backtop


Print 160 comment(s) - last by arsenalfc.. on Nov 6 at 6:57 AM

Microsoft explains why it picked ESRAM/DDR3 over GDDR5; virtualization benefits; and why not all game are 1080p

The Xbox One may be 1080p "capable", but that doesn't mean that all Xbox One games will render at 1080p according to a recent interview by Eurogamer.  And that's a good thing according to lead Xbox One engineers Andrew Goossen (software) and Nick Baker (Hardware), both of which answered the interview questions about Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) new console, which launches on Nov. 22.

I. GPU Tradeoffs, 720p vs. 1080p Resolution Gaming Explained

Comments Mr. Baker:

We've chosen to let title developers make the trade-off of resolution vs. per-pixel quality in whatever way is most appropriate to their game content. A lower resolution generally means that there can be more quality per pixel. With a high-quality scaler and antialiasing and render resolutions such as 720p or '900p', some games look better with more GPU processing going to each pixel than to the number of pixels; others look better at 1080p with less GPU processing per pixel.

Microsoft also revealed that it's mandating at least 2x anti-aliasing in all its titles, a guideline that had not yet received significant media attention.  Additionally, Mr. Baker and Mr. Goosen detail in the interview how the Xbox One operating system, firmware, and hardware are designed to allow system apps (e.g. a messaging client) to run alongside games at minimum cost.
Xbox One summary
Microsoft says its hardware design is based on its intent for the Xbox One to be a media hub, capable of running apps optimally alongside games.

 

The GPU powering the Xbox One, Microsoft clarified in the interview, will be Sea Islands family design from Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD).  Mr. Goosen says that this is the same family used inside Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758) PlayStation 4.  Microsoft's design uses 12 compute units (CUs) versus 18 CUs in the PS4 chip; hence Microsoft's design is somewhat analogous to Bonaire (the GPU in the Radeon HD 7790) while Sony's is similar to Pitcairn (the GPU in the Radeon HD 7850).

Xbox One
[Image Source: Heavy]

But that comparison is slightly misleading, according to Microsoft, as the Xbox One's GPU is higher clocked than the PS4's.  Comments Mr. Goosen:

We actually saw on the launch titles - we looked at a lot of titles in a lot of depth - we found that going to 14 CUs wasn't as effective as the 6.6 per cent clock upgrade that we did. Now everybody knows from the internet that going to 14 CUs should have given us almost 17 per cent more performance but in terms of actual measured games - what actually, ultimately counts - is that it was a better engineering decision to raise the clock. There are various bottlenecks you have in the pipeline that [can] cause you not to get the performance you want [if your design is out of balance].
Xbox One SoC GPU
Xbox One's GPU stack model is complex, leading it to be limited by different hardware factors in different scenarios.

In other words, Microsoft believes that by trading a 17 percent increase in CU count for a 6.6 percent clock bump, it will actually achieve better performance.  One important thing to keep in mind is that in the interview Microsoft reveals it reserves a 10 percent time slice cut of the GPU for system apps that can run side-by-side with a game.  Given that Sony does not appear to do this, this may explain why Sony considered the optimal balance 14 CU with a lower clock.

II. Xbox One -- CPU Bound (Typically), Optimized for Media

Mr. Goosen explains this in even more intricate detail, stating that the Xbox One is generally not ROP (render output unit) bound, but rather limited by a variety of factors.  He states:

The goal of a 'balanced' system is by definition not to be consistently bottlenecked on any one area. In general with a balanced system there should rarely be a single bottleneck over the course of any given frame - parts of the frame can be fill-rate bound, other can be ALU bound, others can be fetch bound, others can be memory bound, others can be wave occupancy bound, others can be draw-setup bound, others can be state change bound, etc. To complicate matters further, the GPU bottlenecks can change within the course of a single draw call!

...

If we had designed for 2D UI scenarios instead of 3D game scenarios, we might have changed this design balance. In 2D UI there is typically no Z-buffer and so the bandwidth requirements to achieve peak fill-rate are often less.
Xbox One SoC
The Xbox One SoC encompasses AMD Jaguar CPU cores, a Sea Islands GPU, ESRAM, and custom processor silicon.

Another interesting point raised by the Microsoft engineers in the Q&A is that the GPU resourcs are shared between the system apps and the game app via virtualization.  Mr. Goosen comments, "I think this is actually the first big consumer application of a GPU that's running virtualised."
Xbox One CPU
The Xbox One runs on 64-bit Jaguar CPU cores.

The approach allows the system to receive regular updates (following the traditional Microsoft patch, service pack model), while not breaking retail game titles or requiring an immediate update to game titles.

The pair also reveals fresh details about the 15 specialist digital signal processors (DSPs) and standard processors within the system-on-a-chip, commenting:

On the SoC, there are many parallel engines - some of those are more like CPU cores or DSP cores. How we count to 15: [we have] eight inside the audio block, four move engines, one video encode, one video decode and one video compositor/resizer.

The audio block was completely unique. That was designed by us in-house. It's based on four tensilica DSP cores and several programmable processing engines. We break it up as one core running control, two cores running a lot of vector code for speech and one for general purpose DSP. 
Xbox One ASP
The Xbox one uses multiple specialist sub-processors within the SoC.


III. 32 MB ESRAM + 8 GB DDR3 (Xbox One) Versus Pure 8 GB GDDR5 (PS4)

One final issue tackled was the use of 8 GB of DDR3, supplemented by 32 MB of ESRAM (embedded static RAM -- a NAND based solution), versus 8 GB of GDDR5 in the PS4.  Microsoft says that the decision to pick ESRAM versus eDRAM (such as the embedded memory onboard Intel Corp.'s (INTCHaswell Core Series system-on-a-chip designs) was purely based on what was on hand.

Xbox One SoC
The Xbox One's primary memory is 8 GB DDR3 -- slower than the 8 GB GDDR5 found in the PS4 -- but Microsoft has a trick up its sleeve (ESRAM).

Microsoft says its ESRAM/DDR3 solution offers nearly the same memory performance as the more speculative GDDR5 solution that Sony went with, while being a more natural evolution from the Xbox 360's eDRAM/GDDR3 memory mix.
Xbox One SoC
The SoC design is relatively complex versus Sony's design which is thought to feature less special purpose processors and no embedded memory.  The Xbox One can address 32 MB of onboard embedded memory, which allows it to achieve almost the bandwidth of GDDR5 with DDR3.

Mr. Baker states:
 
First of all, there's been some question about whether we can use ESRAM and main RAM at the same time for GPU and to point out that really you can think of the ESRAM and the DDR3 as making up eight total memory controllers, so there are four external memory controllers (which are 64-bit) which go to the DDR3 and then there are four internal memory controllers that are 256-bit that go to the ESRAM. These are all connected via a crossbar and so in fact it will be true that you can go directly, simultaneously to DRAM and ESRAM.

Over that interface, each lane - to ESRAM is 256-bit making up a total of 1024 bits and that's in each direction. 1024 bits for write will give you a max of 109GB/s and then there's separate read paths again running at peak would give you 109GB/s. What is the equivalent bandwidth of the ESRAM if you were doing the same kind of accounting that you do for external memory... With DDR3 you pretty much take the number of bits on the interface, multiply by the speed and that's how you get 68GB/s. That equivalent on ESRAM would be 218GB/s. However, just like main memory, it's rare to be able to achieve that over long periods of time so typically an external memory interface you run at 70-80 per cent efficiency.

Directionally, Microsoft says each operation (read, write) is capped at 109 GB/s but by mixing reads and writes, real world performance of 130-140 GB/s can be achieved.  This isn't signficantly worse than the 176 GB/s theoretical performance of the PS4 over its 256-bit bus.

Microsoft Halo
Microsoft is confident its hardware approach will deliver good value to gamers and developers alike.

Overall Microsoft details clarify how two consoles with slightly different hardware designs -- the PS4 and Xbox One -- can still be roughly "neck and neck" as famed developer John Carmack claimed at his recent Quakecon event.  It sounds like Microsoft took on a more challenging virtualization bid, but might profit off greater flexiblity and utility for its console, while Sony picked more of a speculative hardware target (basing the PS4 on 4 Gb (gigabit) GDDR5 modules), which may pay off in terms of higher bandwidth/lower hardware costs.

