PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

You only lose things at select periods of time, a game dev can request the resources and lose a few things in the core game experience but once you're, say, back at the main screen those can turn back on.  The developers have control, and they all come back on once you go back to the dash automatically, which shows that it's a flexible setting.  So say for a fighting or sports game where you'd want controller tracking for player one and two, that can come back on when you're at the main screen/character select screen and so on, when controllers changing hands is going to happen, and not in the middle of a match when it's not.

 

I wouldn't worry about it at all, the key features that get used the most, the voice commands, are still there regardless.

 

Well if most users weren't interested in using Kinect in the first place, then removing these features won't really matter. I kind of doubt that there will suddenly be an influx of users that want to use it.

So any warning would be for the smaller group that already uses those features, since they are use to them being universally available.

 

 

I know how it works, they explain it pretty well in the interviews. They said the reason why voice can remain enabled is because it would only result in losing 1 frame at most. The camera apparently uses more resources than that, hence why it is inactive until you "minimize" the game etc. All I'm saying is it will create some confusion for users. In a month or two and even next year some people (re: not hardcore gamers who read this type of news), won't understand why something isn't working unless spelled out for them.

 

I'm sure it won't be set in stone either and if they can manage the resources in different ways in future they may not have to disable all of the currently disabled kinect features.

 

Not expecting an influx either, especially with a cheaper SKU sans Kinect on offer, but it will happen no doubt. It's not hard for them to add "doesn't support kinect" on the box even if they have to spell it out.

 

But that's just tidbit I was adding from their comments on how they feel about the resources being free'd.

[trooper11]

Until you head back to the dashboard or maybe, if the developer codes it right, pause the game or go to the main menu for some reason.  Again, they're flexible, it's not either always on or always off in a game, they're on the fly.

That is true, but still not as seamless as it use to be. You can't get around the fact that it will require the end user to do something where before it did not.

[George P Global Moderator]

That is true, but still not as seamless as it use to be. You can't get around the fact that it will require the end user to do something where before it did not.

 

Well, in the long run if we believe the internet voice as the truth it doesn't matter because no one wants Kinect anyways.  :P

[trooper11]

I really don't think this is going to be a big deal in the long run. Most people wont be using Kinect, so those affected and not aware of the limitations will be very very small, small enough that MS wouldn't hear much feedback about it.

Well, in the long run if we believe the internet voice as the truth it doesn't matter because no one wants Kinect anyways.  :p

I agree, I'm just referring to those of us that happen to use the features.

[Emn1ty]

Phil Spencer recently said this about DX12

 

 

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/06/17/phil-spencer-directx-12-not-a-massive-change-for-xbox-one-explains-expectations-from-1st-party-studios/

 

Like the cloud if people do not rein in their expectations realistically, you're only going to let yourself down with unrealistic expectations.

 

Fortunately they don't need a "massive" change to match the PS4. I like how we're painting this idea that DX12/Azure have to be some kind of miracle to even be worth it.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

 

I agree with the sentiment that no one should be over playing this, but lets not completely push it aside either.

If games are going from 900p to 1080p because of this relatively small change, then that is a good thing.

It just seems like the news surrounding this has been followed by some over playing it and some attacking it, both reaching unreasonable conclusions. There is nothing but good news here, with better looking games being the result. Leave out all of the console war bs and your left with that positive reality. Yes, you do have to remind some people that the ps4 is still more powerful, but I have to say that it seems like around here, most people posting are not claiming these improvements will result in parity or and advantage for the X1. There is a minority of posters that have said that, but I really don't think the numbers are very high. Most people around here seem to accept how things are and focus on the X1 improving instead of comparing it to the ps4.

 

This should really not be shocking to anyone though. If your going to remove the requirement for reserving resources attached to Kinect, your going to lose functionality. This is what people wanted, so that means something else is lost in the process.

Losing things like ID sign-in, controller pairing, and controller profile switching is pretty crappy in my opinion, but hey, this is a casualty of the choice that most wanted to see happen.

I never said it was not positive and I myself am all for it, I hope it does mean the difference between 900p and 1080p. However with that said, I am not going to get my hopes up just because one developer has stated their intent is to go 900p to 1080p, a developer who by the way at one point developed exclusively for MS consoles.

I am keeping my expectations realistic and in check until I am proven otherwise, which I am all for being proven wrong in this case, no doubt about it.

However I have seen a few people declaring this to be the definitive game changer. When there is just no proof at all yet that is the case.

[+Asmodai MVC]

The Xbox One isn't going to catch the PS4 in performance.

 

First the "fast" eSRAM cache is slower than the PS4s memory.  How exactly do you think 32MB of 109GB/s memory is going to allow the Xbox One to catch up to the PS4's 8GB of 172GB/s memory?  The Xbox One's main memory is only 68.3GB/s so the eSRAM helps it get CLOSER to the PS4 but it's not going to equal or surpass it.  As developers get more and more familiar with it they'll be able to make the gap smaller and smaller but there will always be a gap, the PS4 just has superior memory hardware.

 

Second the Xbox One GPU has 12 compute units compared to the PS4s 18.  Nothing MS does is going to change that, the PS4 just has superior GPU hardware.

 

Third, DX12 is just software.  No doubt it will boost performance over what things currently are now on the Xbox One.  In fact maybe it even increases performance of the Xbox One to more than what the PS4 does now (though that remains to be seen).  That's assuming though that Sony just sits back and does nothing.  Nothing prevents them from making similar changes to their API, I don't think AMD would mind if they used big chunks of mantle, OpenGL is likely to implement it's own equivalent to anything that actually sticks with the developer community.  This is software, it can change, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think Sony is going to modify their API over time to get more performance for their developers.

 

Fourth, this CLOUD BS is just marketing speak saying that you can finally have dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network (for free!).  Again this is a big improvement over the Xbox 360 era where putting dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network was so prohibitively expensive that virtually no one ever did it.  So this is a big advance in terms of going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One.  Sony however doesn't restrict dedicated servers, you don't have to pay them to put them on their network.  On the PS4 as with the PS3 before it you (and in publishers/developer... not necessarily users) can set up and run your own dedicated servers at your own server farms so they already do what MS is just now promoting.  The Xbox advantage here is strictly financial in that MS will host these servers in the cloud for you at no cost since they won't let you put your own up, however this also means you are limited to the APIs they provide for you instead of fully owning the servers.  On the other hand Sony isn't hosting anything for you but they aren't preventing you from using your own servers like MS does (it's a bit more complex than that as the PS4 now does require you link your servers to their chat system and such in order to make these things work cross game instead off having to roll your own as you did with the PS3... so there are SOME infrastructure servers now which is why multiplayer now requires a PSPlus subscription so they can maintain these infrastructure servers but the actual gameplay servers (AI, physics, etc) are still developer/publisher owned)

[Showan]

I really don't think this is going to be a big deal in the long run. Most people wont be using Kinect, so those affected and not aware of the limitations will be very very small, small enough that MS wouldn't hear much feedback about it.  <----  I've been very critical of this to Phil Spencer on Twitter... Yep, I'm in this boat alone.  Everything initially shown to me in May 2013 and E3 2013, I wanted... A device where I could be a gamer and geek at the same time....  I know that the potential to make $$$billions$$$ outweighs my feelings on the matter...

I agree, I'm just referring to those of us that happen to use the features.

 

 

Other thoughts...:  People had to be told that Ryse was 900p and that Sunset:OD was 900p as well.  This tells me that 900p is good enough considering that Ryse is one of the best looking games hands down this generation.

Sure it's not native 1080p, but no one knew until they were told.  

 

Am I upset about improvements to the One.... No, not at all... I'm all for improvements.  But I'm not all for improvements, when other features have to be sacrificed. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Other thoughts...:  People had to be told that Ryse was 900p and that Sunset:OD was 900p as well.  This tells me that 900p is good enough considering that Ryse is one of the best looking games hands down this generation.

Sure it's not native 1080p, but no one knew until they were told.  

 

Am I upset about improvements to the One.... No, not at all... I'm all for improvements.  But I'm not all for improvements, when other features have to be sacrificed. 

 

No doubt there are probably some who wait to be told then react, but many of us can definitely see it and don't need to be told what is what. Are we going to be able to tell the exact count just looking at it? Not likely and neither can pixel counters, but you know it's not the full experience. Some games it's definitely more apparant than others (MGS V and the huge gap in fidelity) and others you can see extensive blurring. And probably the most obvious one of all is black borders and something other than 16:9.

[Showan]

The Xbox One isn't going to catch the PS4 in performance.

 

 

 

Fourth, this CLOUD BS is just marketing speak saying that you can finally have dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network (for free!).  Again this is a big improvement over the Xbox 360 era where putting dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network was so prohibitively expensive that virtually no one ever did it.  So this is a big advance in terms of going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One.  Sony however doesn't restrict dedicated servers, you don't have to pay them to put them on their network.  On the PS4 as with the PS3 before it you (and in publishers/developer... not necessarily users) can set up and run your own dedicated servers at your own server farms so they already do what MS is just now promoting.  The Xbox advantage here is strictly financial in that MS will host these servers in the cloud for you at no cost since they won't let you put your own up, however this also means you are limited to the APIs they provide for you instead of fully owning the servers.  On the other hand Sony isn't hosting anything for you but they aren't preventing you from using your own servers like MS does (it's a bit more complex than that as the PS4 now does require you link your servers to their chat system and such in order to make these things work cross game instead off having to roll your own as you did with the PS3... so there are SOME infrastructure servers now which is why multiplayer now requires a PSPlus subscription so they can maintain these infrastructure servers but the actual gameplay servers (AI, physics, etc) are still developer/publisher owned)

 

 

The Cloud is not BS... Not matter if MS calls it the cloud or dedicated servers.  It's a win.  If MS only has 3-5 games a year that take advantage of these servers it's a win...  

We have seen EA's servers and they suck.... Ubisoft servers, not much better...  None of them compare to Live/Azure.  And 3rd party publishers can put their servers up on PSN that's true... But maintenance cost, can and will add up....  

[eddman]

The Xbox One isn't going to catch the PS4 in performance.

 

First the "fast" eSRAM cache is slower than the PS4s memory.  How exactly do you think 32MB of 109GB/s memory is going to allow the Xbox One to catch up to the PS4's 8GB of 172GB/s memory?  The Xbox One's main memory is only 68.3GB/s so the eSRAM helps it get CLOSER to the PS4 but it's not going to equal or surpass it.  As developers get more and more familiar with it they'll be able to make the gap smaller and smaller but there will always be a gap, the PS4 just has superior memory hardware.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1218381-xbox-one-small-boost-from-updates-and-sdk-pointless/?view=findpost&p=596454181

[Emn1ty]

1. First the "fast" eSRAM cache is slower than the PS4s memory.  How exactly do you think 32MB of 109GB/s memory is going to allow the Xbox One to catch up to the PS4's 8GB of 172GB/s memory?  The Xbox One's main memory is only 68.3GB/s so the eSRAM helps it get CLOSER to the PS4 but it's not going to equal or surpass it.  As developers get more and more familiar with it they'll be able to make the gap smaller and smaller but there will always be a gap, the PS4 just has superior memory hardware.

 

2. Second the Xbox One GPU has 12 compute units compared to the PS4s 18.  Nothing MS does is going to change that, the PS4 just has superior GPU hardware.

 

3. Third, DX12 is just software.  No doubt it will boost performance over what things currently are now on the Xbox One.  In fact maybe it even increases performance of the Xbox One to more than what the PS4 does now (though that remains to be seen).  That's assuming though that Sony just sits back and does nothing.  Nothing prevents them from making similar changes to their API, I don't think AMD would mind if they used big chunks of mantle, OpenGL is likely to implement it's own equivalent to anything that actually sticks with the developer community.  This is software, it can change, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think Sony is going to modify their API over time to get more performance for their developers.

 

4. Fourth, this CLOUD BS is just marketing speak saying that you can finally have dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network (for free!).  Again this is a big improvement over the Xbox 360 era where putting dedicated servers on the Xbox Live network was so prohibitively expensive that virtually no one ever did it.  So this is a big advance in terms of going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One.  Sony however doesn't restrict dedicated servers, you don't have to pay them to put them on their network.  On the PS4 as with the PS3 before it you (and in publishers/developer... not necessarily users) can set up and run your own dedicated servers at your own server farms so they already do what MS is just now promoting.  The Xbox advantage here is strictly financial in that MS will host these servers in the cloud for you at no cost since they won't let you put your own up, however this also means you are limited to the APIs they provide for you instead of fully owning the servers.  On the other hand Sony isn't hosting anything for you but they aren't preventing you from using your own servers like MS does (it's a bit more complex than that as the PS4 now does require you link your servers to their chat system and such in order to make these things work cross game instead off having to roll your own as you did with the PS3... so there are SOME infrastructure servers now which is why multiplayer now requires a PSPlus subscription so they can maintain these infrastructure servers but the actual gameplay servers (AI, physics, etc) are still developer/publisher owned)

 

1. Strange seeing as every article I've found has demonstrated that eSRAM is faster than GDDR. I'll site this article

 

 

To make up for the gap, Microsoft added embedded SRAM on die (not eDRAM, less area efficient but lower latency and doesn't need refreshing). All information points to 32MB of 6T-SRAM, or roughly 1.6 billion transistors for this memory. It?s not immediately clear whether or not this is a true cache or software managed memory. I?d hope for the former but it?s quite possible that it isn?t. At 32MB the ESRAM is more than enough for frame buffer storage, indicating that Microsoft expects developers to use it to offload requests from the system memory bus. Game console makers (Microsoft included) have often used large high speed memories to get around memory bandwidth limitations, so this is no different. Although 32MB doesn?t sound like much, if it is indeed used as a cache (with the frame buffer kept in main memory) it?s actually enough to have a substantial hit rate in current workloads (although there?s not much room for growth).

 

Vgleaks has a wealth of info, likely supplied from game developers with direct access to Xbox One specs, that looks to be very accurate at this point. According to their data, there?s roughly 50GB/s of bandwidth in each direction to the SoC?s embedded SRAM (102GB/s total bandwidth). The combination of the two plus the CPU-GPU connection at 30GB/s is how Microsoft arrives at its 200GB/s bandwidth figure, although in reality that?s not how any of this works. If it?s used as a cache, the embedded SRAM should significantly cut down on GPU memory bandwidth requests which will give the GPU much more bandwidth than the 256-bit DDR3-2133 memory interface would otherwise imply. Depending on how the eSRAM is managed, it?s very possible that the Xbox One could have comparable effective memory bandwidth to the PlayStation 4. If the eSRAM isn?t managed as a cache however, this all gets much more complicated.

 

2. Okay, and if the above is true... the X1's GPU has more bandwidth open at any given time and this means the PS4's GPU will be consistently more burdened than the X1 GPU for the same work load.

 

3. Sony operates off of OpenGL iirc, so Sony would in fact have to wait for the OpenGL devs to do something similar to DX12.

 

4. The cloud is not BS, no matter how much you want to spin it. If you really think it's just dedicated servers, you're not paying attention.

[+Asmodai MVC]

The Cloud is not BS... Not matter if MS calls it the cloud or dedicated servers.  It's a win.  If MS only has 3-5 games a year that take advantage of these servers it's a win...  

We have seen EA's servers and they suck.... Ubisoft servers, not much better...  None of them compare to Live/Azure.  And 3rd party publishers can put their servers up on PSN that's true... But maintenance cost, can and will add up....  

 

I wasn't saying the Cloud was BS.  I was saying people saying the Xbox One is going to catch up to the PS4 in performance because of the Cloud is BS.  I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.  I thought I made it pretty clear that this is a huge advantage over the 360 situation.  Cloud computing is here to stay in computing in general, it isn't Xbox specific.  If developers/publishers want to they can host their PS4/PC servers on Microsoft's public Azure cloud (which is separate from Xbox Live).  They can host their PS4/PC game servers on Amazon's cloud.  The bigger ones can build their own clouds if they like, they have choices.  They can host their servers on any public cloud provider.  With Xbox your ONLY choice (for dedicated servers/cloud) is Microsoft Xbox Live cloud.  If you're a developer/publisher unless you are going to go Xbox only then you're going to have to have something for other platforms anyway.  The PS4, PS3, PC (WIndows, Linux, Mac) can all share the same cloud infrastructure.  Only the Xbox (360 and One) are off on their own (in the past part of Games for WIndows Live would allow you to use the Xbox Live servers on WIndows but that program was discontinued and I don't know if anything is going to replace it... even so though it wasn't particularly heavily utilized in the Windows space and frankly it got spanked by Steam and I can see MS offering anything in the future that's going to move developers/publishers from Steam to their offering)

[Polonium]

Not on my TV they don't. You can tell the difference a mile off.

[+Asmodai MVC]

1. Strange seeing as every article I've found has demonstrated that eSRAM is faster than GDDR. I'll site this article

What are you trying to point to in that link? The table it links to clearly states that the eSRAM has a bandwidth of 102GB/s while the PS4 has a bandwidth of 176GB/s so the PS4 is faster. Furthermore the article is from well before either console launched (May 2013) and if full of speculation not definitive analysis.

 

2. Okay, and if the above is true... the X1's GPU has more bandwidth open at any given time and this means the PS4's GPU will be consistently more burdened than the X1 GPU for the same work load.

The quote you have in bold says that if the eSRAM is used as a cache it gives the Xbox One much more memory bandwidth than the Xbox Ones 68.3GB/s system memory would imply. That's absolutely true. The eSRAM cache makes it A LOT faster than if the Xbox One only had the 68.3 GB/s system memory. It does not and can not however make it faster than a system that has an entire 8GB of 176GB/s RAM which the PS4 does.

 

3. Sony operates off of OpenGL iirc, so Sony would in fact have to wait for the OpenGL devs to do something similar to DX12.

Wrong again. Sony has two of it's own APIs. One is high level (like DirectX 11.x) and looks a lot like OpenGL but that's just so developers don't have to learn a whole new system. It's called GNMX. But Sony also has their own low level, very close to the hardware API called GNM that has a lot in common with AMD's mantle and presumably the great new advances with DirectX 12. We don't really know what's in DirectX 12 but there is a good chance that a lot of similar things are already in GNM. If something is missing from GNM however it's Sonys baby so they can just add a similar capability whenever they want.

 

4. The cloud is not BS, no matter how much you want to spin it. If you really think it's just dedicated servers, you're not paying attention.

I already responded to this in my prior post, look there.

[BajiRav]

I never said it was not positive and I myself am all for it, I hope it does mean the difference between 900p and 1080p. However with that said, I am not going to get my hopes up just because one developer has stated their intent is to go 900p to 1080p, a developer who by the way at one point developed exclusively for MS consoles.

I am keeping my expectations realistic and in check until I am proven otherwise, which I am all for being proven wrong in this case, no doubt about it.

However I have seen a few people declaring this to be the definitive game changer. When there is just no proof at all yet that is the case.

That one developer is now firmly in Sony's pocket though, moneyhat and what not.

Insomniac has also said that SO will gain from it but not in terms of resolution.

[Emn1ty]

snip

 

1. Raw numbers aren't always the end-all-be-all of performance, and when something is posted doesn't change what it's saying.

 

2. That's not how it works. As the article describes it, the comparison your making is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

3. A good chance, maybe. But I'm not going to put my money on a company who's specialty isn't software to come up with better software optimizations. That being said, it in no way means that Sony's solution isn't a perfectly usable one but I think DX12 is going to be more than just a few minor optimizations.

 

4. And what you said doesn't really address the fact that you're putting arbitrary requirements on what it must do in order to be a good idea. What is it with Sony fans thinking that unless some new X1 feature is some godly blessing that will 100% outshine their lovely PS4 then it's just an utterly dumb idea? Also, you are incorrect about what Azue/Cloud is. It is not just dedicated servers, which I already told you. It is a cloud processing service. Everything you said here was just tangental to what it actually is.

[Torolol]

as being said before eSRAM while very fast its size are too small that become really inconvenient when need to process huge amount of data/codes like 1GB+ data for example.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

That one developer is now firmly in Sony's pocket though, moneyhat and what not.

Insomniac has also said that SO will gain from it but not in terms of resolution.

Whether they are in Sony's pocket or not does not erase the fact their history prior to this game was developing for MS's console only. That was my point. They have a ton of experience with MS hardware itself.

 

And as I said, just because ONE developer was talking about resolution I was not going to jump the gun. I am aware Insomniac has also said they expect some gains with Sunset Overdrive as well, but those gains, as you pointed out, are not resolution based. Resolution is what I was discussing, as most of the people that are obsessed with the One catching up with the PS4, that is the main factor they point towards...  if games will indeed hit 1080p.

 

But you know what, my point still stands. Whether it is 2, 3 (which is the actually number I have heard, Bungie, Insomniac, and Ubisoft) or it is 10 developers saying they believe they will get their games better from a graphical perspective, I am not getting excited about anything until it is definitive.

[trooper11]

Not on my TV they don't. You can tell the difference a mile off.

The difference clearly exists.

What is not clear is how the difference appears to each and every person in the world.

[+Asmodai MVC]

1. Raw numbers aren't always the end-all-be-all of performance,

Raw numbers are impartial and non-subjective. 176GB/s is always faster than 109GB/s. How else would you compare performance, by which gives you the more happy feelings?

when something is posted doesn't change what it's saying.

When you post something before the hardware is finalized it does. In fact the article you posted is wrong because MS increased the operating frequency of the production Xbox Ones and so the 102GB/s in that article was raised to the 109GB/s I stated. That's still well short of 176GB/s last I checked though.

2. That's not how it works. As the article describes it, the comparison your making is not an apples to apples comparison.

What's not how it works? I didn't describe any functionality and I read the article. It didn't contradict anything I've said.

3. A good chance, maybe. But I'm not going to put my money on a company who's specialty isn't software to come up with better software optimizations. That being said, it in no way means that Sony's solution isn't a perfectly usable one but I think DX12 is going to be more than just a few minor optimizations.

At no time did I say DX12 is going to be just a few minor optimizations. DX12 is going to be HUGE for Xbox One and for PC because neither has a low level API right now at all. Both DirectX 11.x and OpenGL are high level APIs just like Sony's GNMX. MS doesn't even have anything like Sony's GNM API right now though, nor is there one for the PC. So MS, your big software maker is actually trailing here not leading.

4. And what you said doesn't really address the fact that you're putting arbitrary requirements on what it must do in order to be a good idea. What is it with Sony fans thinking that unless some new X1 feature is some godly blessing that will 100% outshine their lovely PS4 then it's just an utterly dumb idea? Also, you are incorrect about what Azue/Cloud is. It is not just dedicated servers, which I already told you. It is a cloud processing service. Everything you said here was just tangental to what it actually is.

I know exactly what cloud services are, I work in the IT industry. Most people reading this don't understand the ins and out of the cloud though so calling it dedicated servers is a way to relate to people what it does in a manner which is more understandable to the majority of gamers. I didn't just unilaterally decide to do that on my own though, MS themselves made that decision as noted here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-16-microsofts-confusing-xbox-one-cloud-message-shifts-to-dedicated-servers

I guess MS is incorrect then too according to you. You should probably tell them.

Furthermore I have no idea what you are talking about me "putting arbitrary requirements". I didn't put any requirements on anything. My point is that MS Xbox Live cloud is the ONLY cloud option you have when you are making Xbox games. For PC and PS4 you have multiple options from industry leaders INCLUDING MS, Amazon, and Google, plus the freedom to build your own cloud. You are free to make your cloud do anything (not just dedicated servers) on the PS4 and PC but with MS you only have the options MS provides to you, there is no competition, you can't make your own. The big benefit of the Xbox Live cloud is just that MS provides it for free to Xbox developers. Cloud computing is absolutely the future, it's just not exclusive to Xbox and since it's not exclusive it's not going to push the Xbox past the PlayStation from a performance perspective when PlayStation games can do the same thing.

[BajiRav]

Not on my TV they don't. You can tell the difference a mile off.

 

It's not the TV, it's the person in front of the TV. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and sub-1080p but my wife has hard time above 720p.

The difference clearly exists.

What is not clear is how the difference appears to each and every person in the world.

This. There is again the factor of "good enough" for most people including me. This is the reason Netflix exists instead of everyone buying BDs.

[vcfan]

The Xbox One isn't going to catch the PS4 in performance.

 

First the "fast" eSRAM cache is slower than the PS4s memory.  How exactly do you think 32MB of 109GB/s memory is going to allow the Xbox One to catch up to the PS4's 8GB of 172GB/s memory?  The Xbox One's main memory is only 68.3GB/s so the eSRAM helps it get CLOSER to the PS4 but it's not going to equal or surpass it.  As developers get more and more familiar with it they'll be able to make the gap smaller and smaller but there will always be a gap, the PS4 just has superior memory hardware.

 

Second the Xbox One GPU has 12 compute units compared to the PS4s 18.  Nothing MS does is going to change that, the PS4 just has superior GPU hardware.

its 109GB/s each way. read+write = 204GB/s. the 68GB/s DDR3 can also be used simultaneously, so theoretical bandwidth peak is 272GB/s versus 172GB/s with GDDR5. big difference

devs are still learning the system,and many techniques are still not being used.

with the gpu upclock,ms benchmarks showed they got a graphical performance boost more than if they had 14 CUs. Sony actually chose to use 18CUs not to increase rendering capabilities,but because they're betting that in the future, there will be alot of compute workloads that they can move over to the gpu. sure you can use all 18 CUs for rendering,but theres little benefit.sony says it themselves in their developer manuals.

microsoft has a different take on this. they have 3 times the gpu coherence bandwidth, so the cpu gets gpgpu data from the gpu 3 times faster. xbox one also has a programmable DSP and higher clocked CPU.

[trooper11]

Ok this thread is teetering on derailment at this point.

We are back to arguing about the cloud stuff? Really? That is over in a big way.

The cloud technology that MS is using is good and its a great deal for developers, end of story. Trying to prop it up as a physical performance boost that would mean games look better then on the ps4 is crazy, but what is also crazy is trying to downplay what MS has offered developers.

No, its not new and no its not unique to MS. What is unique is how they are offering it to developers, which allows developers access to tech that would not have been cheap in the past. Its not just the physical servers, but the Azure software that makes the free access deal pretty darn nice. Games will be utilizing the tech in different ways from the most simply ways (i.e. dedicated servers) to more advanced ways (i.e. Forza or the Crackdown tech demo back at BUILD). It has nothing to do with pushing higher level graphical fidelity. Its all about number crunching.

 

I never said it was not positive and I myself am all for it, I hope it does mean the difference between 900p and 1080p. However with that said, I am not going to get my hopes up just because one developer has stated their intent is to go 900p to 1080p, a developer who by the way at one point developed exclusively for MS consoles.

I am keeping my expectations realistic and in check until I am proven otherwise, which I am all for being proven wrong in this case, no doubt about it.

However I have seen a few people declaring this to be the definitive game changer. When there is just no proof at all yet that is the case.

So wait, your saying that going from 900p to 1080p is an unrealistic outcome from a 10% change in resources?

I thought you were referring to the idea that it would suddenly bring parity with the ps4 gpu wise.

Then your expectations are that it will have no impact?

The big benefit of the Xbox Live cloud is just that MS provides it for free to Xbox developers. Cloud computing is absolutely the future, it's just not exclusive to Xbox and since it's not exclusive it's not going to push the Xbox past the PlayStation from a performance perspective when PlayStation games can do the same thing.

It can be an advantage for MS as long as competitors are not offering free access to the cloud infrastructure.

I just don't get why that is so downplayed. Being able to play with cloud computing without your own investment is pretty compelling. Once Sony offers that for free, then you can say it holds no advantage.

[Emn1ty]

1. Raw numbers are impartial and non-subjective. 176GB/s is always faster than 109GB/s. How else would you compare performance, by which gives you the more happy feelings?

2. When you post something before the hardware is finalized it does. In fact the article you posted is wrong because MS increased the operating frequency of the production Xbox Ones and so the 102GB/s in that article was raised to the 109GB/s I stated. That's still well short of 176GB/s last I checked though.

3. What's not how it works? I didn't describe any functionality and I read the article. It didn't contradict anything I've said.

At no time did I say DX12 is going to be just a few minor optimizations. DX12 is going to be HUGE for Xbox One and for PC because neither has a low level API right now at all. Both DirectX 11.x and OpenGL are high level APIs just like Sony's GNMX. MS doesn't even have anything like Sony's GNM API right now though, nor is there one for the PC. So MS, your big software maker is actually trailing here not leading.

I know exactly what cloud services are, I work in the IT industry. Most people reading this don't understand the ins and out of the cloud though so calling it dedicated servers is a way to relate to people what it does in a manner which is more understandable to the majority of gamers. I didn't just unilaterally decide to do that on my own though, MS themselves made that decision as noted here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-16-microsofts-confusing-xbox-one-cloud-message-shifts-to-dedicated-servers

I guess MS is incorrect then too according to you. You should probably tell them.

Furthermore I have no idea what you are talking about me "putting arbitrary requirements". I didn't put any requirements on anything. My point is that MS Xbox Live cloud is the ONLY cloud option you have when you are making Xbox games. For PC and PS4 you have multiple options from industry leaders INCLUDING MS, Amazon, and Google, plus the freedom to build your own cloud. You are free to make your cloud do anything (not just dedicated servers) on the PS4 and PC but with MS you only have the options MS provides to you, there is no competition, you can't make your own. The big benefit of the Xbox Live cloud is just that MS provides it for free to Xbox developers. Cloud computing is absolutely the future, it's just not exclusive to Xbox and since it's not exclusive it's not going to push the Xbox past the PlayStation from a performance perspective when PlayStation games can do the same thing.

1. No I'll take a fairly reputable blog's word for it over your flattening of facts. Numbers are objective, the words in which they are placed are not. You can spin numbers to mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

2. Except the hardware hasn't changed since then so... what's your point?

 

3. Because they don't have a separate API they are trailing? What does GNM offer that DX doesn't? And because cloud computing exists elsewhere it's suddenly not going to do enough to make it "better" than the PS4. That right there is one of the arbitrary standards I'm talking about. Why is the bar "better than the PS4" ?

 

Also, that article's title is a spin, if you actually read it they're just commenting on how Microsoft didn't focus on the cloud, but dedicated servers as one piece of that service. You need to start reading your own articles. It even goes on to say.

 

Crackdown indicates that while Microsoft's messaging behind the cloud has shifted in the short term, it's sticking to its long term vision for how it could benefit games.

Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter welcomed Microsoft's more approachable messaging, but said important questions remain.

"The name might have changed, but this is still very much the Azure 'Thunderhead' service, just with a name-change to make it more appealing to the core gamer," Leadbetter said. "While the cloud obviously offers dedicated server functionality, Azure offers the potential for much more and it doesn't look as though Microsoft has changed its plans there."