tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
and all we hear from Microsoft is the sound of one hand clapping............
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xboxone Resolutiongate (Eurogamer)
- Thread starter madmackem
- Start date
SEGAvangelist
Member
Agreed. This is good and fair journalism here.
I don't think so. The hardware scaler is mentioned all the time with Xbox One. I can't find any info about a hardware scaler for PS4.
Haha - subtle.
Edit:
They are essentially the same - Sony reps have mentioned it before, but it doesn't get headlined as much because it probably won't be needed as much at launch.
Shu said it has a hardware scaler on ps4, the scaler in both is the gpu is it not?.
RedAssedApe
Banned
What a surprise. Contradicts DF screenshots.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
There is no secret sauce. There never was and they'll never will be. MS have simply, wilfully gimped the GPU on Xbox One and they will pay for that mistake for a whole generations. That is all.
PS4 has a hardware scaler. It's just not mentioned as often as XB1's because....well....you know.
anexanhume
Member
As coldfoot pointed out in the COD thread, they're essentially the same. Also, www.vgleaks.com/orbis-displayscanout-engine-dce/‎
Zombie James
Banned
Are they going to re-do the botched BF4 face-off?
If you're using DF to compare BF4, I feel sorrg for you.
Or maybe I'm reading your post wrong?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Both have the same scaler as part of the GPU. Don't be fooled.
It would still be a hardware scaler. But it's part of the AMD GPU. They should Theoretically be using the same thing. That's what it looks like from the specs breakdowns and diagrams.
Suzushiiro
Banned
Keep in mind that they didn't think Sony was going to match them on RAM amount and beat them on RAM speed- they thought Sony would do 4GB GDDR5 or maybe 8GB DDR3+ESRAM like they did (Cerny even considered that option, IIRC.) In either of those cases, 8GB DDR3+32MB ESRAM doesn't look bad in comparison, and a dev could suck at using the ESRAM and their game would still probably look good compared to a PS4 version.
It's just another way in which Sony managed to take MS by surprise this year.
It all makes sense now
dragonbane
Member
Leadbetter on his way to redemption. Very nice. The actual reality of things is just impossible to ignore anymore.
famousmortimer
Banned
Answer 1.5 = The devs kits were given out later and the tools have been shitty so there will be improvement for the Xbox One in the coming months/year. But parity... no.
The gap should get smaller, but they'll never achieve parity.
@yosp confirmed it's a hardware scalar. Chances are it's the same AMD one. The texture difference may just be FXAA.
They could have used eDRAM but they didn't because of cost.
Hmm not sure about that. Many developers haven't gotten much of a grasp on GPU compute for PS4.
Good article. I never understood the DF hate here. Leadbetter is a good writer, the articles are always fun to read.
What I liked was the reasoning that MS choose the ESRAM solution, because EDRAM worked so well for them in this generation. To expand on that seems to be a logical step.
It has been discussed here, why MS chose this apporach. Some say, the Mediabox was there first, so they had to go with with 8GB. ESRAM was the remedey to the bandwith problems. Some informed insiders from B3D claimed the ESRAM solution was there from the start.
MS did probably just try to build on their solution. Sony had to start from scratch. The fact that Cerny started right after the PS3 launch with the PS4 project is admission of the fact that their hardware design approach from EE to CELL was a failure. From a design perspective, even if it worked out will on the PS2 afterall.
Sony could start open minded, as they had nothing to build on. MS were trapped in their own success and just took the next step that seemed naturally for them. .
What I liked was the reasoning that MS choose the ESRAM solution, because EDRAM worked so well for them in this generation. To expand on that seems to be a logical step.
It has been discussed here, why MS chose this apporach. Some say, the Mediabox was there first, so they had to go with with 8GB. ESRAM was the remedey to the bandwith problems. Some informed insiders from B3D claimed the ESRAM solution was there from the start.
MS did probably just try to build on their solution. Sony had to start from scratch. The fact that Cerny started right after the PS3 launch with the PS4 project is admission of the fact that their hardware design approach from EE to CELL was a failure. From a design perspective, even if it worked out will on the PS2 afterall.
Sony could start open minded, as they had nothing to build on. MS were trapped in their own success and just took the next step that seemed naturally for them. .
Doubt it. With more intense graphical features being pushed as the gen wares on, the PS4's performance, ram bandwidth and compute advantages will just be more and more apparent. The performance hit ceiling will always remain higher on the PS4 compared to the Xbox One, it's just that ceiling is going to keep changing to be more disadvantageous to the XO, despite optimisations.
semiconscious
Member
but how long, exactly, was the 'long held status quo'? a single generation?...
i think there's more to the floundering than 'status quo'. as has been mentioned by others, there's more a (sometimes desperate) attempt to create 'parity' going on, & that could be owing to several things...
whatever the case, as far as floundering goes, ms' multiple 180s, & its sad excuse for pr, haven't really been helping a whole lot...
It could be the fact that he has spread misinformation in his articles like the PS4 has no hardware scaler and uses software even though the PS4 and XBO basically have the same scaler built in to the GPU. That sort of stuff is inexcusable for professionals who's entire job is to analyze hardware and games.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Ah. Got it. So the main difference with scaling options has to do with the 3 display planes compared to 2. I understand Xbox One uses the three for Snap, HUD, and 3d rendered image all running at variable frame rates. Since the PS4 has 2, does that mean the HUD and 3d image will be scaled together if running lower than 1080p (unless some sort of software solution is used)? I assume the other display plane for PS4 is used for the OS menu stuff.
Score one for TechGAF. Seems the discussion about framebuffers not fitting into the 32MB pool of ESRAM were spot-on. Gonna be... Interesting... to see if devs try to wiggle around this, or if 720p just becomes the default resolution for multiplats over time.
There'll never be proper parity. The hardware disparity in itself can never be closed. The only thing MS can do at this point is fix up their SDK tools to try and lessen the gap, and that all assumes that devs aren't also getting more familiar with the PS4 at the same time, nor does it delve into what might happen when GPGPU starts being implemented on a wide scale and things like HUMA comes into play for the PS4.
therideneverends.jpg
The gap on multiplatform games, that is. And Xbone can do GPU compute too, even if it's not as proficient as the PS4. First-party development is a different issue, of course.
The gap should get smaller as tools improve and ways to better use the eSRAM are developed. Think of it in terms of PS3 and 360; the gap got smaller over time because utilisation of the Cell improved and so did ways of mitigating the RAM setup. 360 improved too, of course, but the PS3 improved more because it started lower and reached the same end point as 360.
Of course the difference is that the peak of the Xbone is lower so they'll never reach parity. Even Xbone firing on all cylinders will never reach PS4. But you only have to look at COD:G at 720p and Ryse at 900p to see that COD is not Xbone firing on all cylinders.
[edit] This not being the case is possible but it would be the exact opposite of console generations to date, where the most difficult-to-use system shows the biggest gains over the course of the generation. PS2 and PS3 both had the biggest differences between launch and final software.
I'm in the "gap will get smaller camp". Visuals will continue to improve on both systems, and PS4 will always have the edge (or at best parity for things like XBLA/PSN games), but I think XBO is off to a rougher start with poor/late dev tools and more confusing ESRAM architecture. I think within 6-12 months we will either have equal resolutions with more features on PS4, or the same features with 1080v900.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Considering the development tools for XB1 are behind, you would assume the gap would close a bit then stay the same as both consoles progress together. I'd imagine we'll see more 900p to 1080p compared to the current 720p to 1080p as developers learn to deal with the ESRAM issue.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The big difference with the PS3/360 vs PS4/Xbone performance disparity is that PS3's split memory pool was as big a problem as anything else when it came to multi-plats.
By limiting the gpu to half the available pool there would be more than fillrate concerns to drag things back. That these early titles are showing even wider differences should be very worrying because on the face of it, Xbone isn't nearly as badly starved for Vram as PS3 was.
By limiting the gpu to half the available pool there would be more than fillrate concerns to drag things back. That these early titles are showing even wider differences should be very worrying because on the face of it, Xbone isn't nearly as badly starved for Vram as PS3 was.
Dragon Carr
Neo Member
If this ends up being the case, would it be worth it to get an Xbox Live subscription? Maybe get one month subscriptions for when a new Halo or other MP game comes out?
This is a very different scenario than on PS3, where as a gamer on the "other" system you could still do multiplayer with whoever else was on there.
RedAssedApe
Banned
Post was regarding how the DF article stated that the Xbox version looked crisper. Seems to contradict each other. I know the DF article is bunk.
NoirVisage
Banned
I have a feeling he was planning to use DF's..so yeah.
PS4 wouldn't need any for the OS menu stuff since all of that is 1080p. The two planes are probably HUD and render.
Having been in the tech field myself. I agree. No excuse for the consistency in errors made by DF.
And yes, an interesting read. Him pointing out the idea of games baing the determining factor, as said by MS, and then moving on to what that means in practice is interesting. It will be a couple of very interesting months ahead from now.
Sleeplessnights
Banned
Does the PS4 actually have a hardware scaler?
According to @yosp yes it does.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
While reading this thread, I can't help but wonder how much games like Infamous and now Driveclub have changed since being delayed. People can talk about gaps or whatever they want but it wasn't until earlier this year that PS4 devs even knew the system had more than 4GB of RAM to work with.
Yes - there was a great post on it the COD thread I'll try and find...
SEGAvangelist
Member
BF4 is 900p though. Are we guessing the HUD and OS menu stuff would be on the same plane then?
Good for you, that you have low standards.
Are you fucking joking? You think they ripped it out of the GPU?
Considering how deferred rendering and esram get along together I expect most games with it will run at 720p. What I find more surprising is that the PS4 version runs at 900p. My guess is that they had to spend so much time getting the XBO version up and running that the PS4 is a quick port that works good enough. Congrats DICE on having the only 900p game on PS4 this fall.