-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
EPIC: The geometry in the PS5 UE5 demo is only as GPU intensive as Fortnite on consoles.
- Thread starter EvilBoris
- Start date
I think a few people are misinterpreting what is said. They're not saying it's something that could be run on current consoles, but that's it's not anymore straining to the PS5 GPU as 60FPS Fortnite is straining to a PS4/XBOne. And that the geometry only, sure it's highly detailed but it's mostly rocks which is pretty much the easiest kind of geometry to render AFAIK.
To me that seems credible.
To me that seems credible.
They're referring to the geometry draw time, which is only one aspect of the whole rendering pipeline.
They're basically boasting that the GPU budget geometry drawing is no worse for Nanite than the traditional pipeline. It kind of needs to be comparable in order to be competitive with traditional techniques.
Breaking: Engine Developer talks about their Engine!
More news at 5!
The funny thing is that the PS5 or SSD are not even mentioned in the article lol
Making Unreal Engine 5
Behind the technology that's about to change game development for the next generation
www.pcgamesn.com
This comes from this and it seems much more interesting than the clickbait article
The PS5 is plenty powerful enough to render fortnight geometry at native 4k. Maybe the lighting took the GPU grunt required to hit 4k? Dunno.
OP
OP
Don't you know that raytracing is all controlled by BVM tables, if you can read those spreadsheets fast enough you can make raytracing faster!
But only if you use google sheets cuz Sony hate Microsoft.
Some people have already explained that the comparison with fortnite is being misinterpreted.
The SSD is so fast that it can load in a mention in the article seemlessly without having to refresh the page.
Why do that then I can get my two cents in by just reading the title 😏
It would be nice if they showed or explained i/o speeds used in that demo. It's a great demo but it's grating that they did a tech demo then are kind of nebulous with the metrics. Are there metrics out there that they've shared?
Glad to see this being posted rather than "SSD only removes loading screens".
Making Unreal Engine 5
Behind the technology that's about to change game development for the next generation
This comes from this and it seems much more interesting than the clickbait article
This is the article that we need to read. Thanks
The title has been altered by a mod it seems but people still fall for that "PS5" bit. This has far less to do with PS5 and much much more to do with the efficiency of Nanite in UE5 on RDNA2. So, this efficiency carries over to Xbox Series X/S as well.
But trolls gonna troll.
Does this affect longevity of the SSD? Or is this within normal parameters of what they do?
It's not doing anything about the GPU's draw rate or what % of GPU time is spent on triangle drawing for a given scene.
It has a lot to do with having the best data - triangles - at hand for the GPU to draw for a given camera view.
The draw rate, and the data, are what adds up to the level of detail you see. So the SSD is playing its part in terms of the overall fidelity, even if it has nothing to do with the triangle draw rate.
OK, but holding assets in VRAM vs disc doesn't have any effect on the number of polygons the engine can push, does it? The comparison in the OP would be just as valid for a static scene where streaming isn't a concern at all.
Epic praised PS5's architecture in OPM w/o mentioning Xbox > Conspiracy theories about marketing deal > More members both siding Xbox Series X > Rendering anything Epic has to say about PS5 into marketing fluff
People want their post to be the one that 'wins' whatever discussion or argument they're inserting themselves into - it's basically the only thing that matters - and that guides their posting habits. People don't read anymore, because they don't need to read, it's not entirely necessary to get that first post dope post mic-drop moment they're gunning for. They might skim the OP just to make sure that nothing there apparently invalidates the post they've already written in their minds, their reply to the thread title.
Oh I'm not saying that it has to be 4k/60 because the comparison to fortnight. I'm trying to figure out what they did with the rest of the GPU headroom in the PS5. I get it's not a straight comparison. Hell the X1X and PS4 pro could/can/(do?) handle fortnight in 4k.
Isn't it good? It mean there are plenty power left for gameplay , AI, physics, dynamic lighting etc
This thread proves how many people on Era don't actually read articles and just quickly hit the reply button 😂
Last edited:
I mean, I'm no tech expert/dev! I might be wrong.
I just read the article and it seemed fairly obvious what they were trying to say.
No, they actually didn't say that. They said the time spent to render the geometry is similar which is not the same thing.
Can you do me a favor and go into every thread and explain this to people
So from the snippets it sounds like he isnt talking about PS5 but GPU in general. Which means every plattform profits from it.
That said an SSD doesnt reduce the GPU load required. So the magic happens in the engine. Curious what UE5 does so much different from UE4 to deliver such a performance boost.
Still sceptical about this demo being representive for next gen.
That said an SSD doesnt reduce the GPU load required. So the magic happens in the engine. Curious what UE5 does so much different from UE4 to deliver such a performance boost.
Still sceptical about this demo being representive for next gen.
Are you saying it will swap huge memory blocks in a single frame time? That's like magic!!!!
Ah, it can be a lot of things, unless they say, I wouldn't be able to know, maybe someone more with more knowledge can point out more easily what would make the GPU demand big even with these benefits that Nanite gives.
We need more info on how UE5 scales, against what metrics, what toggles are available for devs.
Memory has nothing to do with triangle draw rate, but it may have something to do with how many tris-per-pixel you can target while avoiding egregious levels of pop-in. You might target a much lower number of triangles than your GPU can actually draw if your memory setup resulted in bad pop-in every time you move the camera.
What this bit of info does tell us, though, is that you're geometric detail is unlikely to be GPU bound. But it could be bound by other things however depending on the scene, your memory setup, and your appetite for temporal artifacts/pop-in.
I wouldve thought Nanite is a huge GPU hog on higher resolutions since iirc they said it scales with that. Apparently not so much, and its lumen the one that hogs all the GPU, which kinda makes sense since its similar to raytracing in some ways.
you are fine, Epic is just annoying me with putting out a tech demo then beating around the bush with performance metrics. Though to be fair if they put out all the performance metrics I wouldn't have a clue about what I was looking at.