Source: Eurogamer



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Its not about the GPU
By aju on 10/8/2013 1:26:00 PM , Rating: 5
Let’s stop arguing about who has the better GPU. The simple fact is that Sony has the better GPU.

Personally, I am not purchasing a next gen console solely for the fastest GPU. I don’t put the fastest GPU in my custom PCs. I don’t base purchases on such a limited basis. The development platform and the underlying operating systems will play a larger role in the performance of these consoles than the GPU. I have been developing software since 1984 and I can tell you from experience that the fastest hardware can be brought to its knees by a few lines of inefficient code.

Based on what I am reading in these posts most of you simply fail to see the big picture. If you read what many developers who are actually writing the software have stated, overall the performance of these next gen consoles is pretty comparable. You should not be basing your buying decision on the PS4s GPU as it is not going to be a major factor. The overall ecosystem of the console should be the primary factor. That will include such things as who has the best development platform to author code. Which one has the best tools? Which development platform will be the easiest to port across multiple devices? Which console has the exclusives you want? Which console will provide the overall richest entertainment ecosystem?

Your purchase of a next gen console should be primarily based on the ecosystem you prefer, not on the theoretical performance limit of the hardware. If the performance of the hardware was the primary deciding factor, Nintendo would have sold zero Wii consoles. Who cares if the chip is fast if it does not play the games you want or provide the entertainment options you desire.




RE: Its not about the GPU
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 1:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what it will come down to.


RE: Its not about the GPU
By superstition on 10/9/2013 12:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's the issue with the Atari Jaguar. It was a much more powerful console than the SNES but it didn't have enough good-quality games. It's sad, because it really was an awesome console when it came out. If Square had made a Final Fantasy for it and other top-quality titles had come out, things could have been very different.

But, Atari didn't know enough about the modern gaming business and thought it could make it with B and C grade games like "Trevor McFur in the Crescent Galaxy." Tempest 2000 was really great and Cybermorph was definitely underrated but there wasn't much else. Another problem for the Atari was that it contained an old 68000 chip for "general purpose I/O" and programmers used it for main game logic because it was easier for them than trying to use the much faster chips in parallel.

Also, the N64 was powerful but hampered by the low storage capacity of cartridges. That didn't stop Nintendo from releasing games that people really liked, though.

I wonder what the SNES CD games would have been like, if Nintendo hadn't tried to pull a fast one on Sony.


RE: Its not about the GPU
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 10:09:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
if Nintendo hadn't tried to pull a fast one on Sony


Nintendo didn't try pulling a fast one on Sony. Sony tried screwing Nintendo. Nintendo in turn gave them the finger and looked up Phillips and got close to releasing the SNESCD, but at the 11th hour pulled the plug after the failure of SegaCD. Nintendo didn't realize at the time that Sega was already on it's way out and that the failure of the SegaCD was not a medium failure, but a failure of marketing and company direction. Had Nintendo released the SNESCD it would have seen better success than the SegaCD. The N64 with a CD drive? Forget it! Sega would have been dead in the water and Sony would have had it's hands full staving off Nintendo.

So if you are going to make a historical reference, please get your facts right before doing so. Otherwise you just end up looking like a monkey diddling a football.


RE: Its not about the GPU
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Its not about the GPU
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS4 = Faster CPU + Faster and better equipped GPU


I should correct myself, I meant to say PS4 = Faster CPU + Slightly slower but better equipped GPU...

Sorry about that. I should proof read better in future... LOL


RE: Its not about the GPU
By Mint on 10/9/2013 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I personally will never grant access of a high resolution camera in my home to a company I don't control.
So you don't have a phone with iOS or Android? Or you just hold MS to a different standard?
quote:
Nor will I submit to the unacceptable requirements Microsoft makes in it's EULA. Sony understands and for the most part respects the rights of the end user.
Sony?!

The same company that was installing rootkits on people's PCs?

The same company that was suing P2P users?

The same company that was the last and most resistant of the four major record labels to sell DRM-free music?

What has MS done that is even remotely comparable to that?


RE: Its not about the GPU
By lexluthermiester on 10/23/2013 2:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
My Android phone has a custom rom which does not allow remote access to the camera or microphone, if that is what you were getting at.

quote:
Sony?! The same company that was installing rootkits on people's PCs? The same company that was suing P2P users? The same company that was the last and most resistant of the four major record labels to sell DRM-free music? What has MS done that is even remotely comparable to that?


Let me correct myself.

"Nor will I submit to the unacceptable requirements Microsoft makes in it's EULA. Sony CURRENTLY SEEMS TO understand and for the most part respects the rights of the end user."

Lot's of companies were suing P2P users, Sony wasn't remotely alone in that.

Lot's of companies are STILL using DRM[not just for music].

Microsoft's is not innocent in these kinds of area's. Look at the whole "Activation" & Windows Genuine Advantage nonsense. And how well has that worked out for them? Hasn't stopped piracy at all, barely even slowed it down. I could keep going down this list as microsoft's sins are greater than Sony's every day of the week. The reality is, no company is innocent. Sony's is simply less guilty then many others, including microsoft. It has one advantage though. They seem to learn from their mistakes better, even if begrudgingly.


RE: Its not about the GPU
By BernardBlack on 10/14/2013 4:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha...you nailed it. This is what I have been trying to say since 2005. Everyone was completely sold on the Cell. I told them, "yes, but Sony has the worse of development kits, and a 'hard to use' architecture. While, the 360 uses XNA (PC dev kits), which, is more familiar to developers and is a bigger win than anything hardware." The difference in Sony's DDR5 and Microsoft's DDR3, or Sony's GPU and Microsoft's GPU, can be more than soaked up/ lost in less than ideal programming.


Wrong CU count for PS4
By npcomplete on 10/7/2013 10:57:04 PM , Rating: 3
The PS4 does not have 14 CUs. In the interview Goossen stated:
quote:
If you go to VGleaks, they had some internal docs from our competition. Sony was actually agreeing with us. They said that their system was balanced for 14 CUs.


Who knows what "balanced for" means, if that is accurate, and it seems disingenuous to quote since it's not comparing apples-to-apples. It may mean Sony recommends reserving some CUs for GPGPU, much like how XB1 would too if devs wanted, thus sparing even less than their max hardware of 12 CUs for graphics.

The PS4 has 18 CUs on tap in the hardware:

http://anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-c...

(18 CU x 64 shader/cores = 1,152 cores)

It has been known for a while that the PS4 has 50% more GPU power than the XB1, and I still think they are at a disadvantage. Assuming full use of GPU for graphics, 18 CUs @ 800 MHz in the PS4 still trumps 12 CUs @ 853 MHz in XB1.

I think that means we'll be seeing more games at 720p on the XB1 than the PS4. Or the same game from PS4 using parameters for lower detail (e.g. medium lighting effects vs high) running on the XB1.




RE: Wrong CU count for PS4
By flyingpants1 on 10/8/2013 2:52:20 AM , Rating: 3
This was blatantly obvious from the moment the specs were first revealed.

The XBone GPU is significantly smaller and weaker. This means it has to run games at a lower resolution or with a lower level of detail. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand.

All Microsoft has done here is confirm their GPU is indeed weaker.


RE: Wrong CU count for PS4
By coburn_c on 10/8/2013 3:03:21 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, this.

Also, neither of the consoles is subsidized. Unlike last time around they are making money on garbage from day one. Unlike last time the hardware is inferior out of the gate. In ten years it will be slower than you cell phone. Avoid this garbage at all costs.


RE: Wrong CU count for PS4
By Mint on 10/9/2013 4:33:08 PM , Rating: 4
Only devs will know for sure, but there is definitely something different about the way the PS4 integrates compute units compared to 7850, as the GPU is based on the 7790 (14 CUs) with 4 extra CUs tacked on.

http://www.vgleaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/...

Why else would Sony's own documentation say 30% more compute only results in a "minor boost for rendering"?

It's not going to be 50% faster. There is no game out there today that is even 50% limited by shader speed, let alone the 100% needed to reach the theoretical advantage of 41%.

