Xbox One exclusive Ryse runs at 900p

[Athernar]

No? I have no doubt they'll run games at 1080p@60fps with time, my expectation for launch titles is never high as I've stated a few times already. The point though was the reason I console game as well as PC game. There's an advantage to knowing you'll get good gaming, as long as devs do their job, for at least 5 years while on the PC if you want to stay at a constant performance level you'll need to upgrade again in around 3 or so years on average or you'll lower the games settings. I already had to tweak the graphics settings in Metro Last Light because I got frame drops on my HD7870.

 

You should doubt it, because I can almost guarantee the perf gain from optimisation will be funneled right back into adding more feature and effects rather than achieving native resolution. Ultimately, if devs cared for achieving native + 60fps they would do so from day 1.

 

Which really, kinda kills your point.

[coresx]

Xbox One needs that much RAM so you can quick switch between games, TV, apps etc. They have sectioned off three parts so they can easily be doing their own thing without affecting anything else. Browse the marketplace or watch Netflix while the game is loading or finding a multplayer match. Something you couldn't do before.

 

PS4 will likely be doing the same thing. The new social stuff, game recording. Resources will be dedicated to those so they are available immediately if the user needs access. Makes for a much smoother experience.

 

You could argue it takes resources away from gaming but they both want to do new things and I wouldn't worry too much. Windows and playing BF4 would struggle to use 5GB of memory.

 

Can't forget that Sony and Microsoft want these consoles to last 5-10 years. They need some headroom with the OS reserve so they can add new features. Aim high then cut it back to be safe is the name of the game. In 5 years they could even give more RAM back for gaming by optimising and tailoring needs that won't change any more.

[HawkMan]

You should doubt it, because I can almost guarantee the perf gain from optimisation will be funneled right back into adding more feature and effects rather than achieving native resolution. Ultimately, if devs cared for achieving native + 60fps they would do so from day 1.

 

Which really, kinda kills your point.

 

*cough* Forza *cough*

[Athernar]

*cough* Forza *cough*

 

*cough* Ryse *cough*

[George P Global Moderator]

You should doubt it, because I can almost guarantee the perf gain from optimisation will be funneled right back into adding more feature and effects rather than achieving native resolution. Ultimately, if devs cared for achieving native + 60fps they would do so from day 1.

 

Which really, kinda kills your point.

Not at all, because launch titles never receive the level of optimization that later titles get, we've seen this repeated a number of times already with new systems yet from the 2nd batch and up we see them become better. 360 games didn't hit 720p to start but we've seen that get reached later on so why wouldn't this happen again? With the need to meet a short development cycle and working on non-finished hardware to do so they're making tradeoffs of course, do you go for the higher res or the higher frame rate. In the end it's a constant high frame rate that is more noticeable compared to the difference between 1080p and 900p so that's what they picked.

[Athernar]

Not at all, because launch titles never receive the level of optimization that later titles get, we've seen this repeated a number of times already with new systems yet from the 2nd batch and up we see them become better. 360 games didn't hit 720p to start but we've seen that get reached later on so why wouldn't this happen again? With the need to meet a short development cycle and working on non-finished hardware to do so they're making tradeoffs of course, do you go for the higher res or the higher frame rate. In the end it's a constant high frame rate that is more noticeable compared to the difference between 1080p and 900p so that's what they picked.

 

Optimisation and all of the other associated guff is irrelevant, this is purely a policy issue. Developers prefer features over resolution and framerate, they made the tradeoff today and they'll make it again tomorrow.

 

You were willing to accept these tradeoffs as a current gen console gamer and you are willing to accept it again with the next - yet you're unwilling to as a PC gamer. That's a double standard.

[HawkMan]

*cough* Ryse *cough*

 

what about it ? you effectively said that noone will do 1080 60 or they would be doings so from day one, I showed a day one game that not only runs at 1080p60, but is also the best looking next gen game so far. and probably the one with the most demanding AI and physics calculations required. 

 

why the Ryse devs chose to focus on somethign else or had to scale back for launch is at this point unknown. most likely they simply had to scale back to be able to reliably hit 60 for launch. 

[trooper11]

PC gaming is just  higher end console gaming.

 

Game developers can aim higher on a pc, but they also must keep in mind that not everyone own a high end pc and thus they create a game that is able to scale as much as possible. 

 

On a console, there is no thinking about scaling, just to maximize hardware usage.  They have to find that right balance of resolution, frame rate, and visual effects/features that fit into that finite tank of performance. That balance is not right or wrong, it is different for each developer.  They also find ways to squeeze more out of the custom hardware of a console then you might expect from similar pc hardware thanks to its closed nature, but that takes time and doesn't happen at launch.

[Luc2k]

Doesn't matter. a PC with the same specs as a console won't even come close to the same game performance. 

Just as a same specs console won't ever be able to do the same things a PC can. They differ in role and implementation.

 

However, that was not my point. My point is that the next gen's performance is more underwhelming than the current gen's one was when released. PC will outperform them at the same price very early in their lifetime, which will lead to a even longer period of lowest common denominator ######. Hopefully the architecture will ameliorate some of it.

[HawkMan]

Optimisation and all of the other associated guff is irrelevant, this is purely a policy issue. Developers prefer features over resolution and framerate, they made the tradeoff today and they'll make it again tomorrow.

 

You were willing to accept these tradeoffs as a current gen console gamer and you are willing to accept it again with the next - yet you're unwilling to as a PC gamer. That's a double standard.

 

indeed. just look at the last generation for proof. no games increased framerates from 30 to 60 in their sequels like Froza did... err I mean...

[Athernar]

what about it ? you effectively said that noone will do 1080 60 or they would be doings so from day one, I showed a day one game that not only runs at 1080p60, but is also the best looking next gen game so far. and probably the one with the most demanding AI and physics calculations required. 

 

why the Ryse devs chose to focus on somethign else or had to scale back for launch is at this point unknown. most likely they simply had to scale back to be able to reliably hit 60 for launch. 

 

No, that was just your strange personal attachment to absolutes. There is nothing stopping the One from doing 1080p60, but then again nor is there anything stopping the 360 from doing so either (Providing you're okay with zero shader effects). The point is developers prioritise features over achieving native resolution and/or 60fps on consoles - that's not going to suddenly change because of new hardware (or new optimisations), it just means they're going to add even more features.

 

indeed. just look at the last generation for proof. no games increased framerates from 30 to 60 in their sequels like Froza did... err I mean...

 

Oh look, the same game series again that's convieniently developed by Microsoft too.

[trooper11]

Just as a same specs console won't ever be able to do the same things a PC can. They differ in role and implementation.

 

However, that was not my point. My point is that the next gen's performance is more underwhelming than the current gen's one was when released. PC will outperform them at the same price very early in their lifetime, which will lead to a even longer period of lowest common denominator bull****. Hopefully the architecture will ameliorate some of it.

 

PC gaming hardware is farther along now then it was at the start of the current gen simply because pc hardware is improving at such a fast rate.  How in the world do you craft a console that is to last 8 years, be reasonably priced, and still keep up with pc hardware improvements?

 

The answer:  You can't....

 

As pc tech pushed forward, you will see console hardware eclipsed faster then it was this gen. If there is another gen of consoles after next, you will see the same trend, maybe even worse.

 

As a console maker, you could choose to build a really powerful that costs like $600 or you could put out new consoles every 3 years to try and keep up, but that is a futile move.  These companies would get knocked out of the market if they tried that, there is not enough money made or demand to sustain that.

 

 

 

 

Oh look, the same game series again that's convieniently developed by Microsoft too.

 

 

First party games for consoles tend to offer the best visuals or make the best use of the hardware for obvious reasons.  Most 3rd party devs that are multiplatform don't bother trying to optimize completely. 

[Elliot B.]

Personally, I would like both consoles to run every game at 1080p/60fps, even from launch, and fit as much prettiness into it as they can as long as they retain 1080p/60fps.

 

Over time, as they understand more about the hardware, the games will get better looking whilst maintaining that 1080p/60fps spec than I find important.

[BajiRav]

The ESRAM is just a small 32MB L3 cache/frame buffer, it does not hardly effect performance at all. I do believe that performance on the Xbox One would suck even worse without it, but it is not something that really does much of anything but help support the general operation of the system. The problem is, the ESRAM cache is so small, only 32MB. That's about as much VRAM as my old NVidia TNT2 had from 2000. In comparison, modern GPUs were designed to run with 1GB-4GB running at a full 264GB/sec all by itself.The tests done that showed the PS4 was 50% faster were with the Xbox One utilizing it's ESRAM.. It is not 218GB/sec, it is 109GB/sec, and possibly faster with compression - that is if the data is compressible. That is not going to make up for the fact that the PS4 has 8GB DDR5 memory clocked in at 174GB/sec across the full spectrum, direct to GPU and CPU. This literally blows the doors off the Xbox One, and it necessary to drive high resolutions without performance issues, just like in PC graphics.

Also I could not care less if the Xbox One and GCN architecture have more "internal" bandwidth. If the GPU can't get data to work on, if it's bottlenecked by the main system memory, it isn't going to matter.

Those numbers are irrelevant with hardware support for PRT in Xbox One AKA DirectX 11.2 tiled resources. PS4 can support it in software but Microsoft has added special hadrware for this (DME). Microsoft has a demo at Build 2013 showing a scene render with just 16GB of RAM that will typically take upwards of 1GB VRAM using texure streaming.

This is based on my anecdotal reading though so people more familiar with the tech can shed more light on it.

 

Optimisation and all of the other associated guff is irrelevant, this is purely a policy issue. Developers prefer features over resolution and framerate, they made the tradeoff today and they'll make it again tomorrow.

 

You were willing to accept these tradeoffs as a current gen console gamer and you are willing to accept it again with the next - yet you're unwilling to as a PC gamer. That's a double standard.

Launch games are almost always subpar for consoles. Just compare Call of Duty 2 with Ghosts. This series has stopped being on the cutting edge but even then the difference on Xbox 360 is noticeable. There is no "launch window" on PCs, so it kind of doesn't apply to PCs.

[Mando]

psionicinversion, on 17 Sept 2013 - 15:42, said:psionicinversion, on 17 Sept 2013 - 15:42, said:psionicinversion, on 17 Sept 2013 - 15:42, said:psionicinversion, on 17 Sept 2013 - 15:42, said:

if they cant do 1080 at 30 fps and need drop to 900 then its pretty crap but i think most games on x1 are looking for 60fps specially AAA games

I don't think BF4 does, that's a AAA title is it not? its 720p upscaled to 1080p@60fps, could be to do with the 64 player angle though.

 

Next half gen consoles ;) I will stick to PC gaming above native 1080p thanks. When the xbox one arrives under my main TV, it will be more a Media center role than a gaming console tbh.

[Athernar]

Launch games are almost always subpar for consoles. Just compare Call of Duty 2 with Ghosts. This series has stopped being on the cutting edge but even then the difference on Xbox 360 is noticeable. There is no "launch window" on PCs, so it kind of doesn't apply to PCs.

 

Yes they are, but that has no bearing on the point. I'm not arguing that devs have a fixed performance budget, I'm arguing that they prefer to "spend" that budget in areas other than framerate and spatial resolution. Evidenced by the fact that Ryse didn't cut back on effects instead of targeting 900p.

 

It has nothing to do with hardware specs, software or optimisation. It's simply a policy thing. The only way it'll change is if Microsoft or Sony makes it a requirement for certification.

[trooper11]

Yes they are, but that has no bearing on the point. I'm not arguing that devs have a fixed performance budget, I'm arguing that they prefer to "spend" that budget in areas other than framerate and spatial resolution. Evidenced by the fact that Ryse didn't cut back on effects instead of targeting 900p.

 

It has nothing to do with hardware specs, software or optimisation. It's simply a policy thing. The only way it'll change is if Microsoft or Sony makes it a requirement for certification.

 

 

I agree.  The only way you guarantee 1080p/60 is to require it, but Sony and MS would be crazy to do that considering developers would not be happy.

 

Some devs see the need for 1080p/60, so they target that.  The Killer Instinct team is not aiming for 1080p, but they are aiming for 60 fps.  A fighting game demands that to be successful.  The Forza team is aiming for 1080p/60 because both of those features are in demand for a racing sim.

 

Other devs will find that they wish to prioritizes effects over res or framerate, and in the end it may still look great.

[incendy]

I wonder if the scaling is just for gameplay. Part of the new DX is that it allows individual scaling, so you would think things that need to be sharp like HUD/interfaces would still be 1080p.

[dead.cell]

But what you're noticing is the frame rate drop, not so much the resolution.

Ah, I thought he was talking about frames. My fault.

[George P Global Moderator]

I wonder if the scaling is just for gameplay. Part of the new DX is that it allows individual scaling, so you would think things that need to be sharp like HUD/interfaces would still be 1080p.

I do believe that they're using that feature, not everything has to be the same on screen, the hud for example which is always on screen can be 1080p while other things could be less. Toss in tessellation and other hardware tricks and you can have things close and directly in the FOV be highly detailed while things a bit farther away are low quality and allow you to reach a better performance target.

[Luc2k]

PC gaming hardware is farther along now then it was at the start of the current gen simply because pc hardware is improving at such a fast rate.  How in the world do you craft a console that is to last 8 years, be reasonably priced, and still keep up with pc hardware improvements?

 

The answer:  You can't....

 

As pc tech pushed forward, you will see console hardware eclipsed faster then it was this gen. If there is another gen of consoles after next, you will see the same trend, maybe even worse.

 

As a console maker, you could choose to build a really powerful that costs like $600 or you could put out new consoles every 3 years to try and keep up, but that is a futile move.  These companies would get knocked out of the market if they tried that, there is not enough money made or demand to sustain that.

PC hardware (main components) is not improving at a faster rate now than it used to. If anything the CPU has slowed down to a crawl, while the GPU is keeping a steady pace.

 

Nobody in his right mind expects a console to be better than a PC throughout its lifetime, but the hardware should be closer to a 800-1000$ PC at launch and run ANY well coded game with 1080p@60fps. Right now this performance point is the exception.

 

As for money, they have a pretty big mark-up on games and console game prices usually start higher than PC and lose value a lot slower.

[trooper11]

PC hardware (main components) is not improving at a faster rate now than it used to. If anything the CPU has slowed down to a crawl, while the GPU is keeping a steady pace.

 

Nobody in his right mind expects a console to be better than a PC throughout its lifetime, but the hardware should be closer to a 800-1000$ PC at launch and run ANY well coded game with 1080p@60fps. Right now this performance point is the exception.

 

As for money, they have a pretty big mark-up on games and console game prices usually start higher than PC and lose value a lot slower.

 

I don't know if its improving at a faster rate then it was back when the current gen started, but it sure seems like it.  Yes, the last couple of years seems like it has slowed a bit on the cpu side, and yet the gpu side of things is pushing forward.

 

How in the world do you packaged an 800-$1000 pc into a $400/$500 console? You would likely be burning up tons of cash while you waited for game sales to cover that cost.

 

Sony is in no condition to burn up that kind of cash.  MS may have the money, but its tired of burning up the cash as well.  Both of them see Nintendo never having to hemorrhage money at launch like they do and they decide its time to scale back.

 

I mean lets seriously put this to the test.  What is an $800-$1000 pc going to have hardware wise?  Lets assume you pick components in order to have the best gaming experience at that price.  You would be using an Intel core i5 maybe, along with a high end Nvidia/AMD card and then maybe 16gb of ram and an ssd.  You can't build a console with those specs and sell it for $400. 

 

I mean both consoles are using AMD cpus even though in the pc world, everyone knows that Intel cpus are higher performing, but they also cost more.

[blerk]

I bet a large proportion of the console target market have not played any game with graphics anywhere near as nice or smooth as what the PS4/XB1 will put out. Those people will be current console owners, and virtually every person in the world who has not got a gaming PC that can run all current games at 1080p60 (or thereabouts) with settings on very high.  

 

MS/Sony aren't ever going to try to capture the PC master race with a $400-500 box that you pop under your table and keep for 7 years, they're going to build a console that can keep up (and most likely surpass) the vast majority of PC's, while providing "unique" experiences exclusive to console. 

 

So all the moaning about 4K, 1080/900p and 30/60fps is irrelevant really. 

[HawkMan]

Oh look, the same game series again that's convieniently developed by Microsoft too.

Actually there where other third party games who also increased their resolution and/or FPS this gen on subsequent releases.

[Luc2k]

I don't know if its improving at a faster rate then it was back when the current gen started, but it sure seems like it.  Yes, the last couple of years seems like it has slowed a bit on the cpu side, and yet the gpu side of things is pushing forward.

 

How in the world do you packaged an 800-$1000 pc into a $400/$500 console? You would likely be burning up tons of cash while you waited for game sales to cover that cost.

 

Sony is in no condition to burn up that kind of cash.  MS may have the money, but its tired of burning up the cash as well.  Both of them see Nintendo never having to hemorrhage money at launch like they do and they decide its time to scale back.

 

I mean lets seriously put this to the test.  What is an $800-$1000 pc going to have hardware wise?  Lets assume you pick components in order to have the best gaming experience at that price.  You would be using an Intel core i5 maybe, along with a high end Nvidia/AMD card and then maybe 16gb of ram and an ssd.  You can't build a console with those specs and sell it for $400. 

 

I mean both consoles are using AMD cpus even though in the pc world, everyone knows that Intel cpus are higher performing, but they also cost more.

MS and Sony don't pay retail price for the hardware so I think it's feasible to stick something with a retail value of 800-1000$ inside a, let's say 600$ console.

 

What I would have gone for is this. Keep the same basic hardware, but beef up the CPU part of the APU to desktop class and add another dedicated GPU (200-250$ retail value) for crossfire in games that need it.  Maybe the tech is a year away (desktop class steamroller APU), the box will be bigger and it would need more cooling, but I say it would have been worth it.