Monday, March 26th 2012

NVIDIA Kepler Tech-Demo Called "New Dawn"

NVIDIA stunned reporters at its GeForce Kepler press-event, by smoothly-running running Epic Games' Unreal Engine 3 "Samaritan" tech-demo on a single GeForce Kepler GPU, when the demo needed up to three previous-generation GPUs. However, Samaritan isn't Kepler's official tech-demo. It is reportedly called "New Dawn", and is a retake on the "Dawn" tech-demo, which baffled the industry, nearly a decade ago. "Dawn" displayed its central character, a fairy by its name, in stunning detail (at the time).

While Dawn was incredibly detailed, its environment was pretty-much just a textured sky-box. "New Dawn" could bring Dawn back into action, focusing on environmental elements such as realistic physics simulation, improved hair animation, and greater detail. NVIDIA has a wealth of new elements to play with, such as a level of tessellation that could be impossible to render smoothly on the competitor's GPU (even if one could run it). NVIDIA could distribute this demo on its websites (NVIDIA.com, GeForce.com), soon. NVIDIA, and rival AMD, release tech-demos with each new GPU architecture, which demonstrate the capabilities of their new flagship GPUs. Pictured below is a frame from the 2003 demo.



A "sneak-peek" video of the demo follows.

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

55 Comments on NVIDIA Kepler Tech-Demo Called "New Dawn"

#1
Shurakai
by: Lionheart
Yes it is.....
I love both cards, but for pure tessellation, if those graphs are anything to go by, no, it really isn't.
Posted on Reply
#2
Rowsol
by: mrw1986
Just because it took insane hardware setups to run Crysis doesn't mean it had better graphics. It simply means that the code is horribly optimized.
I hate when people saying this. Of course it doesn't have better graphics it was made 4 years before. And how is the code "horrible optimized"? Have you see the distance that it renders graphics?? Did you write the code yourself?
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: BigMack70
To compare BF3 in 2011/12 to Crysis in 2007 is complete ignorance.
True, it's not as atrociously coded as Crysis.
Posted on Reply
#4
mrw1986
by: Rowsol
I hate when people saying this. Of course it doesn't have better graphics it was made 4 years before. And how is the code "horrible optimized"? Have you see the distance that it renders graphics?? Did you write the code yourself?
It's pretty easy to say - the engine is HORRIBLY coded. It's a fact. Why argue? There are engines out there with equal if not better graphics that are way more efficient.
Posted on Reply
#5
AphexDreamer
Hey as poorly coded you want to call Crysis, that game looked amazing guys. Get the photoreal mod and I mean dam, that game looks great. Aside from its lack of tessellation I'd still favor that engine over many others and this was back in 2007.

But alas due to consoles they've had to dumb down their engine and even though they have added modern technology to it, Cryengine 3 just wasn't the improvement it should have been from 2.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2060243#post2060243
Posted on Reply
#6
Badelhas
I dont agree Crysis 1 engine was porly optimized, it was just very ahead of its time. They decided to render a lot of goodies, even though they knew there was no pc capable of rendering it with max settings at the moment. Crysis 1 was the reason I payed 400€ for a Nvidia 8800Gts 640Mbs at that time and I dont regreat a bit. Battlefield single player does look good but I say it again: They could have done it much better and just didnt! Look at how much GPU tech has evolved (see the Tech Demos) and you will agree with me. That Tech Demos was what Crysis looked like when it came out. Or are you guys too young to have experience it at that time? ;)

Cheers,
Andre
Posted on Reply
#7
BigMack70
Wow this discussion got off track. Crysis only was brought up because someone mentioned "why hasn't there been anything like Crysis [in terms of graphical leap forward]" and then someone else replied (very wrongly) that "battlefield 3 is an equivalent leap forward in terms of graphics"
Posted on Reply
#8
mrw1986
I find it amusing that people still defend that Crysis is not poorly coded...hell modern cards still struggle to keep it above 40fps average @ 1080p. Yes, the game looks great, I can easily admit that. I built a rig just to play Crysis when it came out. The fact still stands it is a horribly optimized game.

by: BigMack70
Wow this discussion got off track. Crysis only was brought up because someone mentioned "why hasn't there been anything like Crysis [in terms of graphical leap forward]" and then someone else replied (very wrongly) that "battlefield 3 is an equivalent leap forward in terms of graphics"
BF3 is a great leap in graphics...why? Because it can be ran on this generations hardware, unlike Crysis (in relation to the generation of hardware at its release). To have those kind of graphics run on last gen's hardware is much more than Crysis can attest to.
Posted on Reply
#9
BigMack70
Crysis is 5 years old and still comes close to comparing with BF3 in terms of graphics (even though not perhaps in performance). Crysis 2 certainly compares with BF3.