Furthermore, a 41% theoretical advantage doesn't let you drive 125% more pixels, genius. Saying some games will let PS4 do 1080p but XBO only 720p is sheer nonsense.


"make do" not "make due" in title of article...
By kilkennycat on 10/8/2013 12:56:47 AM , Rating: 3
.....please, for the sake of correct meaning.




By futrtrubl on 10/8/2013 5:18:33 AM , Rating: 3
I could almost forgive such a stupid mistake in the body of an article but in the bloody title?!?!


Roughly neck and neck and a $100 more?
By quiksilvr on 10/7/2013 10:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
Their marketing team really needs to just shut up already. Its better not to say anything at all. Just let the games and content speak for themselves and leave it at that.

It's saying crap like "more quality per pixel" and justifying the RAM route as a more affordable solution while simultaneously charging $100 more for an inferior product is just laughable.

Make it $349 and chuck the Kinect controller, because it's $50 less of a console than the competition.




By tayb on 10/8/2013 10:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
This is what I came here to say. They have to use fuzzy math and bullshit "facts" to convince people that the consoles are close to the same performance... and then they charge $100 more.

I don't give a damn about the Kinect. I have a Kinect on my 360 and it is........ stupid. The only thing I use it for is the microphone. I played Kinect Adventures once with my wife, we both thought it was stupid, and it hasn't been used since. It's not a value add in any way, shape, or form.

Microsoft better hope their plan of luring game developers to make solid exclusives pans out because they are looking at a distant second as far as install base goes.

I was a Xbox customer on day one. Xbox Live beta tester. Xbox 360 launch customer. And now I'm going to ditch the platform in favor of the PS4. They've seriously fucked up this generation.


What difference does it make
By FanOfNone on 10/8/2013 1:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
As long as the games look great and play well... I don't care if the RAM is DDR 3, DDR 5 or DDR 150.




RE: What difference does it make
By purerice on 10/9/2013 12:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
+1 for the first non-fanboi comment out of seemingly hundreds.
It is insane how people with nothing to gain either way over which system is "better", start trolling each other.

All the more so given that neither system is for sale yet. Anybody can change their mind and get the other system. In my humble opinion, neither system will last as long as the PS3/XB360.

Assuming several games can use 2GB at 1080p and that 4K is about 4x the pixels of 1080p, a 4K game could use up 100% of the 8GB buffer. 4K is already available <$4,000 and when 1080p was that expensive people already wanted games to run HD. Neither Sony nor Microsoft will risk angry consumers clamoring for higher resolution games or the opportunity to trump the competition.

So it would not be completely unlikely for a PS5 or XB2 to come out in late 2016 or 2017, perhaps with some N64/iMac-esque RAM upgrade slot for when 6K TVs that will hit the market then as well as 8K TVs that will hit the market by 2020.

I don't even think Microsoft cares who wins this round of console wars because it will be the shortest round of consoles to date. The REAL battle will commence in 3-4 years.


speling eror in tytle
By sonicology on 10/8/2013 11:09:28 AM , Rating: 4
The idiom/two-word verb you are looking for is "make do", not "make due".




America is Bi?
By inperfectdarkness on 10/8/2013 3:44:54 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it that every time I read about console gaming, it's just MSFT vs Sony? Nintendo is completely forgotten about. It's almost exactly like the political process--there's only 2 parties you ever hear about in the media. Sad thing is, the best option may not be either one of the two that are being proclaimed the loudest.

Are we simply incapable of entertaining more than 2 options? Does this choice confound the mind...forcing people to resort to BS rationales in order to narrow their field of choices?

P.S.
Nintendo...the forgotten console. Eerily similar to the fate of the dreamcast...




RE: America is Bi?
By Farfignewton on 10/11/2013 7:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it that every time I read about console gaming, it's just MSFT vs Sony? Nintendo is completely forgotten about


Third party support. However many devs are signed on, its a given that the majority (if not all) of the must have games will come from Nintendo. If Nintendo's games aren't your cup of tea there is zero reason to get one. With Sony or M.S. you can practically drown in good games without ever touching a first party title.

Not to mention all those Wii U fans are apparently still waiting for some decent first party support. The Wii U looks dead in the water. Time will tell.


Error in the article
By althaz on 10/7/2013 9:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
From the article:
quote:
Given that Sony does not appear to do this

Actually, they do (reserve some GPU for not-gaming). They haven't released publicly available data on exactly how much of the GPU is reserved, but it's clear some is (same with RAM, CPU cores, etc for both consoles).




Cloud support
By arsenalfc on 11/6/2013 6:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
Early games won't show any difference between two consoles. No one talks about cloud support for Xbox One. PS4 has got better GPU for sure, but as you know cloud support will give Xbox One nice buff. Microsoft claims Xbox One will be 4x powerfull thanks to cloud system.

Someone wrote that two consoles will end in 3-4 years. But with cloud gaming we could have nice gfx on current hardware. Especially when every big games studios prepare engines for consoles.

Don't know about 4k, but with cloud support I think Xbox One could handle 1080p with max details. 4k resolution will not be so popular as 1080p, because you need to buy much more bigger screen to notice any difference.

BTW: BF4 on Xbox One 720p looks better than 900p PS4.




720 ?!
By boidsonly on 10/9/2013 7:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
I find it interesting that M$ is defending 720 when all other manufacturers are looking at 4K as the new standard.
At some point folks will move to new TVs that use LED, OLED, plasma, etc. I think 720 will look dated.
I mean, this is 2013. 720 was the standard when the last generation of consoles debuted...
I wonder if the second round of both consoles will have better H/W?
Let's see what both consoles can do on a 55" LED/plasma TV and then make the call?




SMH
By EasyC on 10/7/13, Rating: 0
Justify
By mike66 on 10/7/13, Rating: 0
Ridiculous claims
By AlinsiCalin on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By chizow on 10/7/2013 9:34:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's a legitimate claim, it basically means instead of rendering at a higher resolution to begin with, they use more shader time on post-processing effects with multiple passes, lighting, shading, AO, shader-based anti-aliasing (SMAA, FXAA, MLAA etc).

It doesn't cover some issues with rendering at non-native resolution and upscaling, like interpolation, but I think on console games it does generally work well. For example, Last of Us clearly uses heavy post-processing effects and it looks great even though it is rendered at lower than 1080p (720p I think).


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think his post claimed it was. His post was basically a factual statement with a subjective "Last of Us looks pretty good even at 720, though" statement at the end. The words Xbox nor PS4 are even in his post.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
You're spinning things around to make it sound like your winning an argument that nobody was talking about. You and retro just post "lololol xbox is stupid, look at microsofts dumb statement" then as soon as a bunch of people give you a factual statement about how it is a perfectly valid statement, you spin it about ps4 > xbox one.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By KurgSmash on 10/8/2013 2:54:30 AM , Rating: 3
God, your cluelessness is embarrassing for you.

The Xbox One allows the developer to choose 720P with more eye candy, or 1080p with less. Each will be better in different circumstances.

That you think this means the Xbox one will be "720p gaming" is risible.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 8:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
If you think anything other than this, its pointless talking to you.

MS has discovered that the XBO cant handle maintaining playable framerates at full quality 1920x1080 , so they are telling devs to bump it down to 720 if the game cant maintain a playable framerate.

Anything else you say on the subject is pure crap. It can't handle full quality pixels at 1080p. It's not as fast and the memory bandwidth stinks. PERIOD!


RE: lol
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/8/2013 11:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly!!

It is a dumb fact even in the PC worlds that you can get really good quality with a cheap video card by lowering the resolution. You can also play at a nice high res on a cheap video card by dumbing down the graphics rendering.

Microsoft is pulling a switch & bait act here by saying "Yeah! Look how high a resolution we can support!, but if you want the best quality images, you run at a lower resolution.

I personally understand why they are doing that. High end graphics processors are freaking expensive - hundreds of dollars just for the chip. They can't sell these even at their painful price point and still include a graphics processor that is worth more than half of price of the machine.

Worse yet, the more powerful a processor gets, the hotter it runs. These XBox Ones are not water cooled. Hot graphics processors are a bad idea in a console that often lives in poorly ventilated spaces around a TV set (anybody remebmer the early XBox 360s & the red ring of death those had?).

Microsoft has to walk a fine line here and I don'5t envy them that. But trying to tell people that a Spade is actually a Diamond will bite them in the ass. Best to leave the cards on the table and be up-front with their customers.


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(anybody remebmer the early XBox 360s & the red ring of death those had?)


EARLY 360's?!? The RROD issue persisted into the third generation of 360's, not just the early ones.


RE: lol
By Mint on 10/9/2013 4:39:50 PM , Rating: 4
What makes you think the PS4 can?

You think 41% more theoretical shader power is going to let the PS4 push 125% more pixels?

Your blind hatred for MS is turning you into a Sony tool. Stop the illogical propaganda.


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/23/2013 2:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have a blind hatred of microsoft. I'm certainly not a great fan. I love Windows 7 and my mice, keyboards and usb controllers.

Mint, your argument is invalid. Both consoles hooked up to a 1080p display will have the same number of pixels available. The PS4 easily trumps the XBO in hardware capabilities. Meaning that PS4 can to ANYTHING XBO can do, and better. But if you take a game like Crysis and port it to PS4 & XBO, running both at 1080p, which one do YOU think is going to look/play better/smoother? This doesn't take rocket science to figure out. Now if you run it on the PS4 in 1080 and on the XBO in 720, that changes the story. But I have a 1080p tv. So which one do you think I'm going to lean towards, the 1080 or 720 version... Not rocket science there either...

XBO doesn't have anything to offer over Sony to most gamers.


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2013 4:27:31 AM , Rating: 4
For starters, developers are allowed to do the same thing on a Playstation 4.

Secondly, if you are so worried about the resolution and graphics, why not get a PC and experience games "the way it's meant to be played?"
I.E. Max graphics with no compromises.


RE: lol
By BRB29 on 10/8/2013 6:56:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I.E. Max graphics with no compromises

the compromise is your wallet


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 1:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
For those us us with deeper wallets, it's not much of a compromise...


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 8:28:58 AM , Rating: 1
Because the mainstream gaming community left PC years ago. It is better on a PC if all things are equal, but its not. Most of the best games are being made for console first and PC 2nd if at all. There are exceptions, but the bulk of gaming has already moved away from PC.


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2013 9:43:10 AM , Rating: 2
Downright rubbish.

The PC is a $20 Billion dollar games software market, the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 combined is 15.5 Billion.

League of Legends has more people playing that one game ON PC than people own Xbox's.

StarCitizen is the first AAA game funded by the people, for the people and only for the PC.

Kickstarter is bringing us dozens of more PC exclusive games.

Steam has anywhere from 50-60 million users, which is very competitive with Xbox Live and the Playstation Network, the game prices are great too.

The Sims franchise on PC has sold more than 150 million copies over it's lifetime, which is more than any other game franchise outside of Nintendo's exclusive franchises like Mario and Pokemon.

I'm afraid the bulk of gaming is very well still on the PC.
Entire genre's of games are pretty much non-existent on consoles.

If we get down to the technology side, the Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Playstation 4 and Xbox One all use PC Graphics technology.
The irony is though AMD and nVidia built their empires around PC gamers who thus essentially funded the R&D that is the GPU's that ended up in the consoles. (PC Gamers still get the choice of better hardware of course!)

If PC gaming does falter and AMD and nVidia does sink and stop development of ever faster hardware, who is going to fund the R&D to build better graphics processors for the next next generation of consoles?

It's simply unfeasible for Microsoft and Sony to dump billions into a GPU design, thus the only real option would possibly be an ARM Soc or lord forbid Via, I can imagine it now... Next next generation consoles as powerful as a... Tablet?

There is a reason why the PC Gaming Master Race exists.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 10:02:43 AM , Rating: 5
LOL... Okeedokee. You keep thinking that.

I am not anti PC gaming at all. I am an old time PC gamer and always will be at heart. I am the guy that upgraded his CPU and graphics card habitually, obsessively to get that extra few FPS and I know consoles will never ever be as good, but at some point you have to face facts. It's not that PC gaming is dead, but mainstream gaming moved to consoles after the PS3 and XB360 released. Standardized platforms and less piracy was too attractive and most developers went that way. Like I said, for the most part, game developers go console first, PC second , if at all. There are exceptions, but console gaming is where its at these days and PS4 and XBO will only make it worse.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 10:08:05 AM , Rating: 5
HEre is some more data... Its not even close. PC is coming on strong lately as current consoles age, but... This is the year they update obviously.

http://www.steamgifts.com/forum/YAKms/2005-2012-pc...

PC games played by year, with % change from previous year.
2005 568,968
2006 558,074 (-2%)
2007 2,920,185 (+423%)
2008 5,857,447 (+101%)
2009 6,187,437 (+6%)
2010 15,728,587 (+154%)
2011 29,631,542 (+89%)
2012 33,355,879 (+13%)

Console games played by year, with % change from previous year.
All Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony combined, including portables.
Hardware listed is the year in which the hardware was released.
2005 48,621,847 XBox 360, PlayStation Portable 1000
2006 140,890,341 (+290%) DS Lite, PlayStation 3, Wii
2007 321,998,102 (+229%) PSP 2000, PlayStation Eye
2008 578,241,141 (+80%) PSP 3000
2009 570,507,923 (-3%) DSi, DSi XL, PSP Go, PS3 Slim
2010 614,779,227 (+8%) Kinect, 360 Slim, Playstation Move
2011 578,873,094 (-6%) 3DS, Wii Family Edition
2012 445,278,842 (-23%) 3DS XL, PlayStation Vita, Wii Mini, Wii U

In 2005, PC popularity was 1.17% of consoles.
In 2012, PC popularity was 7.49% of consoles.


RE: lol
By corduroygt on 10/8/2013 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad that data is sourced from vgchartz, which is the same thing as making up numbers.
Still, there is no denying that mainstream gaming is NOT on PC's with powerful video cards. Most PC gaming is on Facebook.


RE: lol
By troysavary on 10/8/2013 7:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
WoW alone had over 5 million subs by the end of 2005, so the stats you quote are bogus. So the rest of your post is invalidated by numbers that are off by a factor of 10 just taking 1 game into account. Nice try though.


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 1:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well spoken!


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2013 6:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL... Okeedokee. You keep thinking that.


Don't worry I will.
http://pcgamingalliance.org/member-benefits/resear...


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/23/2013 2:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Retrospooty, go easy on those drugs! Seriously.


RE: lol
By Phoenix7 on 10/9/2013 2:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought a goal of Sony was to run all ps4 games at 1080p 60fps. I'm too lazy right now to Google search for evidence, but I feel like I read that somewhere


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/9/2013 7:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
Their goal yes. But theirs no evidence developers will be forced into it.


RE: lol
By lexluthermiester on 10/9/2013 1:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Forced, no. Highly and strongly encouraged? Yes.


RE: lol
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/8/2013 8:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly the article is misleading. Microsoft does not seem to be comparing to the PS4 at all (since the PS4's use of 18 CUs is actually 50% more than the 12 in the XBOXONE). Since the PS4 seems to offer more performance, it would be pointless to compare them.

On the other hand, some of the arguments do seem to be written by our President's speechwriters...


RE: lol
By chizow on 10/8/2013 12:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't recall making any points about the PS4, if that was your original intent, to compare to the PS4 you might've saved everyone a lot of hassle and articulated that in your 1st post.

Regardless, I think you are mistaken to think PS4 will always render natively in 1080p and still have all the bells and whistles, given dropping the resolution to get better eye candy and/or higher framerates will always be a temptation for the hardware-limited console devs. As usual, it was MS' mistake to comment on and confirm the fact they won't be running 1080p for everything.

As for your actual point, again, it really depends on the implementation. Would you rather play a game at 1080p with all MED settings? Or would you prefer to play it at 720p with everything maxed out on High/Ultra with potentially higher framerates? Given 720p is roughly half the pixels of 1080p, this is actually a very salient comparison, one easily tested on a PC.

