Xbox One exclusive Ryse runs at 900p


Recommended Posts

 

Microsoft has revealed that Xbox One launch title Ryse is not running at native 1080p.

 

Aaron Greenberg, chief of staff for the Devices and Studios Group, tweeted that the game will actually be running at "900p". Greenberg confirmed 1080p rendering for showpiece title Forza Motorsport 5, but it's already known that Killer Instinct - somewhat surprisingly - has targeted an internal 720p rendering resolution.

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ryse-runs-at-900p

 

Sub-1080p AND most likely 30fps. My my, I wonder where all that magical hidden power the xbone is supposed to have went.

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ryse-runs-at-900p

 

Sub-1080p AND most likely 30fps. My my, I wonder where all that magical hidden power the xbone is supposed to have went.

I think you'll find it's more a question of optimisation..

 

I'd love to see how the PS4 is doing in these things too.

I would be amazed if many of the launch titles on both XB1 or PS4 run at 60fps/1080. Launch titles are NEVER going to use the full potential of consoles so I don't see this as any surprise.

 

Also, is there any need for the "magical hidden power" part, all you're asking for is yet ANOTHER thread that this forum could do without over who has the biggest e-p***s because they chose the "right console".

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ryse-runs-at-900p

 

Sub-1080p AND most likely 30fps. My my, I wonder where all that magical hidden power the xbone is supposed to have went.

 

 

Would anyone really notice sub 1080p without looking for it, or being told???

 

Nobody knew Killzone was under 1080p (at one point in development) until we were told by GG...

 

And anyone playing on a screen under 40" probably won't be to tell either way...

I wonder where all that magical hidden power the xbone is supposed to have went.

 

We'll we'll another 'classic' and 'comical' call of Xbox one to Xbone and bringing up the power and comparisons on un-released consoles. We don't have enough of these threads..

I like how you nitpick things and also jump to conclusions.  The reason you drop the res is to keep the framerate from dipping,  smooth gameplay is the end goal here and I bet the target is 60fps.    They also say that development time is on the short side so hitting the 1080p@60fps target that forza managed to do will take more time for some.

Would anyone really notice sub 1080p without looking for it, or being told???

 

Nobody knew Killzone was under 1080p (at one point in development) until we were told by GG...

 

And anyone playing on a screen under 40" probably won't be to tell either way...

 

Upscaling comes at a cost to image quality. Depending on how far below 1080p a game is on a 1080p display, yes, you can easily notice it being sub-1080p without being told.

  • Like 2

Upscaling comes at a cost to image quality. Depending on how far below 1080p a game is on a 1080p display, yes, you can easily notice it being sub-1080p without being told.

Exactly. Just set your resolution on your PC bellow the native one of your monitor and see how ###### everything suddenly looks.
  • Like 3

Would anyone really notice sub 1080p without looking for it, or being told???

 

Nobody knew Killzone was under 1080p (at one point in development) until we were told by GG...

 

And anyone playing on a screen under 40" probably won't be to tell either way...

 

Blurring.

Exactly. Just set your resolution on your PC bellow the native one of your monitor and see how ****ty everything suddenly looks.

Except that that changes the output, not the generated frames. It makes it look much worse..

 

With certain mathematical techniques you can upscale from 900 and have it indistinguishable from 1080 in real time.

 

720 to 1080 is noticeable, anything above that is less so.

I like how you nitpick things and also jump to conclusions.  The reason you drop the res is to keep the framerate from dipping,  smooth gameplay is the end goal here and I bet the target is 60fps.    They also say that development time is on the short side so hitting the 1080p@60fps target that forza managed to do will take more time for some.

Not to mention the budget between a F2P and AAA title is probably very different.

Not to mention the budget between a F2P and AAA title is probably very different.

And Forza is being made by an MS studio.. Might have a bit of optimisation help there ;)

 

Kinda pointless this thread is, but 7/10 troll bait. Would crash again.

I like how you nitpick things and also jump to conclusions.  The reason you drop the res is to keep the framerate from dipping,  smooth gameplay is the end goal here and I bet the target is 60fps.    They also say that development time is on the short side so hitting the 1080p@60fps target that forza managed to do will take more time for some.

 

Have they actually mentioned if they're targeting 60fps? I think it would be better to assume 30fps unless otherwise stated.

Ryse has always looked good in the videos in my opinion. I was always more worried about the gameplay. (or lack there of)

 

I personally don't know what 900p looks like in person, so maybe it's a good comprise if it means a smooth 60fps. Though, it's troubling that the studio officially stated what the resolution was but not the frame rate.

Troubling is finding blood in your stool.

 

Not releasing frame rate info is a curiosity at best..

It's troubling because this was an official statement that quoted only half of the important performance stats. if the game was running smoothly at 60fps or even 30fps, don't you think they would have included that in this statement? I'm not saying the game isn't running at those rates, but it just seems like a silly thing to NOT say if it were.

And Forza is being made by an MS studio.. Might have a bit of optimisation help there ;)

 

Kinda pointless this thread is, but 7/10 troll bait. Would crash again.

I can understand why some people would want to know this sort of thing. For me I've never paid attention to the "this game runs at XYZ" on the back of boxes, I don't need text to tell me if a game looks good or not, I use my eyes for that.

 

I would have had a lot more respect if it wasn't for the obvious bait, the amount of "debates" that go on in here put me off coming into the gaming section which is a shame because it was the main reason I would come to Neowin at first. I force myself not to get involved in threads because it just isn't worth it.

I don't remember launch titles for the X360 or PS3 having to drop their resolution to get acceptable framerates. It was only later that games like GTAIV, COD:MW and Halo 3 had to drop the resolution to maintain performance. If Valve pushes ahead with the Steam Box we may see PC-based gaming systems significantly outperforming "next generation" consoles within a few years. This might be the last generation of closed-platform consoles.

I don't remember launch titles for the X360 or PS3 having to drop their resolution to get acceptable framerates. It was only later that games like GTAIV, COD:MW and Halo 3 had to drop the resolution to maintain performance. If Valve pushes ahead with the Steam Box we may see PC-based gaming systems significantly outperforming "next generation" consoles within a few years. This might be the last generation of closed-platform consoles.

PCs already significantly outperform these consoles..

 

Admittedly they cost more, but they kick the pants off of the coming gen.

I don't remember launch titles for the X360 or PS3 having to drop their resolution to get acceptable framerates. It was only later that games like GTAIV, COD:MW and Halo 3 had to drop the resolution to maintain performance. If Valve pushes ahead with the Steam Box we may see PC-based gaming systems significantly outperforming "next generation" consoles within a few years. This might be the last generation of closed-platform consoles.

 

The launch titles, a few that the OP article linked to names released under the 720p system requirement.  I mean, it's early days with new systems and the hardware wasn't locked down or drivers till late into it.   The article also compared 900p to 1080p and the difference is minor, maybe if it was 720p it'd be more of an issue.   And why 900?  less scaling needed that way?

At the moment 720P is fine for games unless your using a 22" screen or above. I play on a 19" 1366x768 screen, it is only a pixel destiny of 82 and as far as I'm concerned a pixel density of 72 is fine for images, above that only visibly improves text.

 

I hope the new consoles display 720P well, not sure what effect down scaling will have.

The launch titles, a few that the OP article linked to names released under the 720p system requirement.  I mean, it's early days with new systems and the hardware wasn't locked down or drivers till late into it.   The article also compared 900p to 1080p and the difference is minor, maybe if it was 720p it'd be more of an issue.

Well, Battlefield 4 will only run at 720p so that's a pretty major resolution drop. We're not seeing the same consistency as the current generation. Gamers simply won't know what resolution or framerate a game will run at without doing research beforehand.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!