Therefore: BF3 is NOT in any way the leap forward graphically that Crysis was.

When Crysis was released, it blew everything else out of the water and was in a class of its own entirely. No game currently can say that.

I dunno why this is such a controversial thing.
Posted on Reply
#10
mrw1986
by: BigMack70
Crysis is 5 years old and still comes close to comparing with BF3 in terms of graphics (even though not perhaps in performance). Crysis 2 certainly compares with BF3.

Therefore: BF3 is NOT in any way the leap forward graphically that Crysis was.

When Crysis was released, it blew everything else out of the water and was in a class of its own entirely. No game currently can say that.

I dunno why this is such a controversial thing.
I still disagree with you. It is a leap when you consider the graphics/performance ratio. What good is a great looking game if you can't run it? Also, the fact you only have 5 posts and they are all to this thread make it seem like you are trolling...
Posted on Reply
#11
BigMack70
You can check my profile over @ toms hardware (same name) - I'm not a troll. Crysis runs about 25% slower on my 7970 than does BF3 mp or Crysis 2 SP. So, after 5 years we have games that look a little better and perform slightly better to boot.

Not very impressive when you compare Crysis to games 5 years previous to it (2002) and see how amazing the difference is...
Posted on Reply
#12
Badelhas
by: BigMack70
You can check my profile over @ toms hardware (same name) - I'm not a troll. Crysis runs about 25% slower on my 7970 than does BF3 mp or Crysis 2 SP. So, after 5 years we have games that look a little better and perform slightly better to boot.

Not very impressive when you compare Crysis to games 5 years previous to it (2002) and see how amazing the difference is...
I, once again, totally agree.
And I dont know why someone said "this has gone off track". I think this has everything to do with the topic.

Cheers
Posted on Reply
#13
grammaton_feather
by: BigMack70
BF3 today is nowhere near what Crysis was in 2007. Not even close. It's better than what's out there, but not by far. It's also arguably not much better than Crysis 2. It also runs fine maxed out on today's hardware - it took years (or crazy multi-GPU setups) to run Crysis maxed out.

To compare BF3 in 2011/12 to Crysis in 2007 is complete ignorance. The answer is very simple - we don't have better looking games because all the $$$ is in console development, so even for a PC-first game, the graphics are limited because they have to make sure the game will run on 7 year old consoles.
I'm wondering if you've even played BF3. Have you played the Jet or Tank mission in single player? It seems not. In multiplayer it's the same story... Your argument is rather silly because it's entirely subjective. I could say that Crysis was nothing in terms of what it brought compared to Half Life 2. It's a stupid argument. Half Life 2 was ground-breaking, the original Half Life was also, Crysis was also ground-breaking in what it gave us. A vast outdoor world with destructable scenery. You need to get over your Crysis thing because it makes you sound like a fanboy and no one wants that.

Crysis gave us a large outdoor world with a new level of super-destructo phyics.

Half-Life 2 gave us the same.

Battlefield 3 couldn't introduce super-destructo physics because it was already done, what it did give us was a new level of character animation realism. New levels of lighting realism, new levels of post effects and yes it was very much optimised for PC. It sounds to me like you haven't even played it or if you have, perhaps all you saw was crysis because you're so in awe of it. Crysis hasn't aged well. It looks a bit shit now unless you mod it and from what I've seen it still looks a bit shit compared to Crysis 2 DX11 and certainly BF3.

Retarded argument and you picked on the wrong game with BF3 because it shows you don't know the game or the tech that went into it. I assume you didn't see the DICE lectures either.
Posted on Reply
#14
grammaton_feather
by: BigMack70
You can check my profile over @ toms hardware (same name) - I'm not a troll. Crysis runs about 25% slower on my 7970 than does BF3 mp or Crysis 2 SP. So, after 5 years we have games that look a little better and perform slightly better to boot.

Not very impressive when you compare Crysis to games 5 years previous to it (2002) and see how amazing the difference is...
Totally stupid argument.

BF3 is ground-breaking in so many ways and it doesn't need a set quota of improvements in order to reach your pedestal where it can be classed as worthy.

BF3 is a great PC game and many people have built PC's just so they can play it. You may think you have an opinion that's better than all those people who rate BF3 but it's just an opinion and a MINORITY opinion.

I am actually sick of hearing the crysis bollocks now. It was a great game in it's time and I was one of the ones who spoke out against the numpties who said it was "badly coded" because it wouldn't run ultra on their 8600gt's.

I tried to explain that the game was designed for current and future hardware and just because a numpty has an 8600 or lower he shouldnt insist the game be limited to his hardware. I was wasting my time. So many numpties complained that Crytek aimed Crysis 2 at consoles.

Crysis was great! It's old, move on.

