Infinity Ward: 720p Xbox One port of Call of Duty Ghosts is due to resource allocation

Last week, Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin confirmed that the Xbox One port of its upcoming first person shooter Call of Duty Ghost Ghosts would be displayed with a native 720p resolution that will be upscaled to 1080p, unlike the PlayStation 4 port which will have a native 1080p resolution. Many Internet pundits have said this proves that the Xbox One won't be able to compete in terms of its hardware and graphics to the PS4.

In a new interview on Eurogamer, Rubin offers up some more information on the Xbox One 720p display debate. He says there was not one specific thing on the console that kept Infinity Ward from going up to 1080p for CoD: Ghosts, but that ultimately the team could not get the game to run at that high resolution and also run at 60fps. He says:

It was more about resource allocation. The resource allocation is different on the consoles. That huge web of tangled resources, whether it's threads-based or if it's GPU threads or if it's memory - whatever it is - optimisation is something that could go theoretically on forever.

In October, Microsoft stated that 10 percent of the GPU's resources in the Xbox One was currently being reserved to handle tasks related to items like the Kinect sensor and rendering of the Xbox One apps. However, company reps indicated they plan to free up some of those GPU resources in the future and allow game developers to access them.

Indeed, Rubin says that future Call of Duty games made for the Xbox One could run natively at 1080p at 60fps. He states, "... look at Call of Duty 2 versus COD 4. It was a massive leap forward in graphics, and that's just because it takes time to get through this."

Source: Eurogamer | Image via Activision

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New photos and info on Verizon's Nokia Lumia 929 leaked

Next Story

Rumor: Microsoft's Modern UI Office apps due in "late spring/summer" 2014

117 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Steve121178 said,
Here's the difference:

http://i.minus.com/ib0gOrDzD8ScKG.gif

The Xbox One version of the game is an embarrassment compared to the PS4 version.

But where does the embarrassment sit? I think the IW engine and CoD developers should be ashamed.

Hardware and OS Engineering is what I have done professionally for the majority of my life.

I know for a fact the XB1 has more gaming performance potential than the PS4, just based on the OS and graphics API technologies alone, that easily offset any perceived hardware advantages of the PS4.

There is something really wrong with what the CoD team is doing. Either it is poor code or intentional.

They can't have it both ways, where they can shove 1080p 60fps on a lower powered Windows 8 PC that DOES have more overhead and then only offer 720p on the XB1 that has more direct access to the hardware and less OS overhead.

So if overhead is the issue, a Windows 8 PC would be far more problematic for them, yet they are doing 1080p @ 60fps on lower end hardware. How is that possible?

There is technically no reason they should lock to 720p when they could dynamic resolutions scaling and only drop the resolution in areas when FPS drops below 60fps, even if their argument is sound that the XB1 has too much overhead.

They are exposing themselves unless they take the leaked PC version of the game and cripple it to reflect the performance of the XB1. (However since it has already been leaked and hacked, it would be hard to comeback and deem the PC version inferior.)

The Xbox One's GPU is very inferior compared to the PS4's which is where the bottleneck is. Depending on who you listen to, some developers say that PS4's GPU is 50% more powerful than that Xbox One's. Clearly that GPU is vastly superior as every multi-platform game looks much better on PS4 and runs at a higher resolution.

I am someone that has ordered both machines. I've cancelled all my multi-format Xbox One pre-orders as I don't want to be playing gimped versions of BF4, CoD etc, so I'll be playing them on PS4 instead.

Edited by Steve121178, Nov 6 2013, 9:11am :

Mobius Enigma said,

But where does the embarrassment sit? I think the IW engine and CoD developers should be ashamed.

Hardware and OS Engineering is what I have done professionally for the majority of my life.

I know for a fact the XB1 has more gaming performance potential than the PS4, just based on the OS and graphics API technologies alone, that easily offset any perceived hardware advantages of the PS4.

There is something really wrong with what the CoD team is doing. Either it is poor code or intentional.

They can't have it both ways, where they can shove 1080p 60fps on a lower powered Windows 8 PC that DOES have more overhead and then only offer 720p on the XB1 that has more direct access to the hardware and less OS overhead.

So if overhead is the issue, a Windows 8 PC would be far more problematic for them, yet they are doing 1080p @ 60fps on lower end hardware. How is that possible?

There is technically no reason they should lock to 720p when they could dynamic resolutions scaling and only drop the resolution in areas when FPS drops below 60fps, even if their argument is sound that the XB1 has too much overhead.

They are exposing themselves unless they take the leaked PC version of the game and cripple it to reflect the performance of the XB1. (However since it has already been leaked and hacked, it would be hard to comeback and deem the PC version inferior.)


Yeah when your playing the game on Win8, you are ofc running Win8 within a VM, then have another VM running in the background...

What do you mean a PC has more overhead? No casual PC gamer has its game OS running in a VM with another OS besides it in a VM.

Shadowzz said,

Yeah when your playing the game on Win8, you are ofc running Win8 within a VM, then have another VM running in the background...

What do you mean a PC has more overhead? No casual PC gamer has its game OS running in a VM with another OS besides it in a VM.

I'm sorry, but you REALLY do not understand the NT architecture or how the XB1 OS works. There is a VM and there is also an additional OS subsystem, which are easily conflated.

The REASON for the VM model Microsoft is using on the XB1 is to allow games to have less of an OS under them with more direct hardware access. Instead of creating more overhead, the XB1 model REMOVES overhead.

These are launch titles. As developers get accustomed to the next-gen consoles, the graphics and performance will improve. It's a shame that CoD: Ghosts doesn't run at native 1080p but that won't be a deal-breaker for most people.

