TR Forums

blahsaysblah wrote:

The Xbox One( and S) are a physically different architecture that developers need to specifically optimize for to take advantage of. The XBox X uses similar architecture as PS4/PS4 Pro.

The issue isnt which arch is better. Its the fact that Sony made the PS4 Pro a superset of PS4. For any multi-player game, devs can without any effort have everyone on the same exact performance profile/footing.

Literally nothing you've said about the X1X makes any sense. Xbox One X is also a superset of Xbox One, otherwise they'd have called it something else entirely. The one difference in its memory architecture is easily made up for by the fact that they're using 12 channel RAM now and don't need it anymore.

They don't have any need to turn it into an X1 or X1S, it can just do what it's been asked to and nothing more. The original Xbox One games have a resolution and framerate target already set and the X1X won't change that (except where the developer updates their game to support it.) It will be capable of doing said operations more smoothly, but they'll largely look the same.

I really have no idea what you've been reading (or if you're just making **** up.)

LostCat wrote:

blahsaysblah wrote:

The Xbox One( and S) are a physically different architecture that developers need to specifically optimize for to take advantage of. The XBox X uses similar architecture as PS4/PS4 Pro.

They don't have any need to turn it into an X1 or X1S, it can just do what it's been asked to and nothing more. The original Xbox One games have a resolution and framerate target already set and the X1X won't change that (except where the developer updates their game to support it.) It will be capable of doing said operations more smoothly, but they'll largely look the same.

I really have no idea what you've been reading (or if you're just making **** up.)

The Xbox One has some extra fast embedded RAM just like the 360 did. The Xbox One X and PS4s do not have this.

MileageMayVary wrote:

The Xbox One has some extra fast embedded RAM just like the 360 did. The Xbox One X and PS4s do not have this.

Yeah, removing that RAM is seen as a positive since it made it harder to optimize performance or something. I think the XBOX uses GDDR5 instead of DDR3 like the XBone

It's just a fact that they are different designs.

Dont get so upset, the baggage that S bring to X is only for the subset of PvP FPS games. Single/co-op wont care. Even non-FPS PvP wont care.

MileageMayVary wrote:

The Xbox One has some extra fast embedded RAM just like the 360 did. The Xbox One X and PS4s do not have this.

That doesn't make it an entirely different architecture. That just means a different memory controller. The guts of the machine elsewise are practically the same, save for an improved GPU.

They don't have to do anything differently. There's no emulation of the Xbox One architecture because it is the Xbox One architecture.

It isn't just a cache and it is actually a thing that game devs need to pay serious attention to on the X1. Since the X1X uses the same setup as everything except the X1, though, I doubt this change will be a problem of any note. Some X1 exclusives may not get as much of a boost from the X1X as they might, but that's about it.

Sony's solution is more elegant, cheaper to build, and solves some potential edge-case problems that Microsoft's doesn't. Microsoft's is perfectly valid, and having that much power makes things easier for devs in entirely different ways.

synthtel2 wrote:

It isn't just a cache and it is actually a thing that game devs need to pay serious attention to on the X1. Since the X1X uses the same setup as everything except the X1, though, I doubt this change will be a problem of any note. Some X1 exclusives may not get as much of a boost from the X1X as they might, but that's about it.

Sony's solution is more elegant, cheaper to build, and solves some potential edge-case problems that Microsoft's doesn't. Microsoft's is perfectly valid, and having that much power makes things easier for devs in entirely different ways.

I'm fairly sure devs don't even have access to it. The GPU is the only thing that used it, and the massive increase in memory bandwidth elsewise covers it.

At any rate
https://www.neowin.net/news/xbox-one-x- ... s-possible
sold out in 35 minutes on Amazon and they expected it all to last a week haha

got mine on Amazon =)

(I'm also told it outsold the PS4 Pros entire year so far on Amazon in the US and UK.)

Just Google "Xbox One ESRAM". You see things like devs not being able to push resolution beyond a certain point because if they did, the stuff they need to fit in ESRAM couldn't anymore.

The increase in memory bandwidth is appropriately massive at first glance, but they're trying to push 4x the pixels in many games (7??p -> 4K checkboarded), and with heavy use of all vanilla X1 RAM channels the net bandwidth increase might not even hit 2x. It's easier than the situation on the PS4 Pro, but it isn't necessarily trivial.

synthtel2 wrote:

Just Google "Xbox One ESRAM". You see things like devs not being able to push resolution beyond a certain point because if they did, the stuff they need to fit in ESRAM couldn't anymore.

The increase in memory bandwidth is appropriately massive at first glance, but they're trying to push 4x the pixels in many games (7??p -> 4K checkboarded), and with heavy use of all vanilla X1 RAM channels the net bandwidth increase might not even hit 2x. It's easier than the situation on the PS4 Pro, but it isn't necessarily trivial.

There are only a few games I've had performance problems with on the X1. And only a few I've noticed severe graphical deficiencies. A lot of those will have X1X versions, not necessarily the performance ones and I'll have to see how that goes but if we're still talking about Xbox One only games they'll be the exact same resolution on the new box, just upscaled to 4K like on the X1S.

So it won't really be pushing any more pixels than it did before.

I'm certainly not expecting 4K60 on every game. Personally I like 1440p60 and up. Too bad this box probably won't support 1440p heh. - ( only feature list I know of https://www.windowscentral.com/all-xbox ... nced-games )

The PS4 Pros' biggest weakness is barely any more RAM than the normal box. Sure it has more power overall than the PS4, but it certainly can't bring much in for higher quality textures or anything.

ooh - list 2 has a bit more detail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X ... nced_games

LostCat wrote:

There are only a few games I've had performance problems with on the X1. And only a few I've noticed severe graphical deficiencies.

I didn't say it had performance or graphical issues for end users. As far as end users are concerned, IMHO the ESRAM is a win - it delivers performance as good as the PS4's memory system in many cases for probably substantially less money, and isn't enough bother for devs to change the balance of exclusive games. All I'm trying to say is that it isn't an invisible part of the architecture and can't be hand-waved away if you care about game performance.

LostCat wrote:

A lot of those will have X1X versions, not necessarily the performance ones and I'll have to see how that goes but if we're still talking about Xbox One only games they'll be the exact same resolution on the new box, just upscaled to 4K like on the X1S.

So it won't really be pushing any more pixels than it did before.

I was mainly talking about ease of porting to the X1X and reaching 4K targets, not games without an X1X variant. If it were as easy as upping the render resolution on X1X and rebuilding, who wouldn't do it? Of course in the real world it's never that simple, but every extra speed bump like this memory architecture difference means a couple more games won't get an X1X variant (or will get a less-than-ideal one).

LostCat wrote:

The PS4 Pros' biggest weakness is barely any more RAM than the normal box. Sure it has more power overall than the PS4, but it certainly can't bring much in for higher quality textures or anything.

That depends on what graphical problems you find most bothersome, but when I see surfaces with insufficient clarity in modern games, raw texture resolution rarely looks to be at fault.

synthtel2 wrote:

That depends on what graphical problems you find most bothersome, but when I see surfaces with insufficient clarity in modern games, raw texture resolution rarely looks to be at fault.

I was talking about as a 4K device though. True to a point, but the PS4 games I played looked pretty good but not really super impressive.

It does the job as a better PS4, but it seemed pretty much on the low end of evolutionary changes.

Going by a sampling of PS4 Pro 4K screenshots, textures that could use an extra mip or two happen occasionally, but most of what I see is still shading/TAA weirdness, insufficient aniso filtering, or inherent to checkerboarding. The X1X should be able to run 16x AF everywhere at least and can probably manage non-checkerboarded 4K on more games, but that's all down to shader power and memory bandwidth.

My favorite part of it is the 'Do you want better quality or better resolution' options haha. Err...yes, I want both.

This is gonna be a long 2.5 months but oh well

If it were as easy as upping the render resolution on X1X and rebuilding, who wouldn't do it?

numerous developers have said it's taken less than two days to get their xbone game running at 4k, and some have said as little as 4 hours. there is a reason that so many xbone developers are doing xbone x versions of existing games. it's easier than the ps4. The development tools on the xbox seem to be generally better than the ps4, and numerous developers have publicly stated the xbox x has the best development tools and ease of port ever. i've already posted a list of comments where actual game developers have basically contradicted the view that it's harder than the ps4/ps4 pro.