BF3 is revolutionary in the way it raises the bar for graphical realism. Doesn't matter one crap that it doesn't meet your personal list of ground-breaking innovations.
Posted on Reply
#15
BigMack70
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011-special/awards/index.html?page=4

The very existence of something like this invalidates everyone's claims saying BF3 is as revolutionary as Crysis. In 2007, there were no other viable options for technical graphics superiority - Crysis was THAT far ahead of the pack.

In 2012, rather you agree or not with which is #1, there are other viable options.

The only thing REVOLUTIONARY that BF3 brings to the table is destructibility in multiplayer (and this may even have been done elsewhere, but I haven't played anything with this level of destructibility before). The graphics are great, but they are not revolutionary - they are an evolution of what was already present in Bad Company 2.

Never thought I'd see so many crazed BF3 fanboys on here. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#17
DarkOCean
by: nvidiaintelftw
yeah its about time AMD cards could handle tesselation. Even then the 680 still wins.
Good that it wins in synthetics, too bad it doesnt in real life.
Fermi as well destroyed everything in tessmark but that's just synthetics.
Posted on Reply
#18
Badelhas
by: grammaton_feather
I'm wondering if you've even played BF3. Have you played the Jet or Tank mission in single player? It seems not. In multiplayer it's the same story... Your argument is rather silly because it's entirely subjective. I could say that Crysis was nothing in terms of what it brought compared to Half Life 2. It's a stupid argument. Half Life 2 was ground-breaking, the original Half Life was also, Crysis was also ground-breaking in what it gave us. A vast outdoor world with destructable scenery. You need to get over your Crysis thing because it makes you sound like a fanboy and no one wants that.

Crysis gave us a large outdoor world with a new level of super-destructo phyics.

Half-Life 2 gave us the same.

Battlefield 3 couldn't introduce super-destructo physics because it was already done, what it did give us was a new level of character animation realism. New levels of lighting realism, new levels of post effects and yes it was very much optimised for PC. It sounds to me like you haven't even played it or if you have, perhaps all you saw was crysis because you're so in awe of it. Crysis hasn't aged well. It looks a bit shit now unless you mod it and from what I've seen it still looks a bit shit compared to Crysis 2 DX11 and certainly BF3.

Retarded argument and you picked on the wrong game with BF3 because it shows you don't know the game or the tech that went into it. I assume you didn't see the DICE lectures either.
Fanboy, calm down, no one is beeing agressive, or are we? Probably you are playing too much Battlefield 3 and should play more of "The Sims" instead ;)


Crytek made a bold decision to do it the way they did it, and of course the guys with less money or without the will to upgrade got really frustrated but I believe it made Crysis even more known and gave them lots os publicity, Crytek got really big because of it. And if you think about it it is not really worth upgrading to a 1000€ dual GPU´s like yours back then except if you are playing in a 3 monitor setup. I have, as I did back then, my "upgrade demon" saying I should upgrade my pc but then I think: "Why? I do not need it and, for the look of it, will not needed for a couple of years more". It really makes me sad but it is the true: the GPU tech is years ahead of the game engine´s technology.
Not only that but I continue to believe that BF3 is a very good looking game (and the gameplay is great, as Crysis, in my opinion) but my jaws didnt fall when I first looked at it. With Crysis or, nowadays, when I watch the samaritan tech demo, my jaws do fall and I realize the tech they are holding back. And this because games are since crysis entirely made with consoles in mind and their 6 years old hardware capabilities. Even Crytek defrauded the Pc community when they promise Crysis 2 with Dx 11 support when they only did it months after the launch of the game.

Cheers,
Posted on Reply
#19
Steevo
by: Badelhas
Fanboy, calm down, no one is beeing agressive, or are we? Probably you are playing too much Battlefield 3 and should play more of "The Sims" instead ;)


Crytek made a bold decision to do it the way they did it, and of course the guys with less money or without the will to upgrade got really frustrated but I believe it made Crysis even more known and gave them lots os publicity, Crytek got really big because of it. And if you think about it it is not really worth upgrading to a 1000€ dual GPU´s like yours back then except if you are playing in a 3 monitor setup. I have, as I did back then, my "upgrade demon" saying I should upgrade my pc but then I think: "Why? I do not need it and, for the look of it, will not needed for a couple of years more". It really makes me sad but it is the true: the GPU tech is years ahead of the game engine´s technology.
Not only that but I continue to believe that BF3 is a very good looking game (and the gameplay is great, as Crysis, in my opinion) but my jaws didnt fall when I first looked at it. With Crysis or, nowadays, when I watch the samaritan tech demo, my jaws do fall and I realize the tech they are holding back. And this because games are since crysis entirely made with consoles in mind and their 6 years old hardware capabilities. Even Crytek defrauded the Pc community when they promise Crysis 2 with Dx 11 support when they only did it months after the launch of the game.

Cheers,
Brand X GPU fully optimized demo with prerendered scenes does NOT equal a game.


All else equal the CPU portion of any game and in place dependencies have more to do with what we see than GPU tech.

physxcooking.dll

Its great they want to move away from this, but as soon as they do they limit their game market penetration, or they have to spend hundreds of hours more writing code to optimize for EVERY GPU so they make sure it runs correctly.

In my humble opinion we are still four years away from having any sort of real time hardware accelerated true to life games, and then only if we are fortunate. So while demos like this are cool, they are not indicative of true performance.
Posted on Reply
#20
grammaton_feather
by: Badelhas
Fanboy, calm down, no one is beeing agressive, or are we? Probably you are playing too much Battlefield 3 and should play more of "The Sims" instead ;)


Crytek made a bold decision to do it the way they did it, and of course the guys with less money or without the will to upgrade got really frustrated but I believe it made Crysis even more known and gave them lots os publicity, Crytek got really big because of it. And if you think about it it is not really worth upgrading to a 1000€ dual GPU´s like yours back then except if you are playing in a 3 monitor setup. I have, as I did back then, my "upgrade demon" saying I should upgrade my pc but then I think: "Why? I do not need it and, for the look of it, will not needed for a couple of years more". It really makes me sad but it is the true: the GPU tech is years ahead of the game engine´s technology.
Not only that but I continue to believe that BF3 is a very good looking game (and the gameplay is great, as Crysis, in my opinion) but my jaws didnt fall when I first looked at it. With Crysis or, nowadays, when I watch the samaritan tech demo, my jaws do fall and I realize the tech they are holding back. And this because games are since crysis entirely made with consoles in mind and their 6 years old hardware capabilities. Even Crytek defrauded the Pc community when they promise Crysis 2 with Dx 11 support when they only did it months after the launch of the game.

Cheers,
Well, I take some of your points and I agree about the Samaritan demo. That is unquestionably something that raises the bar but I believe BF3 does also. The only issue here is when you believe subjectively that the bar has not been raised to your ideal. We all have different ideals. I appreciate BF3 for what it is, at least it is actually a PC optimised game, should it look like Samaritan? Well no, different type of game entirely. Does BF3 push current hardware in the same way Crysis did 5 years ago? Wrong argument. DICE tend to be more optimised if I can start throwing that word around. The Battlefield series has pretty much always raised the bar a little.

There has never been a Battlefield that I could run on max detail on day of release. Last year I purchased 2 x 560Ti 1gb. I figured since my system had hammered Bad Company 2 into the ground at 197 fps on max detail, I could get similar performance on BF3... Wrong! With 768 SLI cores I have the horsepower to run BF3, I don't have the GDDR. Thus at 1080 I am forced to play on High detail. The difference between high and ultra isn't that great on this game but don't forget I am running 2 x 560Ti even on high and the game would be much more demanding on a single 560Ti. So Dice have always pushed the envelope to some extent and just because your jaw didn't drop with the pre-release vids, I will say you are in a minority because everyone I know who saw the vids had the jaw dropping.

I think we are getting too caught up in comparing one game to another and saying one game beats all and what has come since hasn't raised the bar to the same level.

The hardware has moved on, BF3 has quite a lot of new developments in terms of lighting effects, physics etc. It doesn't have to raise the bar the same level as crysis did 5 years ago. That is irrelevant. Arguing that Bf3 didn't make your jaw drop is silly because it's purely subjective and a minority opinion at that.

I am actually sick of hearing about crysis in this thread now.
Posted on Reply
#21
grammaton_feather
Actually I think something of interest to note is that if you take crysis without any bullshit mods and compare it to crysis 2 or BF3, you can really see how games have progressed graphically. Not just visuals but character animation and physics.

Certainly consoles have done a lot to damage pc gaming and I hate them.

Would not have a console in my tent.

The bar is being raised gradually. It's not always constant but the progress is there.
Posted on Reply
#22
mcloughj
Hate to break up the discussion but I'm looking forward to seeing the full demo and those well rendered boobs.
Posted on Reply
#23
grammaton_feather
by: mcloughj
Hate to break up the discussion but I'm looking forward to seeing the full demo and those well rendered boobs.
Agree. I guess it will only run on 680 but I want to upgrade. Over at bit tech forum there is great controversy over the 2gb the new GPU has. For me it's enough at 1080 but some people running much higher res and say they're gonna wait for the 4gb.
Posted on Reply
#24
Liquid Cool
Unfortunately...nVidia is speaking of a different new dawn. Figure it out for yourself at the end of Katy Perry's ET video.

I'll pass.

LC
Posted on Reply
#25
mudkip
Anyone remember the nude patch?:laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment