in my eyes the underdog is stalling progress...and no amount of PR will change that stance.
http://techreport.com/r.x/crysis2/barrier-dx9-full.jpg
http://techreport.com/r.x/crysis2/barrier-dx11-full.jpg
This is what people are using as an example of what isn't needed? Seriously?
Where to start- Look at the top of the barrier where the hooks are to move it. On the shader setup the near hook is washed out and flat looking, the second hook almost vanishes completely due to gamma impacting the shader routine too much. The geometry example is nice and clear on both. The plate on the side that has marking on it on the shader example blurs to be one blob with the concrete within a short distance off from camera, the geometry example offers a crisp differentation from near field all the way through. These aren't something you need to do a pixel compare on, these aren't even remotely close. If you want to get into finer levels of detail you can still see the farthest hook on the second barrier in the geometry example.
A lot of people on these forums gripe about the differences betwee then uber high AA settings and the AF optimizations used by either company. If you can not instantly see a very clear difference in the barriers in these shots then you seriously need to shut your mouths on fine IQ differences. You can do a per pixel breakdown if you'd like, but these tesselation shots show significantly greater differences then moving from 4x to a hybrid 8x AA mode or using a better optimized AF routine- it isn't even remotely close.
Anyone who thinks that this level of detail improvement isn't worth the performance impact needs to leave the video forum if they care about anything other then cheerleading their team of choice. We are deep into diminishing returns, IQ improvements are going to keep getting smaller and are going to continue to get even more demanding on hardware. Wait until you see the kind of performance hit radiosity has versus shader based lighting compared to the IQ difference. Seriously people, if you can't clearly see the by comparison huge differences between the barriers, it's time for you to get a new hobby.
Come on BFG, the kids may not know but I know you know that it is inate on the render sort order of the engine if they are capable of doing that or not. If the render sort isn't set for front to back on a given item then they can't cull it. That is outside of the codepath of a render routine, that is a core element of the engine.
So we tessellate a flat surface into polygons less than a pixel in size when all that benefits are two hooks at the top? At least other games like AvP and Stalker tessellate curved surfaces where its actually useful, even if you cant really notice it outside screenshots.Where to start- Look at the top of the barrier where the hooks are to move it. On the shader setup the near hook is washed out and flat looking, the second hook almost vanishes completely due to gamma impacting the shader routine too much. The geometry example is nice and clear on both. The plate on the side that has marking on it on the shader example blurs to be one blob with the concrete within a short distance off from camera, the geometry example offers a crisp differentation from near field all the way through.
My team of choice is nVidia; that doesnt mean that Crysis isnt blatantly wasting tessellation resources.Anyone who thinks that this level of detail improvement isn't worth the performance impact needs to leave the video forum if they care about anything other then cheerleading their team of choice.
Quake back in 1996 knew how to cull things not visible. You had turn off visibility checking and patch the maps see things under water. If their engine needs to tessellate an entire ocean mesh that isnt even visible in the scene then its broken.Come on BFG, the kids may not know but I know you know that it is inate on the render sort order of the engine if they are capable of doing that or not. If the render sort isn't set for front to back on a given item then they can't cull it. That is outside of the codepath of a render routine, that is a core element of the engine.
No, thanks to 28nm.
So we tessellate a flat surface into polygons less than a pixel in size when all that benefits are two hooks at the top?
Also I don’t think the difference in sharpness is caused by tessellation.
My team of choice is nVidia; that doesn’t mean that Crysis isn’t blatantly wasting tessellation resources.
Quake back in 1996 knew how to cull things not visible.
If their engine needs to tessellate an entire ocean mesh that isn’t even visible in the scene then it’s broken.
look at tessellation in deus ex (gaming evolved) and compare it to the tessellation done in crysis 2 (twimtbp), which game have the best implementation?
tl;dr: characters vs flat concrete blocks?
What is the singular flat surface you are talking about? The front face of the left side of the steel plate, the back side of the left steel plate, the front side of the concrete, the back side of the concrete, the back side of the right steel plate, or the front side of the right steel plate? Also, do you have anything that shows what the singular flat surface you are talking about has for polygon density? I see some wireframes of a bunch of layers of geometry and how that results in sub pixel polys, but that's it. In terms of moving forward, the steel plates having distinct geometry are a bigger deal then the hooks(deformation interaction couldn't behave properly if they were not distinct objects).
Actually it appears it’s because AF is broken in DX9 mode.You are correct, the lack of sharpness is caused by two things- shaders and lack of geometry. Tesselation is one way to take care of that. Using shader hacks to simulate geometry is always going to produce an image that is less sharp then an actual geometry solution. Tesselation replaces the hack that causes the blur(an actual proper model wouldn't have it).
I’m not against tessellation, I’m just against it being used poorly like in Crysis 2.Spending millions of development dollars, that don't exist for PC games, is a better way to go? Tesselation is broadly approved of because it makes development easier. Having an artist carefully tune ever model for optimal utilization is certainly an option, going bankrupt and running out of money before your game ships is also an option- those options are both along the same path. As the world of graphics gets closer to those of CGI people need to stop and realize that those CGI movies frequently exceed $50 million just to cover their artists. No coders, no one to design an actual game, just the artists. We have a few different options, either people start buying ~20 times more PC games then they do currently, or we find alternate routes to get closer to movie style CGI without the stagger costs associated with it. Tesselation, used exactly how it is in Crysis 2, is following the second path.
It should already be culled at the map level so the renderer never touches it. There should be no ocean data at those points in the map data to begin with. Quake certainly wasn’t rendering water the entire level just because there was a pool somewhere in the corner.The only way to get it to go away would be to not load it until it became visible, that would be some massive thrashing and some nasy pop in. Given the trivial complexity of the water, I would wager that people would have a much larger issue with it appearing out of no where.