I don't think there is an objective, blanket answer to that question, I do know it's going to be highly subjective based on personal preference.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 12:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless, I think you are mistaken to think PS4 will always render natively in 1080p and still have all the bells and whistles


I agree, and I never actually said this would be the case.

I do, however, believe the Playstation 4 has the best chance of achieving this over the Xbox1. I can respect the goal Sony has of at least 1080p @ 60FPS for gaming. Especially given the long delay between console refreshes.

I just don't understand why Microsoft thought it was a good idea to charge so much more for a console with such a huge gap in computing power and graphics horsepower than it's competitor. They can try to sugar coat it with press releases about pixel quality and all that, but most of us can see that for what it is.

quote:
I don't recall making any points about the PS4


My mistake. But look, this is Daily Tech, whenever the Xbox One is brought up, you have to expect people to force the comparison. It's going to happen.

quote:
I don't think there is an objective, blanket answer to that question


Agree. That's a very hard question to answer. I think it would depend on the type of game too what my preference would be.

You're a straight shooter, I like that. I apologize for any misunderstandings where I wasn't clear enough.


RE: lol
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/8/2013 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think the bigger bitch is going to be the cross platform titles. As we have seen previously (and PC was on the losing end), the developers will sell to the least common denominator, in this case the XBONE. It will be ported as-is to the PS4, and PC. The PS4 guys might have a right to complain that it doesn't look much or possibly any better on their console, but the PC gamers are really getting screwed since they typically are sitting on hardware that can smoke both consoles for breakfast.

I can potentially see some minor tweaks to the PS4 or PC version, but you're batshit crazy to think any of the big studios are going to spend much time and money making their title run the best on each platform. It will run "good" on all platforms to a uniform level and it will be released on the same day for all of them.

I honestly don't think we will see any real difference between the same titles on each platform. The exclusive titles will be the ones to watch to see who can make the sexiest beast for their platform. I also don't know how many exclusive titles we will see this generation since all of them (XBONE, PS4, PC) all use x86 processors with standard GPU's. It's not like last generation where the PS3 and 360 chips/architectures were massively different and it cost a fair amount of money to release for multiple platforms.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
It depends a lot on what the performance gap is. If their baseline game runs fine at 1080p @60hz on an xbox, then most likely the only difference in the PS4 version will be more particles, higher res textures, etc. But if the xbox does struggle and the PS4 numbers show that it can indeed handle a lot more, then we may see a difference in resolution, or there may be feature differences. Maybe the gap is big enough to warrant XBO at 720p and PS4 at 1080p, or maybe one has baked lighting and one is fully dynamic. We'll find out soon enough what the real world differences are.


RE: lol
By EricMartello on 10/8/2013 2:36:51 AM , Rating: 3
R77 is right, native 1080p output is going to look substantially better on most modern screens which are also 1080p. Add in the fact that if the screen is not operating at its native resolution and scaling takes place, it ends up reducing the overall quality of the image, making edges look soft and text blurry.

MS really dropped the ball here if their new system lacks the power to put out 1080p graphics with all eye-candy enabled. It doesn't matter if you throw in a bunch of visual FX when the output is going to look like an upscaled PS2 title - rendering in 720p then scaling to 1080p is like saying an upverted DVD is "as good as a bluray".

I'm really not sure why they are having trouble hitting the mark since 1080p capable GPU tech has been available for most of this console's development cycle.


RE: lol
By KurgSmash on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By EricMartello on 10/8/2013 8:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They aren't having trouble. You guys are baffled is all.

See, they are offering developers the choice of 720P _internally_ scaled to 1080p, or 1080p. I don't care if you have Quad-Titans, you can apply more per-pixel processing to a 720p source than you can a 1080p.


If they're rendering in 720p then scaling to 1080p, it's a quality loss compared to doing both rendering and output in 1080p.

If you have 1080p you have substantially more pixels to work with, which means more potential detail and better color representation. Also, there really isn't any such thing as 'per pixel processing'. That's really not how GPUs work. They process whole elements of the scene in parallel; pixels do not come into play until the rendered frame reaches the framebuffer; the last stop before being displayed on the monitor.

There is nothing uncertain here; 1080p is superior to 720p in all ways...and with 4K right on the horizon, new consoles should be coming with some headroom to grow. They shouldn't "just barely" be able to handle 1080p.

quote:
So the fact that they allow this does not mean it lacks the power to put out 1080p with "all the eye candy", whatever that means.


If the xbox works as you described it is operating in ghetto mode - it's like Atari claiming that the Jaguar was 64-bit because they added up the "bits" of its multiple processors. The new xbox will be rendering graphics and effects at a much lower resolution than the screen's native resolution, then doing a simple scaling operation to "stretch" the output to fit modern TV screens.

quote:
The PS4 has a marginally higher theoretical performance, but in real life it's going to come down to the games and the developers as well as who can optimize better.


If the PS4 can render in 1080p without having to sacrifice eye candy then it's going to be the better system, plain and simple. Xbox really only has XBL going for it...the PS has always had a more diverse library - if you had to pick just one system the PS4 would be the way to go for now.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 8:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
"There is nothing uncertain here; 1080p is superior to 720p in all ways...and with 4K right on the horizon, new consoles should be coming with some headroom to grow. They shouldn't "just barely" be able to handle 1080p."

Yup, and that is all there is to it.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 12:50:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they're rendering in 720p then scaling to 1080p, it's a quality loss compared to doing both rendering and output in 1080p.


quote:
There is nothing uncertain here; 1080p is superior to 720p in all ways...


That depends on the context of your statement. Obviously nobody is going to argue that having both (high quality pixels + high resolution) is clearly better, but when you are imposed with a hardware limitation, you must make a tradeoff. It's at this point you can choose one of two options: Lower quality shaders, or lower resolution. Since effectively you can loosely view the total processing cost of a frame as the number of pixels multiplied by the average cost of shading each pixel (and making assumptions for the sake of argument such as little or no overdraw).

If you must make this tradeoff, higher resolution is NOT necessarily better. Just to put this to an example. Imagine you are running a game on super low end hardware. Would you prefer to see visuals rendered at 720p but have nice lighting and shadowing, or 1080p but not have the processing power to have nice shadows? Thus everything looks unrealistic despite being high res and very crisp.

PS:
For Reclaimer, whom I know will take my post out of context, this has nothing to do with xbox vs ps4, or which is better blah blah. This is an objective statement about graphics to counter the claim that 1080p is always superior to 720p (assuming the same hardware on whatever device you are using). This statement could apply to both consoles, as the statement is applied independently of the device.


RE: lol
By Da W on 10/8/2013 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
I myself crank down my 3 displays form 1920X1200 to 1650X1050 on my low AMD 6850 to be able to crank up the setting from medium to high in Rome 2.

Yes i could play on ultra setting on ONE screen.
Yes i could play on medium setting with higher res.
I just found the right balance that works for me until i upgrade my card.
That's the choice MS gives to developpers and Sony doesn't.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 12:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Text That's the choice MS gives to developpers and Sony doesn't.


I'm not finding any evidence to support that, yet people keep repeating it.

Either post a link showing how Sony isn't giving developers some choice, or else you are spreading FUD.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 12:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
I believe what is being referred to is the "Sony is actively pushing 1080p @ 60hz" thing.

I do apologize as one of my previous posts was worded poorly, I did not mean to ever imply that there were actual requirements that games must be shipped at 1080p or anything. I cannot speak for the above poster you are replying to.

However, "actively pushing" does strongly imply that Sony wants titles to be at 1080p and 60hz. In many cases I'm sure this results in a high quality experience (particularly 60hz), but there are definitely cases where 720p @60hz on the PS4 will provide better graphical fidelity than 1080p @60hz by trading resolution for shader quality, so it seems silly to push for something that only the developers could determine is more beneficial or not.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:08:25 PM , Rating: 1
Um, try doing all that at a higher res too. 1920 by 1080 is not very high. the Xbox one is underpowered, and I'm making excuses for why some games are 720p. it was bad enough on the last generation it doesn't fly in 2013. The fact that you're even defending this blows my mind.


RE: lol
By Samus on 10/7/2013 11:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
5 billion transistors. Jesus Christ no wonder they've got to charge $500 for the thing, the yields will be hella terrible.


RE: lol
By Ghost42 on 10/8/2013 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
Nah it shouldn't be that bad. They can always use the PS4 chips that don't make the grade and have to have parts of the chip disabled. Lots of headroom in that regards :D


RE: lol
By Strunf on 10/8/2013 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
AA exists cause the resolution in the game isn't good enough... also at roughly the same quality it's less power intensive to render a game straight on 1080p than on 720p with AA.

That said it's maybe more interesting to render a game at 720p and 60fps than at 1080p and 40fps.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 9:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything. It's a super simple statement. Lower resolution means lower fill count, which means more processing time per pixel.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 9:58:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Playstation 4 has the grunt to deliver the resolution AND the pixel quality. Which is why you don't see Sony constantly being apologists for their own device like Microsoft here.

You're pulling that directly out of your @ss. Considering the console isn't out and not a single game is available to compare, you cannot POSSIBLY know that unless you work at a studio that works on a cross platform title from both consoles.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By someguy123 on 10/7/2013 11:15:08 PM , Rating: 5
Though a vast majority of this article is spin (he starts talking about 2D load balancing for components at one point to make their design seem more "3D efficient"), the ps4 isn't really producing stellar fidelity either.

After moving to 60fps killzone 4 took a pretty huge hit in fidelity compared to the initial demo.

http://killzone.dl.playstation.net/killzone/kzsf_g...

They've also argued that inconsistent 60fps is "better" than constant 60fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-26-guerr...

Neither sides are really free of spin. The specs on both consoles are pretty underwhelming.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're losing it now, this is basically Microsofts way of saying our product doesn't have the juice to do it all so we have to choose between one or the other.

Seriously stop defending this, stop right now it's ridiculous.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not defending anything. For like the millionth time in all the xbox vs ps4 articles I've commented in:

I'm NOT defending xbox, I'm saying you and Reclaimer are full of it for suggesting that you both somehow know the extent of both consoles before either are released or any games are even available. Stop trying to spin my words.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The entire Internet knows the "extent" of these consoles at this point.

Knowing "specs" is not the same as knowing the extent of the devices. It is something you cannot know until you actually have the console and are running a game on it that is highly optimized specifically for the platform. Until then, its pure speculation, nothing more.

And to clarify, since apparently you have trouble with this:
I am not defending xbox. I am not attacking PS4. I do not care which has better specs, and which can do higher resolution, and which will do better. I am saying, very simply, that you do not have the knowledge to make claims about something you have never used.

quote:
Right, you just attack anyone who says the slightest thing unflattering about the Xbox. Even if it's 100% factual. Not a defense at all...

No, I'm not. I'm trying to be objective. Nobody has gotten to play cross platform titles on these consoles, so how can you possibly compare quality? It's no secret that the xbox has less processing power. It's also no secret the xbox is $100 more. Nobody is contesting that. We all know it's weaker, and we all know it costs more. I'm not comparing processing power, price, or whatever you value you see in either console. Maybe some people appreciate the value of Kinect, of the HTPC capabilities. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Each person can place their own value on a device. If you think it's sorely overpriced, great, we get that. I get that.

But more to the point, specs are not a good measure of how things perform in real life. Am I saying that they will be equal? No. Am I saying that it won't make a difference? No. We simply cannot know what that difference actually is until someone actually releases some games. The only people who can know this are, as I've stated, graphics devs who are currently working on a cross platform title. Are you one of these people? If so, I immediately apologize, since you would then actually have real world data to back up claims. Until then, how about we wait for the release so we can see what the ACTUAL difference is, instead of making assumptions.


RE: lol
By corduroygt on 10/8/2013 12:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only people who can know this are, as I've stated, graphics devs who are currently working on a cross platform title.

And a few of them already commented that PS4 had better performance on their titles.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
And again, that's not being contested. What I am getting at is by how much. Nobody has released such numbers.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 3:31:45 PM , Rating: 1
Every time someone busts you on something, you just try to change what you supposedly meant. Getting rediculous...


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 4:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure I made it perfectly clear that what I was asking was not about whether it's better or worse, but by HOW MUCH. That requires these things called numbers.


RE: lol
By corduroygt on 10/8/2013 4:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
They've said "significant" but no numerical values were given. But in a month we'll have them.
There's also this rumor but I will not vouch for its reliability:
http://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/1mekb2/cod_gh...


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 4:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Then we will find out in a month. Thank you for at least being objective about it, and not like retro or Reclaimer and immediately assuming performance stats from hardware specs. It's clear neither of them have experience with hardware or graphics.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 1
That's rich, it really is. You haven't established a single thing beyond simple statements while ignoring the big picture, yet I don't know about hardware or graphics?

Are you one of those guys who said an upscaled DVD would look as good as native BluRay? Just curious, it would explain a lot.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Okeedokee. Enjoy your 720p gaming through 2020. Lol


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't plan on buying either console. I'm not defending the position of 720p being a good thing. I'm simply stating that it's far better to allow the developers to have high quality shading at 720p @60hz than force everyone to hit 1080p and run at 30hz or worse. Stop trying to spin my words.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
I get that, but that's what you're saying you're totally missing the point here.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2013 11:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm simply stating that it's far better to allow the developers to have high quality shading at 720p @60hz than force everyone to hit 1080p and run at 30hz or worse.


You accuse me of pulling things out of my ass, yet make this statement.

All I can find is that Sony is "pushing" for 1080p @ 60FPS gaming for the Playstation 4. I can find no evidence that they are "forcing" anything, or their developers won't have the SAME EXACT choices available to Xbox1 devs.


RE: lol
By nikon133 on 10/8/2013 8:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
No they are not.

It was already written that, for example, Dice is targeting 720p for BF4 on next-gen consoles, and looking at same visuals quality (sans resolution), players count and maps size as on high-end PC.

I agree with inighthawki that we cannot guarantee results without actually seeing (and benchmarking) multiplatform games on next gen, but considering that hardware is easy to compare, and very much PC-like, we can make some good educated guesses... like these guys did:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-c...

In addition, I came across an article that ESRAM is pain in the... to utilize. Back in X360/PS3 days, we had situation where X360 had somewhat stronger graphics, while PS3 had potentially more powerful processing, but hard to code for. As a result, most multiplats were initially better looking/faster on X360, and it took a while for PS3 devs to learn tricks of trade and improve multiplats on PS3 relative to X360 versions.

But in this new scenario, it seems that slower hardware is also harder to program for; if this is true, it cannot be good. Yes we still need to see them in real for final judgement, but much as educated guesses go, PS4 looks like much better bet to me.


RE: lol
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/8/2013 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why not simply give the developers the power to create games that play 60fps @ 1080p with full quality? Why tell developers to step their graphics down to 720 if they want 60gfps at the same quality settings?

Developers are already well aware of what capabilities backing off on resolution will give them on mediocre hardware. They have been living with these decisions for decades in the PC world.

All Microsoft is saying here is that their system is not powerful enough to support full quality 1080p gaming at 60fps. That's not news. That is simply what we have all come to expect from this company.


RE: lol
By Mint on 10/7/2013 10:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
You've obviously don't know jack about graphics programming


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
You are missing the point here Mint. Its not that the statement isnt factually correct. If its not fast enough, choosing either or has merit... The issue here is that you shouldnt have to in 2013. Your damn chips should be fast enough.


RE: lol
By BRB29 on 10/8/2013 3:59:40 AM , Rating: 4
I think both consoles are relatively cheap and powerful. You just can't build a computer for $400-500 and get comparable specs.

We've all known that hardware have been "fast enough" for quite some time. Code optimization is what we need more.

I think everyone here is against you and reclaimer because you 2 keep making everything into ps4 vs xb1 fanboy rants.


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By degobah77 on 10/8/2013 11:47:59 AM , Rating: 4
So all you need is a CPU and GPU and you can be a PC gamer?

Damn, I wasted so much money on this motherboard, RAM, PSU, this nice monitor, gaming mouse, keyboard, and the case where all this shit plugs into! All I needed was an 8 year old chip and a budget card!!!!! Put them on a table and GAME!