100th post in this thread! But seriously, you'll need a large TV to notice the detail between 720p and 1080p. No issue here; move along now. (braces for impact)

Here are some things to notice...

The CoD engine is not designed for D3D 11.2 and doesn't use several of the Direct3D 11 acceleration features available that it does take advantage of in their OpenGL version.

Why?

In performance comparisons with the PC version, which should be rather close to the XB1 version, with comparable and LOWER END hardware than in the XB1, the game runs at 1080p at 60fps with equivalent quality settings.

Why?


As more people get their hands on the shipping version of CoD and the Consoles get released, how are they going to explain the performance difference of the XB1 to the PC version? By definition the PC Version has MORE overhead and MORE resource allocation to the OS, as the gaming code runs closer to the hardware on the XB1 than a Windows 8 PC.

How will this be explained away?

This raises some questions as to the possibility that they are either shoving the PS4 version to 1080p at the expense of quality or are artificially pulling back the XB1 version to 720p. Considering the bundling relationships with Sony, it is possible it was a lucrative reason rather than a technical one.

Curious uh...

Shadowzz said,
Yeah sure, they drop the ball on purpose.
Cause Infinity Ward is sooooo pro-Sony and Anti-MS.

Probably not, but something is amiss.

There is no reason they are pulling 1080p 60fps on a Windows 8 PC with lower end hardware than in the XB1. That is just weird.

These game engines we're debating used to require $500 graphics cards and $400 CPUs.
Then, we got much lower resolution.

The engines are built on core technologies which one side is advancing faster than the next.

That's where the story will be told.

This is just rushed consumerism.

dudes, it's official: xbox one is crap. nothing more to see here, move along.

now seriously: why a not released console won't even do 1080p? i mean, these consoles are designed to last what, 4 to 5 years? i'm baffled.

I am not so worried about a few games being 720p at launch mostly because I remember how terrible the launch titles were for the current gen. I mean look at Perfect Dark Zero, that looked terrible, had framerate issues and was just generally bad overall.

I am also just going to point out that this is Infinity Ward and this is the first time in what like 7 years that they have used a new engine, so I doubt they know what they are doing. They even did a feature on the Extinction mode where they said it took them months to even work out how to make models move on vertical surfaces.......

If other high-action titles are capable of 1080p on the Xbox One, then the problem with this developer is they built their game on an old games engine which they poorly ported to Xbox One, or whatever, point being, if others can do it then there's something wrong with their code. To further prove my point, they are not running at 1080p either on the PS4, last I read it was 900p on the PS4 with software upscale to 1080p, and 720p on the Xbox One with 1080p hardware upscale to 1080p.

You're thinking of Battlefield 4. It's 900p on the PS4 and 720 be on the Xbox One. Call of Duty: Ghosts, on the other hand, is native 1080p on the PS4 and 720p on the XB1.

I wouldn't be surprised Sony paid off the game developer to make sure they reduced the specs on the Xbox One version. That and hiring an army of bloggers to spread their Sony crap all over the net. Only a company that's got nothing to loose would stoop this low.

considering these new consoles are supposed to last a good ten years (2023) - not being able to breeze games at 1080p is just ridiculous. These consoles should not even have to be breaking a sweat at 1080p

Having games on xbox one running at 720p is just imho a disaster. Just let me get this straight

XBOX ONE

Not powerful enough for 1080p
No TV Features in the UK at launch
No Kinect games at launch

Please remind me why I have a pre-order again?

This will only become significant if the PS4 runs 1080p@60fps without hiccups or as well as XB1 does 720p.

then it will be a problem. If PS4 runs at the higher resolution and fr but with compromises, it'll be a wash.

You all fail to realize that top end PCs can't perform 4K very well with a single GPU. There is no way the Xbox One or the PS4 will ever run any games at 4K resolution. They simply do not have enough CPU or GPU power to do it smoothly. They both are however capable or should be capable of playing back a 4K resolution video file and outputting that to screen. But don't expect anything real time from either of them @ 4K without greatly reducing details in which case it is much better to drop the resolution down and crank the detail up.

laserfloyd said,
So basically this?

PS4 for games and games
XB1 for games and everything else.

nope, ps4 for games, xbox one for everything else.

torrentthief said,

nope, ps4 for games, xbox one for everything else.


sorry but so far I like XBONE exclusives much better. for now I have XBONE pre-ordered but there are few games on playstation 3 which If comes to ps4 I will buy a ps4 as well but so far all titles on ps4 are boring to me

The TV I have is only 720p capable anyway, and the differences are probably not going to be that huge on full HD TV's. I won't be buying COD: Ghosts anyway though.

I played a few Xbox One games recently at an event and these are my thoughts. Throwing them out there...

- Forza 5 really wasn't very good. It looked more this gen than next gen. Was pretty disappointed actually.

- Killer Instinct looked good and played well. It isn't particularly taxing on resources however, again not very next gen looking.

- Ryse Son of Rome wasn't in a state to be played yet but they had a video on showing cut scenes and some gameplay. It has potential but I wouldn't say it would be a reason to buy one console over another.

I have both PS4 and Xbox One on pre-order but will only be keeping one of them. Skype, Sky Go and the possibility of running some Windows 8 apps such as Plex are the only thing keeping Xbox One in the running. The lack of user replaceable HD and the considerable discrepency in specs make it hard to choose Xbox for me. If I keep the PS4 the first thing I'll do is throw an SSD in it. Not possible on Xbox One, which is just short sighted by Microsoft IMO. 500GB 5400rpm HDs in 2013 and beyond don't really cut it.

Despite the incredible technology behind Kinect I have a hunch it's going to fail once again. Unless they can bring a truly revolutionary and groundbreaking function for it (voice commands and gestures are not it!), as it currently stands it's more of a hindrance than a benefit, limiting Xbox One adoption due to the higher cost.
As for the PS4 Eye/Camera, the technology behind it is laughable. An LED in every controller to track motion?! C'mon.

It seems you are digesting what you read here and there. But I tell you one thing: I know its a gaming console, won't supposed to do much apart from gaming but in the end of the day, you get what you paid for, yes you do get ps4 for 100$ cheaper, but future proof wise they don't have cool stuff XBONE will bring probably next year, I don't know why ms sucks at telling stories, its part of their marketing failures but that doesn't mean xbox is inferior. you did mention Windows 8 apps such as skype and ... have you seen illumiroom?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhvrOkaDxAY&noredirect=1
have you heard about new Kinect abilities in gaming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bydLSVVuaRM
http://www.gamepur.com/news/11...-are-worthy-excitement.html

Lol, believe what you want. It was an event put on by a UK newspaper and Microsoft. Take a look here: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...sport-killer-instinct-video

As for Illumiroom, MS have come out and said it is too expensive to make. Nice tech, but it won't reach consumers for a while, if ever.
http://www.ausgamers.com/news/...oom-unlikely-to-be-greenlit

Had Sony bundled their camera from day one I think we might have seen some good examples of Kinect/PS4eye use in games, and it would have had a chance at succeeding as a novel control option, but apart from Xbone exclusives I don't think it will be utilized much by developers. It's a shame IMO.

Edited by Squuiid, Nov 4 2013, 8:13pm :

realistically, with the limitations around mp3s no multi-tasking and other problems faced by the PS4, both the XB1 and the Steam OS look better alternatives as all around boxes. the PS4 just feels suck in the 90s. Even graphic fidelity wise, steam OS with its open model will easily allow anybody to beat it.

ugh, that has nothing to do with it. try again. If you want the best quality, the steam box will destroy the PS4, and if you want the best quality, go PC.

NeoandGeo said,
MS effed up big time with DDR3 RAM +esRAM. It will almost guarantee that 1080p will be very rare on the system.

Very rare lol? Wow. That's a strong statement.

NeoandGeo said,
MS effed up big time with DDR3 RAM +esRAM. It will almost guarantee that 1080p will be very rare on the system.

please stop this crap, we have enough gimmicks these days. developer didn't spend much time to allocate the resources for this architecture which they believe has enough bandwidth at lower power consumption. if you don't understand about hardware do more research instead of pouring your thoughts here. you can start here:
http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one...high-bandwidth-at-low-power

Nice article, GDDR5 is too powerful, absolute hyperbole. I am sure it's Microsoft approved as is sitting back farther from your TV because the resolution is too low.

Funny seeing so many in denial. Enjoy the XBone and the ever increasing list of games at subpar resolutions due to outdated hardware and an esRAM band-aid. This is the Saturn "add an extra CPU at the last minute" fiasco all over again. MS screwed up and it is already glaring back at gamers.

I wish both consoles would optimize ram usage, there is no sane reason why nearly half the ram needs to be reserved. My desktop OS fully loaded with apps doesn't use nearly that much. What the blood clot are they doing?

Because the consoles jump from 206mb/460mb ram to 4gb+ ram usable.
Which is a massive jump compared to any generation before this one. If they can push amazing graphics on the PS3 through just the 206mb they have available, I'm sure that at least for now, 4gb should be more than plenty.

Geezy said,
I wish both consoles would optimize ram usage, there is no sane reason why nearly half the ram needs to be reserved. My desktop OS fully loaded with apps doesn't use nearly that much. What the blood clot are they doing?

I think we'll see both OS' optimized drastically over time...

Geezy said,
I wish both consoles would optimize ram usage, there is no sane reason why nearly half the ram needs to be reserved. My desktop OS fully loaded with apps doesn't use nearly that much. What the blood clot are they doing?

What is really strange is the XB1 is using less reserved RAM than the PS4, yet the XB1 is running an entire separate OS at the same time, and the PS4 is not.

Adding more RAM to games won't improve much, as there comes a point of diminished returns in caching when grabbing/rendering resources and getting them to the screen.

deadonthefloor said,

Two. You forgot the Hyper-V host.

Well this is a technical argument, as the HyperV host and the base Windows 8 portion are the same OS.

But ya, it is running far more OS dedicated code, yet the PS4 is throwing more at the underlying OS under the games itself, which is weird. It doesn't make sense that the PS4 needs this RAM for the underlying portions of the FreeBSD OS that is hosting the games.

BF4 is 720p on X1 as well i think which makes more sense as BF series has always had a better gfx engine pushing the gpu whereas CoD hasnt so if it can run BF4 at 1080 CoD would be a walk in the park

Its totally unacceptable for a next generation 2013 console to have any launch games play at 720p, I mean come on what is it 2007 or something? Games playing at anything but native 1080P is absolutely pathetic and shameful and there is no excuse!

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Its totally unacceptable for a next generation 2013 console to have any launch games play at 720p, I mean come on what is it 2007 or something? Games playing at anything but native 1080P is absolutely pathetic and shameful and there is no excuse!

That's your opinion. I disagree, and I think you'll find most of the market not caring much either.

Oh every game can be 1080p, not a problem. Even PS3 games can be 1080p.

If you want the resolution, it _is_ possible. But if you want decent enough graphics... the developers haven't had enough time for this.
The previous generation started with 480p (and not even FULL 480p but often still upscaled)
and this generation, each console has 1080p60fps titles coming at launch (or close to)

So what is the problem here?

No its not my opinion, consumers should care about what they are buying and what the product is being advertised as being able to do! So you think its ok to buy and accept a product without criticizing or questioning it? It is not acceptable for a 2013 console being advertised for the future, that cant output a game at a native resolution of 1080P.

spenser.d said,

That's your opinion. I disagree, and I think you'll find most of the market not caring much either.


I agree with you. It isn't even going to be noticeable and much of what I've seen on the PS4 has been washed out compared to the same content on the XBox. That's much more annoying to me.

Shadowzz said,
Forza is 1080p.
GT6 will be 1080p.
BF4 seems to become 1080p for the PS3.

And there was another title for the XBO rumored to be 1080p at launch..


BF4 is up scaled on the PS4 (and not as well as the XBox)...

Good luck in noticing the difference. Seriously if you're sitting that close to a TV you've gotta back up. Also, go look at videos on YouTube from 2007 and have fun finding very many videos running at 720p.

I don't understand why people are such resolution elitists. I've played amazingly sh*tty yet "beautiful looking" games and games that played like a dream yet didn't look great. If the game plays well, that's what matters most. So lets all wait until we see side by side comparisons and first hand experiences eh?

M_Lyons10 said,

BF4 is up scaled on the PS4 (and not as well as the XBox)...

Ah, anywho, still 3 or so titles 1080p as far as I'm aware. And we're still a few months away from their proper launches (counting January/Q1 2014 as such)

laserfloyd said,
Good luck in noticing the difference.

Every time I say this to my friends I get slammed - but I agree : I can't notice a major difference between them!

Master of Earth said,
4K is the norm and 1080p is last century stuff. DOA

Man, I'm with you. I don't understand why people accept mediocrity, and I'm not /s Spicoli.

Spicoli said,
You forgot the /s

LOL. Calls someone an old guy for not wanting a, "modern," game console, then thinks someone should add a /s because they think 1080p is outdated.

Your right why didnt somone think about making a game console that cost $1599 so we can have 4k resolution once we can afford another 3-4k for a tv that supports it. That would be a huge seller. Even though people went all kinds of crazy on sony for $599 ps3 and now XO's $499 /s

Houtei said,
Your right why didnt somone think about making a game console that cost $1599 so we can have 4k resolution once we can afford another 3-4k for a tv that supports it. That would be a huge seller. Even though people went all kinds of crazy on sony for $599 ps3 and now XO's $499 /s

I'd be willing to pay $999 for a higher end console, especially if it can run Windows 8 apps.

Master of Earth said,
4K is the norm and 1080p is last century stuff. DOA

norm, 4k tv's don't even have 0.1% marketshare, they won't have a good marketshare for 5yrs as people are happy with their 1080p tv's which makes 4k gaming pointless.

torrentthief said,

norm, 4k tv's don't even have 0.1% marketshare, they won't have a good marketshare for 5yrs as people are happy with their 1080p tv's which makes 4k gaming pointless.


It's simple because they're still expensive. No other real reason.

AWilliams87 said,

I'd be willing to pay $999 for a higher end console, especially if it can run Windows 8 apps.
I would too but thats because im selfish and because i always have to buy all the latest tech. Also you will get your chance with the steam box that has atleast that price tag most likely. 500-600 seems to be the range to break into the mass market. I doubt something more than that would be wide spread enough to develop games for unless all it was was a pc like the steam box.

The performance gap between this new generation and the previous one is catastrophically small compared to previous transitions. Sony and Microsoft really blew it in that respect.

After 6 or 8 years, one would expect 1080/60p w/ AA to be the strict minimum expected from these new systems and 4K at the horizon. Just like the previous Gen could do native 720p easy and then 1080p on exceptional occasions.

You have to factor in the quality and complexity of the rendering too and not just final resolution and frame rate. Designer want more objects that are more realistic looking.

Arkos Reed said,
The performance gap between this new generation and the previous one is catastrophically small compared to previous transitions. Sony and Microsoft really blew it in that respect.

After 6 or 8 years, one would expect 1080/60p w/ AA to be the strict minimum expected from these new systems and 4K at the horizon. Just like the previous Gen could do native 720p easy and then 1080p on exceptional occasions.

The previous gen didn't start off doing 720p native and only late into the life of both systems did this become the case. I think that even now, games that came out today or even 2 years ago still probably don't run at 720p but more like 575p or w/e the next step down is, and upscaled.

GP007 said,

The previous gen didn't start off doing 720p native and only late into the life of both systems did this become the case. I think that even now, games that came out today or even 2 years ago still probably don't run at 720p but more like 575p or w/e the next step down is, and upscaled.

Probably, nonetheless, PCs have been doing 1080p or 1200p at a consistently high level of details (albeit without AA in many cases) for what, 5 years now? (at least my PCs did) Consoles should have closed that gap straight on.
Sony and Microsoft didn't think forward this time, or, more precisely, I bet they avoided taking too much losses on hardware sales early on this time.

Keep in mind that the Cell CPU in the PS3 is stronger then the CPU in both the XBO and PS4.

Also keep in mind that most of this power in the PS3 was never properly used. And many of the power was lost in audio (1 core/thread) and for other processes. The Cell was also used for GPU rendering and lost a few threads to that (usually 2) and out of the 7 'useable' threads, only 3-4 were typically used for the CPU power.

Now both the XBO and the PS4 have dedicated chips for 512 channel audio, a powerful GPU as the GPU's in the 360 and PS3 were weak and had to be backed up by the PPC threads.

All in all, there is a lot more CPU power available directly for the developers then there ever was usable in the PS3.

The bottleneck of the last generation was almost ANYTHING but the CPU's.

Arkos Reed said,

Probably, nonetheless, PCs have been doing 1080p or 1200p at a consistently high level of details (albeit without AA in many cases) for what, 5 years now? (at least my PCs did) Consoles should have closed that gap straight on.
Sony and Microsoft didn't think forward this time, or, more precisely, I bet they avoided taking too much losses on hardware sales early on this time.

Sure, and I agree that both didn't go high end with the GPUs to save on costs or w/e but at the same time resolution is just part of it. We have to think about the framerate to. Yes PCs have been doing 1080p for years but depending on the game and the card you have the tradeoff is your framerate. As an example, from the BF4 PC benchmarks I've seen, my Radeon 7870 2GB card, which is better than the GPU in both consoles, can run BF4 at 1080p with the framerate in the 40s, not 60, and with gfx set to high, not ultra high (though the difference between the two is very minor). If I want a smooth, locked 60fps I'll need a newer card, it seems. And my 7870 isn't a mid-range or low-range card either, like a 77xx or 76xx etc that lots of people own.

It really just all depend son the goal the developer wants. If they want 60fps but can't have that with 1080p for now then the easiest thing to do is lower the res and let the hardware upscaler do it's job. In the BF4 tests it looks to me that the XB1 can upscale to 1080p just fine because that game looks great even at the lower res.

We'll see how it plays out, this are launch titles, and both systems have games running at under 1080p or if it's 1080p it's at 30 frames per second. It just depends on what you want at this point.

You have to realize that the xo and ps4 could run games from the 360 and ps3 all day at 1080p 60fps without breaking a sweat but new games are far more technical and better looking. As graphic power increases so does the games need for power. Like you have to upgrade video cards every other year to keep up 1080p 60fps.

Also you have to realize games developed how the developer wants and they wouldnt put it out unless it gave the feel they wanted and thats all that matters.

Arkos Reed said,
The performance gap between this new generation and the previous one is catastrophically small compared to previous transitions. Sony and Microsoft really blew it in that respect.

After 6 or 8 years, one would expect 1080/60p w/ AA to be the strict minimum expected from these new systems and 4K at the horizon. Just like the previous Gen could do native 720p easy and then 1080p on exceptional occasions.

You seem to be forgetting cost, power consumption and heat. A non-low power version would generate more heat requiring a large heatsink and therefore large console and would require a large die which costs a lot more to manufacture. They wanted to sell consoles that didn't cost a fortune, that were small and quiet so that people can watch tv/films on them too.

Shadowzz said,
Keep in mind that the Cell CPU in the PS3 is stronger then the CPU in both the XBO and PS4.

Also keep in mind that most of this power in the PS3 was never properly used. And many of the power was lost in audio (1 core/thread) and for other processes. The Cell was also used for GPU rendering and lost a few threads to that (usually 2) and out of the 7 'useable' threads, only 3-4 were typically used for the CPU power.

Now both the XBO and the PS4 have dedicated chips for 512 channel audio, a powerful GPU as the GPU's in the 360 and PS3 were weak and had to be backed up by the PPC threads.

All in all, there is a lot more CPU power available directly for the developers then there ever was usable in the PS3.

The bottleneck of the last generation was almost ANYTHING but the CPU's.

Ok, I completely agree with the argument; however, the PS3 Cell CPU was not more powerful than the CPUs in the XB1 or PS4.

It is even debated if the Cell processor in the PS3 was even as powerful as the CPU in the XB360. The PS3 Cell had more dedicated cores, but handled less executions per cycle. (Research ILP, TLP, etc)

This let the XB360 CPU saturate and remain saturated easier and with less conflict in scheduling/timing/etc.

So even though the XB360 was a tri-core, it handled two instructions per core, and was able to juggle these instructions easier. In effect it could process 6 instructions faster than the dedicated 6 cores of the PS3 CPU.


As for the current generation, they are 2-3X faster per 'core' than the PS3 Cell and 2X faster per 'core' than the XB360 CPU.

The problem is the current generation CPU cores are in todays terms not 'strong' processors. An Intel i3 can crush the console CPUs in per core processing by almost 50%.

This creates a problem as they can produce more computations, but can't produce results as 'fast'.

It also creates development issues, as they depend on execution threading far more than the previous generation, and game developers still think in a single main managing thread.

Edited by Mobius Enigma, Nov 4 2013, 10:00pm :

Shadowzz said,
Keep in mind that the Cell CPU in the PS3 is stronger then the CPU in both the XBO and PS4.

Also keep in mind that most of this power in the PS3 was never properly used. And many of the power was lost in audio (1 core/thread) and for other processes. The Cell was also used for GPU rendering and lost a few threads to that (usually 2) and out of the 7 'useable' threads, only 3-4 were typically used for the CPU power.

Now both the XBO and the PS4 have dedicated chips for 512 channel audio, a powerful GPU as the GPU's in the 360 and PS3 were weak and had to be backed up by the PPC threads.

All in all, there is a lot more CPU power available directly for the developers then there ever was usable in the PS3.

The bottleneck of the last generation was almost ANYTHING but the CPU's.

You have to be trolling.

In theory, the Cell CPU had a lot of power, but the reality was far from it. For gaming, it was a bad choice, it was good for number crunching and that was it.

Also, the 360 had a great GPU, infact, the GPU was 1 generation ahead of what we had for the PC while the PS3 had a current generation (at the time) GPU which needed the help of the Cell CPU to keep up which obviously sacrificed CPU performance.

But back to what I was originally saying. The Cell CPU only at excels in very specific tasks but overall, it's not what's needed for a console. IBM never designed it to be in a console, it was just Sony seen this great idea without actually thinking about development and it back fired.

This is why the 360 was able to keep up with the PS3 because the 360's CPU was a better general CPU than the more specific Cell CPU.

Mobius Enigma said,

Ok, I completely agree with the argument; however, the PS3 Cell CPU was not more powerful than the CPUs in the XB1 or PS4.

It is even debated if the Cell processor in the PS3 was even as powerful as the CPU in the XB360. The PS3 Cell had more dedicated cores, but handled less executions per cycle. (Research ILP, TLP, etc)

This let the XB360 CPU saturate and remain saturated easier and with less conflict in scheduling/timing/etc.

So even though the XB360 was a tri-core, it handled two instructions per core, and was able to juggle these instructions easier. In effect it could process 6 instructions faster than the dedicated 6 cores of the PS3 CPU.


As for the current generation, they are 2-3X faster per 'core' than the PS3 Cell and 2X faster per 'core' than the XB360 CPU.

The problem is the current generation CPU cores are in todays terms not 'strong' processors. An Intel i3 can crush the console CPUs in per core processing by almost 50%.

This creates a problem as they can produce more computations, but can't produce results as 'fast'.

It also creates development issues, as they depend on execution threading far more than the previous generation, and game developers still think in a single main managing thread.

I am fully aware of the Xbox having the same amount of threads ready, and not being miles behind in power.

But the PS3 in raw power, gives us more flops then the chips seems to do for the PS4 and XBO. That it turned out to be quite pointless for a console, shows why both MS and Sony went with laptop CPU's.

And the I3 CPU that reaches 200+ Glops? Really? Where? I want it NOA! An i7 gets 100-130ish gflops.(although I'm not sure how the haswell chips are doing though).
Who cares on single threaded power, only Intel fanboys do that have to keep giving themselfs reasons to keep buying those expensive chips and not cry about throwing money into the toilet.
And if the 360 is so much more powerful, has a stronger GPU. Yet IMO the PS3 exclusives win it on graphical output.

Its funny you claim the Cell is the complete and utter underdog. You are aware the Xenon is based on the same tech right? It even has some Cell research in its own chips.
Also a difference, the Cell can handle GPU calculations just as easy as it can handle CPU calculations, AFAIK the Xenon can't do this (at least not as properly)

Tony. said,

You have to be trolling.

In theory, the Cell CPU had a lot of power, but the reality was far from it. For gaming, it was a bad choice, it was good for number crunching and that was it.

Also, the 360 had a great GPU, infact, the GPU was 1 generation ahead of what we had for the PC while the PS3 had a current generation (at the time) GPU which needed the help of the Cell CPU to keep up which obviously sacrificed CPU performance.

But back to what I was originally saying. The Cell CPU only at excels in very specific tasks but overall, it's not what's needed for a console. IBM never designed it to be in a console, it was just Sony seen this great idea without actually thinking about development and it back fired.

This is why the 360 was able to keep up with the PS3 because the 360's CPU was a better general CPU than the more specific Cell CPU.


Trolling?

The idea was not to let the GPU be a bottleneck, didnt work out as well as Sony had planned though. Just because in the end, to much heavy work had to be done by the Cell, without other chips being there to support it.
Why is the Cell that can do CPUGPU calculations such a wrong fit for consoles? And Sony also designed the Cell and one of the first (if not the first) times the chip was used, was in a PS3. So where do you get the idea from it wasnt meant for consoles?
The 360 Xenon has some origin in the Cell development. MS also thought similar tech was a great idea. But no, you know better

But yeah, I'm talking out of my ass that the current chipsets have much more power available to the developments compared to their maximum output, then they did the previous generation. Simply because they can shove many of the work off to their own chips and not through the main CPU.

/me sails on...trolololo lololo lololoooo /s

Shadowzz said,
I am fully aware of the Xbox having the same amount of threads ready, and not being miles behind in power.

But the PS3 in raw power, gives us more flops then the chips seems to do for the PS4 and XBO. That it turned out to be quite pointless for a console, shows why both MS and Sony went with laptop CPU's.

And the I3 CPU that reaches 200+ Glops? Really? Where? I want it NOA! An i7 gets 100-130ish gflops.(although I'm not sure how the haswell chips are doing though).
Who cares on single threaded power, only Intel fanboys do that have to keep giving themselfs reasons to keep buying those expensive chips and not cry about throwing money into the toilet.
And if the 360 is so much more powerful, has a stronger GPU. Yet IMO the PS3 exclusives win it on graphical output.

Its funny you claim the Cell is the complete and utter underdog. You are aware the Xenon is based on the same tech right? It even has some Cell research in its own chips.
Also a difference, the Cell can handle GPU calculations just as easy as it can handle CPU calculations, AFAIK the Xenon can't do this (at least not as properly)


Trolling?

The idea was not to let the GPU be a bottleneck, didnt work out as well as Sony had planned though. Just because in the end, to much heavy work had to be done by the Cell, without other chips being there to support it.
Why is the Cell that can do CPUGPU calculations such a wrong fit for consoles? And Sony also designed the Cell and one of the first (if not the first) times the chip was used, was in a PS3. So where do you get the idea from it wasnt meant for consoles?
The 360 Xenon has some origin in the Cell development. MS also thought similar tech was a great idea. But no, you know better

But yeah, I'm talking out of my ass that the current chipsets have much more power available to the developments compared to their maximum output, then they did the previous generation. Simply because they can shove many of the work off to their own chips and not through the main CPU.

/me sails on...trolololo lololo lololoooo /s

You are just all over the board, conflating CPU cores, GPU cores, oh my.

Head to something like http://www.cpubenchmark.net - and pull up any information you want on today's CPUs.

You will find in single core performance, the current i3-4310 is significantly faster than the CPU cores in either the XB1 or PS4.

Computing power IS NOT JUST measured in FLOPS. Seriously, this is a bit crazy.
(Reference: ALU, FPU, RISC, CISC, CPU, GPU) - Wow

How about JUST using MIPS to evaluate performance?
PS3 Cell = 10,000 MIPS
Modern CPU = 150,000 MIPS

Comparing a CPU's FLOPs is just freaking silly, as most CPUs are not designed to do FLOPS, GPUS are designed to do FLOPS. The x86 architecture (CISC) is designed around MIPS, and even had an external FPU prior to the 486DX.

Even if we stick to just your crazy 'overall' system FLOPS, the PS3 isn't even close to the 1.75 TFLOPS that the XB1 and PS4 puts out.

In modern computing, high end FLOPS performance is done on the GPU. This is why graphics use a GPU and why technologies like DirectCompute pay off as they can offload heavy floating point operations to the GPU.


Again, your post is just all over the place, you need to find an argument and stick with it. Please go look up CISC, RISC, and ALU, FPU to help clarify architecture design and why we don't just use FLOPS to measure CPU performance.

So long story short Infinity Ward didn't have the time to fully optimize the Xbox One version. Why? Maybe because Microsoft was scrambling to get the Xbox One together while Sony was on a roll with its PS4 since February. I still believe Sony surprised the crap out of Microsoft with their PS4 announcement back in February. Microsoft had to play catch up.

The PS4 is nothing like the PS3. Completely different architecture. Just like the Xbox One isn't similar to the Xbox 360. Infinity Ward had more time with the PS4 than they did with the Xbox One due to Microsoft scrambling like mad to get it's act together. That's what I believe anyway.

Spicoli said,
It could be the PS4 being so similar to the PS3 meant they didn't have to learn much for the new system.

The Xbox One and PS4 have more in common (same x86/GPU architecture, slightly different layout), than the PS3 and PS4.

I guess it's a matter of who currently has the best Dev Kit and libraries. One would usually expect Microsoft to be good on that front, but it seems not.

Spicoli said,
It could be the PS4 being so similar to the PS3 meant they didn't have to learn much for the new system.

Umm... The PS3 is using the PowerPC based Cell processor, the PS4 is using a 64bit x86 based processor. The two share NOTHING in common!

It's impossible to "fully optimize" a game on modern hardware; there are only various degrees of "good enough" and diminishing returns on investment as you get closer to a mythical performance ceiling.

The feature set of the PS4 and the UI look essentially the same as the PS3. It might be a different hardware architecture but the system itself doesn't seem to have changed much. The Xbox added the parallel features which is a pretty major change on resource handling.

Spicoli said,
The feature set of the PS4 and the UI look essentially the same as the PS3. It might be a different hardware architecture but the system itself doesn't seem to have changed much. The Xbox added the parallel features which is a pretty major change on resource handling.

The UI has little to do with the development of the games. Architecturally, PS4 isn't similar to it's predecessor.

The PS4 and Xbox One both have really good spec compare to the 7 generation console. GPU bandwidth jump from approximately 22Gb to more than 170GB. It's not exaggerated to say it will really blow us away if those game is 100% taking advantage of the machines. But it's not gonna happen in 2013.

RageOfFury said,
So long story short Infinity Ward didn't have the time to fully optimize the Xbox One version. Why? Maybe because Microsoft was scrambling to get the Xbox One together while Sony was on a roll with its PS4 since February. I still believe Sony surprised the crap out of Microsoft with their PS4 announcement back in February. Microsoft had to play catch up.

There were rumors going around about that being exactly what happened. One rumor suggested 2014 was the window Microsoft was aiming for.

Spicoli said,
The feature set of the PS4 and the UI look essentially the same as the PS3. It might be a different hardware architecture but the system itself doesn't seem to have changed much. The Xbox added the parallel features which is a pretty major change on resource handling.

My dad and I both have cars with the same body shape and specification. But if I took the petrol from mine and put it into his, it would kill his dead as it's a diesel.

Looks have bugger all to do with what's inside. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

AWilliams87 said,

The UI has little to do with the development of the games. Architecturally, PS4 isn't similar to it's predecessor.

Absolutely it does since the XB1 allows you to snap other apps onto the screen that consume resources while the game is running. The PS4 is old school where the game takes over the entire system.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Or long story short, all the fancy features that are running in the background baked into the Xbox One are hampering the graphical potential of the Xbox One games.

And those features make it a much better, modern system. Sorry old guys.

AWilliams87 said,

There were rumors going around about that being exactly what happened. One rumor suggested 2014 was the window Microsoft was aiming for.

Do you honestly care what some fanboy made up on a forum? I'll do one. Sony rushed out a PS4 to try to get some revenue to shore up their failing financial situation.

Spicoli said,

Absolutely it does since the XB1 allows you to snap other apps onto the screen that consume resources while the game is running. The PS4 is old school where the game takes over the entire system.


The snapping of apps have little to nothing do with the game's development. That's handled at the OS level.

AWilliams87 said,

The snapping of apps have little to nothing do with the game's development. That's handled at the OS level.

It says right in the article that they lowered the resolution because they couldn't get the 60 frames due to the resources used by the OS. So, clearly it does.

AWilliams87 said,

The snapping of apps have little to nothing do with the game's development. That's handled at the OS level.

This is true, and I also like to point out that the apps that aren't snapped are also probably suspended (like Windows 8.x store apps) while they probably have some limited background tasks running, which is the same as Windows store apps as well. The whole "resource" thing isn't like some might think it is. While MS has reserved 10% of the GPU for example, they did say that they're always looking at that and will tweak it as they get more data back from developers. I'm sure whatever the reserved numbers are to start will change and that that 10% for the GPU has enough extra added to it to be safe. The whole OS/UI/app switching could just as well run fine and smooth with 5% for all we know, but they'd rather play it safe from day 1.

I think Microsoft has forgotten that people buy game consoles to, wait for it , play games not for all these fancy features like snapping apps along side a game you're playing. At least Sony has the concept of games as a prevailing feature nailed down, which they have done since 1995.

I wonder if Spicoli has both next gen systems and measured this first hand. Saying that the XB1 it's doing more background processes than the PS4 is a nil argument at this moment in time, and even when you can actually measure them, there's a lot of more to it than features supported, like how optimized the OS code is, hence that's why Microsoft will make more resources available later on, because they will optimize their code in a patch. Plus most of the features that XB1 will feature, the PS4 will too, social sharing and streaming, background downloads and installing, etc. Plus, do you really think the metro-like interface it's more resource heavy than the PS4?. Both a very minimalistic and should render easily on the APUs that both systems have.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
I think Microsoft has forgotten that people buy game consoles to, wait for it , play games not for all these fancy features like snapping apps along side a game you're playing. At least Sony has the concept of games as a prevailing feature nailed down, which they have done since 1995.

And yet the usage data doesn't match with what you think. MS has said that more people, starting back in 2012 iirc, spend their time watching media on the 360 than playing games. Feel free to look this up with a quick search if you want to.

And also this whole "MS has forgot about the games" thing is tired BS. It needs to be put to rest already. They've said, a number of times this year that they're spending lots on games and exclusives and new studios. Feel free to look this up as well with a quick search.

One last think, did you even bother to check out the people who tossed a fit once they found out the PS4 was limited as a media player compared to the PS3? If people really just cared about games and nothing else then both companies wouldn't be bothering with implementing any type of media and social apps/features. But both ae doing it, even Nintendo does it, so again, the data, the market trend and so on, does not match with what you want or think at this point.

FloatingFatMan said,

My dad and I both have cars with the same body shape and specification. But if I took the petrol from mine and put it into his, it would kill his dead as it's a diesel.

Looks have bugger all to do with what's inside. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Other way around
Diesel engines will run on virtually anything that's liquid and burns.
Petrol, vegetable oil, kerosene, deep-fryer grease. Whether this is good for the engine is a second thing, but the engine will run

and for MS optimizing the code for the XBO so developers get more resources to use....
A total non argument! Sony will do the same for the PS4, as both MS and Sony have done this for the 360 and PS3.
And if its this limiting of resources why CoD goes 720p on the XBO.... Those 10% isn't going to give enough power to magically make it 1080p.

Spicoli said,
It could be the PS4 being so similar to the PS3 meant they didn't have to learn much for the new system.

If you don't like the PS4, that's totally cool man. Doesn't mean you need to post lies though.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Or long story short, all the fancy features that are running in the background baked into the Xbox One are hampering the graphical potential of the Xbox One games.

I'm fine with that personally. I'll take the features that the xbox one has. Native 1080p is not really that important to me. I'm perfectly fine with 720p native upscaled to 1080p.

Could it not be that the XO has a much more complicated memory system? Meaning even though both are very pc like the SOC setup on the XO is something they have to learn better to utilize? I mean obviously the ps4 has more graphic power and it should being that is all it does but i still believe both are more than capable once developers get there hands dirty on the first round of games.

Spicoli said,

It says right in the article that they lowered the resolution because they couldn't get the 60 frames due to the resources used by the OS. So, clearly it does.

Actually, No. It says in the article that it is due to allocation of resource, not availabilty. Most if that is because the Xbox One uses ESRAM, which, although faster then the DDR3 that the console provides, requires developers to specifically offload it through that, and that is something that the developers, nor the engine being used, has mastered yet.

My guess is that for this port, they just ignored the ESRAM for graphics resources, and will bake it into the next engine for later games.

Weren't Microsoft raving about their superior architecture? This is disappointing if true about not having enough resources allocated. And for those saying Sony surprised Microsoft... MS should've been on top of it. Its not like the xbox one was going to be released much later anyway... and if it was, then that was terrible planning on MS's part.

Yeah, 4k movies and stuff but 4k games is a ridiculous request! We won't see that for YEARS! I honestly don't even see it happening with this next gen hardware! I'm thinking 2020 we MIGHT see this.

StandingInAlley said,
Exactly! So much for being 4K supported. Even Titanfall will be running on 720p.

Titanfall isn't coming out till March, who knows what happens till then? Raising or lower a games native res isn't something that takes much work to do. It all depends on the framerate.

StandingInAlley said,
Exactly! So much for being 4K supported. Even Titanfall will be running on 720p.

LOL so you honestly think these consoles can handle 4k games? It will never happen. Ever. You may as well try doing 4k on an Amiga.

They only support HMDI 1.4 as well, so you're limited to just 30hz (30fps) refresh at 4k. The only possible 4k content these consoles could handle is 4k movie playback.

Depicus said,
Are these consoles not supposed to be doing 4K !!!!

No they are not. The gold standard for this generation is 1080p@60Hz.
They can play 4k movies in theory but they're not even good at that because I believe 4k movies are going to come on BDXL media, which neither console supports, or would have to be compressed so bad to stream over a reasonable connection that you may as well just watch 1080p with lossless compression instead of 4k with lossy.