AMD DX11 Leo Demo

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
For those of you that haven't seen it yet, AMD has posted its DX11 Leo demo for anyone with the hardware to run it. The demo weighs in at 733MB but you shouldn't have any issues getting it, the link is pretty damn speedy right now. I'll have a video posted soon for those of you that want to see more than just screenshots.

The Leo demo showcases a real-time, DirectX® 11 based lighting pipeline that is designed to allow for rendering scenes made of arbitrarily complex materials (including transparencies), multiple lighting models, and minimal restrictions on the number of lights that can be used -- all while supporting hardware MSAA and efficient memory usage. Specifically, this demo uses DirectCompute to cull and manage lights in a scene. The end result is a per-pixel or per-tile list of lights that forward-render based shaders use for lighting each pixel. This technique also allows for adding one bounce global illumination effects by spawning virtual point light sources where light strikes a surface. Finally, the lighting in this demo is physically based in that it is fully HDR and the material and reflection models take advantage of the ALU power of the AMD Radeon HD 7900 GPU to calculate physically accurate light and surface interactions (multiple BRDF equations, realistic use of index of refraction, absorption based on wavelength for metals, etc).
Click to expand...
 
DejaWiz said:
Nice. Is this coded to only run on AMD GPU's?
Click to expand...

From the download page:

* This demo requires Windows Vista® or above operating system, latest AMD Catalyst™ software, a dual- or quad-core CPU, and 4GB of RAM. Runs best on an AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series graphics processor. Compatible with any DirectX 11 capable graphics processor from AMD.
Click to expand...
 
A graphics card demo. Haven't seen one of those in years. Remember Nvidia's Dusk?
 
I downloaded it yesterday , slow as molasses , 40min and i got cable.

I always like CG like animation and how they look better on lcd than movies.

Tech demo's aren't meant to be entertaining but are supposed to show latest technology.
The video is best case scenario ...the demo with lower end vid cards might be even less entertaining .
 
Revdarian said:
???

You do not need a 7900 card to play it, and it most definitely didn't suck.

Make yourself a favor and read what the heck is the demo showing the developers.
Click to expand...

Your English is horrible and the demo sucked bad. There were far better ways to showcase lighting.. and why make a demo solely on lighting? The demo was a POS. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
 
bodan said:
Your English is horrible and the demo sucked bad. There were far better ways to showcase lighting.. and why make a demo solely on lighting? The demo was a POS. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Click to expand...

What's up with the influx of new forum goers who happily flame / put down other goers? Make your damn point without putting others down.

TL;DR: personal attacks on this boards = not kosher.
 
bodan said:
Your English is horrible and the demo sucked bad. There were far better ways to showcase lighting.. and why make a demo solely on lighting? The demo was a POS. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Click to expand...

Heh, funny, but no the demo didn't suck dude.

Again, do yourself a favor and learn what the heck are they showing to DEVELOPERS, that is NOT a technology demo to showcase the 7900.

Quite honestly, it isn't just about lighting, if you don't get it, then again, the demo wasn't meant for you, as you are obviously NOT a game developer.
 
maboblivion said:
The video is best case scenario ...the demo with lower end vid cards might be even less entertaining .
Click to expand...

Well, it is playable at 768p with full MSAA on a 6850, but yeah that is still a best case scenario as it doesn't have to deal with AI nor anything similar actually taxing the cpu on top.
 
Since when do game developers need these demos? I'm sure they have all kinds of whitepapers to read and their own demos they can develop and test things out... they don't need AMD to produce a demo to show them anything.

Last I remember, these are to show people (and reviewers and investors) what these processors are capable of... to swoon them. All I was reminded of here was a boring Little Big Planet... no fast-paced anything so you don't even need FPS to show how quickly the processor can produce frames (which is kinda something you want to pimp with new video cards).

Oh well. Apparently I'm completely wrong. :eek:
 
In this case, yes you are wrong, as it was AMD who developed the compute code to fix the lightning performance problem of the forward rendering engines.

This demo wasn't meant for the public, because until someone hotlinked it the only way to download it was by joining the dev sub section of AMD's website ;)

This was of special interest for AMD because quite honestly whichever subroutine they use to do MSAA on deferred rendering engines is more costly proportionally to Nvidia's solution (Look any benchmark like BF3, see the performance drop from adding MSAA between each band, you will notice that team red takes quite a bit performance hit in comparison).


Also forward rendering engines have some other uses, there is a reason that they made a point about the multiple materials used on the scene. This is something that honestly doesn't look all that good on deferred rendering engines (when the devs actually bother to try and code it).
 
This is suppose to be subtle and artsy...not tits! Show some restraint you unrefined heathens.:p
 
Ok, by tech standard this post that i am gonna link is ancient:
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/424979-forward-vs-deferred-rendering/
Read post #5, that is the standard problem that deferred renderers present when working with different materials on a single scene.

TLDR: Each new material on a deferred renderer requires a new pass of lighting which can end up eroding the advantage of deferred renderers in the first place (single lighting pass independant of the geometry).
 
colinstu said:
Since when do game developers need these demos? I'm sure they have all kinds of whitepapers to read and their own demos they can develop and test things out... they don't need AMD to produce a demo to show them anything.
Click to expand...

Anyone remember ATi's Chuck Patch for Oblivion? They might not need the demo itself, but the ideas behind it come from some really smart people who might not work at the game dev's company.

This demo is actually a very similar idea. How many new titles come out where AA is limited to what they give you in the game menus, if anything? Control Panel forcing doesn't always work, even with the exe renaming tricks. Morphological and FXAA can degrade overall image quality and still doesn't work everywhere. The idea behind this demo is to make more modes of AA available and higher IQ with the kinds of post processing effects and speed that people have come to expect using more advanced DX10/11 techniques. The engine will need to be made with this concept in mind but it looks like it offers a lot of benefits without much downside. Less compromise = good.

That being said, I still want my damn Cinema 2.0 Ruby demo dammit!
 
I tried it on my gtx 580.

I am guessing with some tweaks it might work.Not doubt AMD is using special driver calls or some such.

It does run, the sound and music play fine, the screen however is largely blanks with a few bits and pieces of the animations showing here and there.

To bad.

I like watching Teck/Graphics demos. It's nice to see what things like tessellation and various shadow techniques look like. As well as all the other things out there.

It is old now, I used to have an open gl demo, with music and a scene in an attic, taken from a game I think, that showed a lot of lighting and shadow techniques. Now that I am thinking of it again I wish I could find it to download it. Old as it is it shows to non teck heads the value of what good rendering and a better graphics card can do.
 
lostinseganet said:
This is suppose to be subtle and artsy...not tits! Show some restraint you unrefined heathens.:p
Click to expand...

+1

I enjoyed the subtle Pixar-ish charm. And the lighting was rather nice and soft, almost lifelike. I used to love the old demos, like the HDR sphere, simply for the simple beauty of showcasing one piece of technology. Not sure where the deluge of hate is suddenly coming from others.
 
Watched the video, pretty boring, yeah. Wonder why they chose to use cartoon graphics as a tech demo? I mean the lighting and everything is decent but...I kinda thought the Ruby ones and that nVidia one with the Medusa were much more impressive.
 
This is mean for developer, not for gamers..

Those who said it sucks, then you probably have no idea what this tech demo is trying to show..
 
MavericK96 said:
Watched the video, pretty boring, yeah. Wonder why they chose to use cartoon graphics as a tech demo? I mean the lighting and everything is decent but...I kinda thought the Ruby ones and that nVidia one with the Medusa were much more impressive.
Click to expand...

Simple! The uncanny valley problem with "realism". But also, the closer to reality something looks, the more you notice things all the little which aren't quite right. With a realistic approach you have to get everything exact as you are having it compared to real life. If you go more "artistic" you can screw up the shape of everything and nobody will care, as it's got no comparison with anything else. If theyd have gone for a real looking human youd notice 100 little things which would make the product probably look worse!
 
MavericK96 said:
Watched the video, pretty boring, yeah. Wonder why they chose to use cartoon graphics as a tech demo? I mean the lighting and everything is decent but...I kinda thought the Ruby ones and that nVidia one with the Medusa were much more impressive.
Click to expand...

Probably because a lot of cartoons today look like that. For example Tangled or Toy Story.
 
Ran fine on my EVGA gtx560ti OC

Unless there was some feature to it I couldn't even tell was missing. Lots of lighting shifts and shadows.
So what makes it AMD only?
 
Reminds me of Luxor and Luxor Jr.

+1 for that memory. I think the industry could benefit from more of this
and less of *POW CRASH BANG* ULTRA COOOOOOOOOOOL everywhere.

After awhile both options get played out, so its nice to see them pulling from a
different pool of ideas.
 
I don't understand exactly what it was showcasing, something with the lighting. Anyways I like tech demo's and CG, I am impressed for something to look that nice in-engine, and quite enjoyed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top