It better be typically easier than for the PS4 Pro with that much more power, and I never said otherwise. Also, I'm mostly talking about potential edge-case problems here, not typical ones.

S << PS4 <<<< PS4 Pro <<< X
S <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< X
PS4 <<<< PS4 Pro

Its not the X that is the issue, its the estimated 30 million One/S. Will MS or studios really ensure they get good quality(its physically different architecture, unlike PS4 Pro being simple, just use more GPU CUs)? Will studios really degrade the experience on X to match an One/S for multi-player?

There is a reason the PS4 Pro isnt a next gen console, compared to how the X is relative to the Xbox One. They want the humongous pool of PS4 players to play with PS4 Pro. Wasn't a top down decision on the hardware target for PS4 Pro, actual architects reasoned why its a bad idea to make it too large a jump.

Just saying this to have eyes open before you jump into an X. There is a lot of PR out there and like the Steam Hardware Survey shows reality,:Pascal 17% to Polaris a generous 2%; for all you read everywhere, you'd think they were neck in neck.

blahsaysblah wrote:

S << PS4 <<<< PS4 Pro <<< X
S <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< X
PS4 <<<< PS4 Pro

Its not the X that is the issue, its the estimated 30 million One/S. Will MS or studios really ensure they get good quality(its physically different architecture, unlike PS4 Pro being simple, just use more GPU CUs)? Will studios really degrade the experience on X to match an One/S for multi-player?

There is a reason the PS4 Pro isnt a next gen console, compared to how the X is relative to the Xbox One. They want the humongous pool of PS4 players to play with PS4 Pro. Wasn't a top down decision on the hardware target for PS4 Pro, actual architects reasoned why its a bad idea to make it too large a jump.

Just saying this to have eyes open before you jump into an X. There is a lot of PR out there and like the Steam Hardware Survey shows reality,:Pascal 17% to Polaris a generous 2%; for all you read everywhere, you'd think they were neck in neck.

Gosh, actual architects. If only they had some engineers.

Architecture >>> engineering every time IMHO. It'll take all the engineering talent in the world to save you if you're trying to solve the wrong problem or trying to work within a nonsensical framework. That said, I don't think any of these consoles are badly architected.

X1S < PS4 <<<<< PS4Pro << X1X is a fairly accurate representation of shader power if each < represents a compounding 20% increase (not even accounting for FP16, which isn't much for current ports but won't be trivial in the long run). The gen8(non-.5) boxes are much less bandwidth-constrained and rasterization power serves to space them all out a touch more evenly, but the gen8 vs gen8.5 difference is still massive compared to the gaps within each group.

synthtel2 wrote:

Architecture >>> engineering every time IMHO. It'll take all the engineering talent in the world to save you if you're trying to solve the wrong problem or trying to work within a nonsensical framework. That said, I don't think any of these consoles are badly architected.

When you're talking about hardware, the 'platform architects' are engineers. I was joking about the word usage is all.

The fanboyism is amusing though, I hadn't seen that since the original x1/ps4 launch. I'm sure that Mark Cernys stupid butterfly analogies magically make the Pro a better console

LostCat wrote:

The fanboyism is amusing though, I hadn't seen that since the original x1/ps4 launch. I'm sure that Mark Cernys stupid butterfly analogies magically make the Pro a better console

Joking aside, how do you think they're going to manage the performance gap in multiplayer games? That's a large performance delta for trying to keep everyone on equal-ish footing while still keeping the XBX buyers satisfied in their purchase. We don't see XBO - X360 cross play despite having some overlap in games. That's a much larger gap, but it's just the same problem to a greater degree.


Edit: fixed quote bracketing.

Licensing requirements for xbox require support on xbone and xbox x. They've stated that for the foreseeable future all games on "xbox" platform must work on "xbox's."

as for the << we're using, the xbox x is literally 50% faster than the ps4 pro.

To be clear regarding "fanboyism" i don't like xboxs or playstations or switches, and wouldn't buy an xbox x or a ps4 pro. I would barely consider a 1080 to be finally adequate for 1080p gaming, never mind the gpu in a xbox x.

sweatshopking wrote:

To be clear regarding "fanboyism" i don't like xboxs or playstations or switches, and wouldn't buy an xbox x or a ps4 pro. I would barely consider a 1080 to be finally adequate for 1080p gaming, never mind the gpu in a xbox x.

...there was only one person in this topic I was speaking of, though I've learned people tend to get insulted easily on the internets.

Though I do say that's insane. Even my 660 was good for 1080p (well, at the time. Not now.) Are you talking about high refresh rates? I haven't even tried to get in on that yet.

I'll probably try it once HDMI 2.1 comes around. Probably. I've already spent an insane amount on tech this year that should hopefully last me longer than usual.

sweatshopking wrote:

Licensing requirements for xbox require support on xbone and xbox x. They've stated that for the foreseeable future all games on "xbox" platform must work on "xbox's."

Yes, games must be compatible with the original XBO and can't be exclusive XBX, but if that was for my benefit, it doesn't address my question on how will they handle it.

How do you keep players on such drastically different boxes satisfied in the same online game?

LostCat wrote:

The fanboyism is amusing though, I hadn't seen that since the original x1/ps4 launch. I'm sure that Mark Cernys stupid butterfly analogies magically make the Pro a better console

It seems even more heated than the original gen8 launch, oddly enough.

sweatshopking wrote:

as for the << we're using, the xbox x is literally 50% faster than the ps4 pro.

<< as used previously means +44%, and 6 over 4.2 is +43%. It's +50% at memory bandwidth, +29% at rasterization, and nothing close at CPU. So no, not quite literally.

Sorry, the reason I posted in this thread in the first place was only one step above pedantry, and I'll try to cut it out now.

CuttinHobo wrote:

How do you keep players on such drastically different boxes satisfied in the same online game?

Is resolution alone that big a deal? I can see not bumping a 30 fps game to 60 when outputting 1080p, but settings differences can adjust balance either direction, and IME resolution is only a big deal in games like Planetside where I want to be able to tell what bad guys are doing at long range and may not have a decent scope handy. Few games have that issue, and many of those could fix it with minor tweaks.

Even if all devs do is disable 60 fps in multiplayer when appropriate, the competitive advantage granted by owning an X1X will be nothing compared to the competitive advantage of owning a good PC. X1S on a good internet connection will still be much better than X1X on a lowest-quartile connection, for another angle.

LostCat wrote:

Gosh, actual architects. If only they had some engineers.

Le sigh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CuttinHobo wrote:

Joking aside, how do you think they're going to manage the performance gap in multiplayer games? That's a large performance delta for trying to keep everyone on equal-ish footing while still keeping the XBX buyers satisfied in their purchase. We don't see XBO - X360 cross play despite having some overlap in games. That's a much larger gap, but it's just the same problem to a greater degree.

Depends on the dev. Destiny 2 will be keeping 30FPS between boxes, but Titanfall 2 is 60 doing the best res and features it can on any of them.

I don't think Destiny had any ps4 pro enhancements, so I'm not expecting much with Destiny 2 unless 3 takes longer than they expect it to ala Rise of Iron cutting off the 360/ps3 versions...though, with both consoles having an enhanced version possibly they might've changed tactics there. Don't know.

I think I already saw some games say 60fps single player and 30 multiplayer for that reason.

I really doubt any of them will keep seperate playerbases in the next three years, but we'll have to see.

I'm too busy playing on this thing to talk about it much. It's fantastic in nearly every way.

The only real disappointment I've come across is not really a surprise, some of the older games that looked weird on X1 (like The Crew) don't look much better. I haven't compared it side by side or anything, it just still looks off.

Still waiting on more X1X Enhanced games (several more supposedly coming this week) but as for the overall experience I love this box.

enjoy whatever the hell yer doin =)

LostCat wrote:

I'm too busy playing on this thing to talk about it much. It's fantastic in nearly every way.

I have to agree with you. I have a 4K HDR TV and the couple X1X enhanced games that I have, Shadow of War, Diablo 3, and Killer Instinct look amazing. It even looked a lot better on my friends 1080P TV. Worth every penny in my opinion.

The amusing part is I love this machine so much my gaming PC decided to die on me! hah

I'm sure that's totally related.

Can't wait for Divisions X1X patch. That game looked OK on X1 and better on X1X but it's still pretty weak compared with the PC ver obviously.