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2013 6:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well. You knew exactly what I meant.


RE: lol
By troysavary on 10/8/2013 8:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, because exactly what you meant was $200 on a graphics card and $200 on a CPU equals a $400 console. Don't try to backpedal now. Even if you completely cheap out and get a crappy $50 mobo and $50 PSU, you still need $80 for HD, $50 for RAM, $20 for KB, $20 for mouse, $40 for case. You are already over $700 and that is assuming a pirated version of Windows and cheap components. I'll leave out monitor since you need a display for a console too.


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 10/9/2013 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, because exactly what you meant was $200 on a graphics card and $200 on a CPU equals a $400 console. Don't try to backpedal now.


I KNOW what I meant, I wrote the darn thing, you didn't.
You're just playing semantics.


RE: lol
By Mint on 10/9/2013 5:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not missing any point.

You're the one naive enough to think a 41% theoretical advantage (in isolated circumstances) will let the PS4 push 125% more pixels at the same quality.

Back in reality, it is indisputable that regardless of the game, a XBO at 720p can have more effects onscreen than a PS4 at 1080p with the same framerate. The statement you have issue with is 100% true.

Or you can look at it this way: if you make a game with as many effects as XBO can handle at 720p while holding a playable frame rate (be that 60 fps or 30 fps), the PS4 cannot render the same image at 1080p without a big drop in framerate .


RE: lol
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2013 10:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
Your quote against his statement doesn't reveal any info either.

I don't know much about graphics programming. But I do know that more slightly lower clocked graphics cores generally deliver better performance than fewer slightly higher clocked graphics cores. Especially when we're only talking ~7% higher.

So being told that it's better to have less hardware and render at lower resolution with more details is better than having more hardware and render at lower resolution with more details is crap. Both solutions can do both. And in this generation, the hardware is directly comparable. The only thing that will determine performance is the efficiency of the software APIs.

I don't think the Xbox One or the PS4 is going to suck in terms of performance. But Microsoft can't sell me that their distinct disadvantage in graphics hardware won't matter. The PS4 will likely be capable of more details with higher framerates at 1080p. The Xbox One will also be able to do high details at 1080p, but probably lower framerates.


RE: lol
By tallcool1 on 10/8/2013 12:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft's design uses 12 compute units (CUs) versus 18 CUs in the PS4 chip
quote:
we found that going to 14 CUs wasn't as effective as the 6.6 per cent clock upgrade that we did.

Wait, how is this a direct comparision when the article says that the PS4 is using 18 CUs, its not 14 CUs...???


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 9:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing at all idiotic about that statement. It's very straightforward. Instead of requiring developers to render at 1080p, they have relaxed requirements to allow the game devs to decide the pixel quality vs resolution they want. Why is choice suddenly a bad thing? This isn't some word game Microsoft is playing. It's a super straight forward statement.


RE: lol
By TheDoc9 on 10/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:18:26 PM , Rating: 1
Why is choice suddenly a bad thing? Because it should have both. Enjoy your 720p gaming for the next 7 years. ROFL


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant. In this particular case what's done is done. The xbox one is underpowered we know that, and thats not what the comment is about. The context is established, and I'm merely pointing out that it is better than not having a choice.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ok... I thought you were still denying that... sorry.

Given that it is underpowered then choosing 720p and higher quality pixels isnt bad. However, choosing the XBO is. 100 bucks more and less power.

I wont accept 1280 x 720 on a 5 inch phone in 2013, on a gaming system with a 7 year lifespan? absolutely out of the question.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2013 11:26:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why is choice suddenly a bad thing?


Can you believe he even asked that? As if I was attacking the "choice" between low resolution and high....wtf!? Talk about a tangent.

I think anyone with a brain would choose higher resolution. All things being equal. There's no indication that the Xbox will have "higher quality" pixels than the PS4 either. To even suggest that would qualify someone for the looney bin.

Anyone with half a brain can see this is Microsoft marketing the Xbox, not making a technical statement on the state of graphics development.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/7/2013 11:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think anyone with a brain would choose higher resolution.

If you can have same quality and same speed, then yeah duh. But if you know the limitations and are forced to make a tradeoff, then no, not everyone chooses resolution, actually. You would be an absolute fool to believe that.

quote:
All things being equal. There's no indication that the Xbox will have "higher quality" pixels than the PS4 either. To even suggest that would qualify someone for the looney bin.

Who said it would? The statement by Microsoft has nothing to do with PS4, it's centric only to the xbox. They are stating that given the hardware's power, you can either up the resolution and sacrifice pixel quality, or lower the resolution and gain higher quality shaders. There's nothing hard to understand here. Super basic graphics. If you don't understand what they're talking about, then don't act like you do.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 12:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
"They are stating that given the hardware's power, you can either up the resolution and sacrifice pixel quality, or lower the resolution and gain higher quality shaders."

And that is the problem... in order to get decent image quality, they had to lower it to 720p. Ugh.


RE: lol
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 1:03:58 PM , Rating: 1
And this applies to PS4 as well. The PS4 isn't going to be this glory horse you make it out to be.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 12:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my god...

Talking to you is seriously impossible. Are you messing with me, or are you THIS obtuse?

quote:
They are stating that given the hardware's power, you can either up the resolution and sacrifice pixel quality, or lower the resolution and gain higher quality shaders.


IF they didn't skimp so much on the specs, they wouldn't have EVER made this statement!!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!???

quote:
The statement by Microsoft has nothing to do with PS4


This right here is your problem. It has everything to do with the PS4...


RE: lol
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 1:09:49 PM , Rating: 1
If you actually RTFA, and not just that but actually took the time to understand what was said in the article, you'd understand why they chose to engineer it the way they did compared to PS4. BOTH consoles will have their disadvantages at 1080p. BOTH consoles will render at 1080p. but there will be trade-offs with BOTH at 1080p. reality will set in when you see real world benchmarks.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 4:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you bothered to pay attention at all to what is going on here you would see that MS has discovered that the XBO cant handle maintaining playable framerates at full quality 1920x1080 , so they are telling devs to bump it down to 720 if the game cant maintain a playable framerate.

The XBO GPU is quote a bit slower than PS4 and the video RAM is ridiculously slow. They are spinning, plain and simple.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 4:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
I am done arguing with you on this topic. You are more arguing over semantics and dancing around the point than you are making any valid points here.

You tend to do that when MS is the topic for whatever reason.

Enjoy that bag of fun.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 4:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever seen someone type so much and say so little?

Now that he's lost every point, he's saying nobody can make any reasonable inferences into this until they litter ally have both consoles in front of them.

That insults the intelligence of everyone here. And to boot, he claims he's NOT trying to defend MS.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Have you ever seen someone type so much and say so little?"

Technically yes, Tony Swash types more... LOL. But that isn't a complimentary comparison at all.

There is no point arguing it... Like I said below, its like he is walking into the remains of a bombed out building, nitpicking and arguing over who didn't dump the trash.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 5:01:46 PM , Rating: 1
I can literally say the exact same thing to you. If I'm so wrong and losing all the arguments, why are most of your posts downrated, most of mine uprated, and more people are arguing against you than with you?

I think you need to get a grasp on reality.

quote:
And to boot, he claims he's NOT trying to defend MS.

I would make the exact same argument if XBO and PS4 are swapped or anywhere inbetween. It's your own bias in favor of PS4 that makes you infer that my opposition to your claims means I'm defending the other side.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 5:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
huh?

http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=935...

What are you even talking about downrated?


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 5:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Note that my comment was a response to Reclaimer, not you:

http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=248...


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 5:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
Also, click "Next" for page 2 where the other half of your posts in this article are and look at all "1"s


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 5:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
/ facepalm. You are absolutely hopeless


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 5:34:08 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously? I give you direct proof, showing numerous downrated posts for you and Reclaimer, and how I'm "absolutely hopeless"? Are you just ignoring random facts for your own benefit now?


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 5:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Proof of what? That means nothing. Any curse word is an automatic -1 and anyone that doesnt like what you are saying goes down another 1. Your assertion that it means anything is ridiculous. If you were all 5's and I were all negative 1's it would show that most people agree with you, but that isnt remotely the case here. What is wrong with your head to even mention something as trivial as that?

Again, you are walking into a burned out building harping on who didn't empty the trash. You are so off topic and out in the ozone its not even funny.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 6:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
That was a reply in regards to
quote:
huh?

http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=935...

What are you even talking about downrated?

In which I provide you with proof of you being downrated, and then you facepalm and call me hopeless. I fear sometimes you and Reclaimer just take what I say and apply it to a different context. Just because I reply to a post doesn't mean I'm arguing about the "original point" made 5 links down the chain. It's usually in direct response to the post I reply to, hence a "reply"


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 7:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, how old are you? I feel like I am talking to Pirks here. The /facepalm was to you bringing up these stupid ratings in the first place. Its irrelevant, only made funny by the fact that you are point out that I have some ones, when you not only have some ones, but some zero's as well. You make it really hard to not simply insult you. You are acting like a child over this and STILL MISSING THE POINT.

http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=237...


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 7:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes thank you, I got the link the first time you posted it. As it happened when I made my reply I actually didn't have any 1s, so it was a legitimate statement at the time. So congrats, I have some 1s, a couple 0s, you win.

In any case, if you think I'm missing the point then 'okeedokee.' Have fun, you win, I don't feel like arguing anymore, because you've clearly missed my point as well, since it never had anything to do with xbox or ps4, yet it keeps coming up again and again. If you go back through all the top-tier replies, you'll see that every single time it was Reclaimer who time and again jumped off topic and brought up xbox and PS4. I bring up a topic relating exclusively to graphics and 720p vs 1080p, and in jumps someone talking about xbox. You guys all really know how to spin a conversation back on someone, huh?


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 8:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever, the only one spinning this thing was you. it was a very simple and obvious topic,with a simple and obvious conclusion and you successfully took it around the world and back again.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Shhh... BTW, you have some ones yourself there buddy. Not that it matters, but your attempt to derail just got derailed. :P

http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=237...


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 8:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
DT rating system is based on popularity not post content. Its hardly objective.

You even bringing it up is childish.


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 9:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to disagree with you. rating systems on pretty much any website are rarely due to popularity. Sure you get the trolls who are rated down pretty quickly due to how known they are (reader1, Tony Swash) but ultimately people will rate up content they agree with or find funny, and rate down stuff which they believe is either not relevant or not what they agree with. Generally it's a pretty decent indicator of the general consensus, and of all the articles I've read on this site, it is a pretty accurate statement.

I'd bet good money that if there was an article about Windows 8 and Tony Swash made a comment about how the start menu is better than the start screen, it'd get a 5. Why? Because the general consensus is that that is true, and the majority of people agree with it.

The exception being the good point brought up by retro which is getting a 1 because your post contains cursing.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/7/2013 11:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. This is MS spin in high gear, nothing more
The XBO is looking more,and more like a huge blunder with every new announcement,and it looked like a mess from day one.


RE: lol
By half_duplex on 10/8/2013 10:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
This really isn't spin guys, but this is a couple MS engineers turning lemons into lemonade. They're doing the best with what they were handed.

Truth is, they shouldn't have to give developers a choice of resolution or processing. Fact is, this is a gimmick cable interface as someone below stated, gaming comes second.

Now what I don't understand is, how does it cost more than a PS4?!?!?

And don't forget, you're getting Kinect bundled, hope you like it.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 10:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
"This really isn't spin guys, but this is a couple MS engineers turning lemons into lemonade. They're doing the best with what they were handed."

When said publicly, that is pretty much the definition of spin. It could also be called polishing a turd.


RE: lol
By half_duplex on 10/8/2013 10:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
They are really polishing the turd here. I can't even imagine the despair when they learned that the higher ups had decided on a cut rate hardware profile.

And now, trotting them out to describe how they attempted to make up for the hardware shortcomings?? I feel for them.

This would make all the sense in the world if they were telling us how they are able to sell the XBONE at half the price of the PS4... but it's more money.

Weird.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 11:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly... If it were cheaper, or even equal with Kinect I could see it as a good option, but who in their right mind wants to pay more and get less?

With that said, looking at online polls and pre-sales expectation, the PS4 is obviously expected to dramatically outsell the XBO this holiday season. Believe me, the price of the XBO will drop FAST.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 1:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
And yet anyone smart enough to see that is getting voted down. Wtf is going on here? People are seriously making these stupid convoluted arguments why a next gen console that's more expensive should ever have a problem rendering at 1080p.


RE: lol
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 1:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the article does it say it has a problem rendering at 1080p??


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 3:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously?


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2013 3:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Its official, we've crossed over into the Twilight Zone...


RE: lol
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 3:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, seriously.. Where in the article does it say it has trouble rendering at 1080p?


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/2013 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 1
Are you being purposefully dense right now to try and prove a point, or are you really that dense?


RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 4:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you? He asked a question and you've dodged an answer twice. I would like to see you quote it as well, because that statement isn't made in the article at all.

Maybe instead of insults and calling him dense, you can take 10 seconds to quote it for him. Is that really so hard?


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By inighthawki on 10/8/2013 4:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
But in order to say "it has trouble at 1080p" requires you to define the quality standard. A 10 year old low end intel integrated chip can run at 1080p if all it does is render an unlit colored cube on the screen. Obviously there will be a point in which the console will have to downgrade the resolution to 720p to achieve the visual fidelity of what the developers wish to show off, but this is true for EVERY device. It's not exclusive to the XBO. The PS4 has its limits, and so does a GTX Titan and AMD's new 290X. You are targeting Microsoft solely because they actually made a statement. Games on PS4 will hit the exact same boundary, just maybe at a different point. PCs are already capable of much higher quality rendering than what consoles can do, so even before release the PS4 and XBO are both slow by the standard.

I've been trying to explain this but you and Reclaimer can't seem to realize this. You cannot make a fair comparison until you actually have numbers, because specs mean sh*t. Yes obviously the PS4 has better hardware. We all already know that. We know the it will (99.99% certainly) achieve better performance at the same settings. But hardware does funny things, and software influences a lot. The difference could actually end up negligible in many games, or it could end up being an order of magnitude difference. Depending on the amount of time spent optimizing, and the developers' priorities, it's not impossible that the xbox version could outperform the PS4 version some of the times.


RE: lol
By retrospooty on 10/8/13, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By schnazzer on 10/8/2013 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this whole argument is you have no real point. Until the hardware is released, your "Speculation" is just that.


RE: lol
By wallijonn on 10/8/2013 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of requiring developers to render at 1080p, they have relaxed requirements to allow the game devs to decide the pixel quality vs resolution they want.


The developers already had that right.

What we have to worry about are developers that will only programme to 720p then upscale for the PS4. They will likely take the easier path to riches. Sony Studios will probably continue to explore the limits of their hardware, though.

But strictly as a matter of 720p vs 1080p, since last gen's consoles did that anyway why bother buying a new-gen console? "If" developers continue to produce the same game for the XBox360, then why buy the XB1?; if developers produce the same game for the PS3, why buy the PS4? Developers will produce for whichever platform, whichever console, whichever generation, will guarantee a profit. To that end both MS and Sony will likely "kick back" "incentives" so that the developer will only publish the last gen games. Payola.


RE: lol
By inperfectdarkness on 10/8/2013 3:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
Translation:

"After our deluge of marketing convinced our own "fanboiis" to trash the Wii/Wii-U because of it's "specs"...we're now going to underhandedly downgrade the performance on the new Xbox and hope you don't notice."


RE: lol
By wallijonn on 10/8/2013 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lower resolution generally means that there can be more quality per pixel. With a high-quality scaler and antialiasing and render resolutions such as 720p or '900p'..."


When a PS3 game came out at 720p and the identical game came out at 1080i or 1080p on the XBox360, I bought the XB360 game. I'm sure there were plenty of other people that did the same. This gen's XBoxOne is last gen's PS3 in that respect.

While "there can be more quality per pixel," chances are there won't be because the developer won't want to bother.


RE: lol
By Argon18 on 10/8/13, Rating: 0
"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki