3 ms·

As the video shows, this is not just about the highest-end AAA games, there is a 2D platformer there too. But the important thing in working to port the highes

by azakai 13y ago

As the video shows, this is not just about the highest-end AAA games, there is a 2D platformer there too. But the important thing in working to port the highest-end games is to push the limits of the web platform, so it can be better optimized. Before UE3 was ported, people were - rightfully! - skeptical any such engine would work well on the web at all, and that port helped get to that point (and now to UE4). Also, note that the 60% is of CPU performance. You also get close to 100% of GPU performance using WebGL. So overall it will be even closer to native speed (depending on how the specific game balances between CPU and GPU).

supergauntlet 13y ago
Most games these days (with a few exceptions) are GPU bound. Battlefield, Far Cry, Assassins Creed, etc are all GPU bound. You can't get away with a completely awful CPU but you don't need a great one for these. For other games, like Starcraft, or Kerbal Space Program, the GPU isn't your limiting factor, but your CPU's performance. Skyrim, for example, will perform vastly different with the same graphics card with different CPUs. For many games the anemic CPU performance won't matter, at least not very much.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  > Most games these days (with a few exceptions) are GPU bound. Most AAA games are GPU-bound, you mean. It's very rare to find titles from indie developers or smaller publishers that come anywhere near taxing a modern GPU -- due in part to the massive expense required to create engines and assets that are capable of doing so. (Which is also why the AAA game business model seems more and more to be teetering; AAA titles have differentiated themselves via graphics for decades, but the cost of being cutting edge is so high now that if the title sells at anything less than blockbuster rates it's a financial failure.)
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Actually it depends on the engine and how physics are implemented. A game like Battlefield 4 actually taxes the CPU pretty heavily.

by azakai 13y ago

supergauntlet 13y ago

Most games these days (with a few exceptions) are GPU bound. Battlefield, Far Cry, Assassins Creed, etc are all GPU bound. You can't get away with a completely awful CPU but you don't need a great one for these. For other games, like Starcraft, or Kerbal Space Program, the GPU isn't your limiting factor, but your CPU's performance. Skyrim, for example, will perform vastly different with the same graphics card with different CPUs. For many games the anemic CPU performance won't matter, at least not very much.

smacktoward 13y ago
> Most games these days (with a few exceptions) are GPU bound. Most AAA games are GPU-bound, you mean. It's very rare to find titles from indie developers or smaller publishers that come anywhere near taxing a modern GPU -- due in part to the massive expense required to create engines and assets that are capable of doing so. (Which is also why the AAA game business model seems more and more to be teetering; AAA titles have differentiated themselves via graphics for decades, but the cost of being cutting edge is so high now that if the title sells at anything less than blockbuster rates it's a financial failure.)
cromwellian 13y ago
Actually it depends on the engine and how physics are implemented. A game like Battlefield 4 actually taxes the CPU pretty heavily.