adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Is this what so many users in this topic are making a fuss over, that he shouldn't have said that ?
Come on lol.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Heard that Xbox Series S Is A "Pain" For Developers Due To Memory Issues
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Opinion Hardware
- Status
Is this what so many users in this topic are making a fuss over, that he shouldn't have said that ?
Come on lol.
Riky
$MSFT
Never said anything about flicking a switch, strawman.Just flick a few switches in the editor and voilà right? No, hence why for a fixed box console having a single unified HW would have been best for all (cut the disc, cut the SSD size in half and use the memory card profits to subsidise some of the cost too, etc… and a company like MS could have driven the price down to $349-399… but no, this is better <insert keywords>).
Your method would lose more money which is still happening to Sony with the digital console and not create the product differentiation of some £200 here in the UK. If people claim £200 isn't much then £50 is even more pointless.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
$499 —> $399 is far from pointless, but let’s keep changing currency
. I do not think the method would lose MS much money overall (they can use the margins of their external memory cards to subsidise it right? Also trying to cover $100 with removing the UHD Blu-Ray and cutting SSD storage in half to cover costs) , but was not your point about MS infinite wallet and XSS being about best user value everything else be darned?
Riky
$MSFT
$499 —> $399 is far from pointless, but let’s keep changing currency
I didn't say infinite wallet, also I'm changing currency I'm English
unless you know the BOM for the consoles you have no idea how much money they would or wouldn't lose.Also with your plan there would be LESS consoles available to people now, so you would be screwing gamers again in the pandemic, more smaller chips per wafer means more consoles.
If they had an infinite wallet, they would make the price negative and pay people to use the console. Clearly there is some amount they are prepared to lose per unit sold. For any extra loss they could incur to make a DE viable, they could also use that money to decrease the price of S. So I don't think this reasoning works.$499 —> $399 is far from pointless, but let’s keep changing currency
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Great Post, thanks for the info. Deffo seems to be somewhat of a pain. Not too great for devs to have to do the extra work. I hope MS assist them with tools and any help they may need to make this easier.its not about being slow, its about the amount itself
series x / ps5 has 10 gb allocated for gpu operations (most likely, typical) and 3.5 gb for cpu operations (sounds, physics and such). sx has a clear cut line between gpu and cpu operations, 10 gb @560 gb/s and 3.5 gb @336 gb/s (and an extra 2.5 gb for the system). towards the end of the generation, i expect the allocated RAM to increase to 4 GB and system for 2 GB with extra optimizations. so its 10 gb vram+3.5/4 gb ram config on SX and PS5, most likely
for series s, stuff is not good. 2 GB 56 gb/s goes directly to system (its too slow anyway, useless for both gpu and cpu operations). so they have one unified 224 gb/s 8 gb for cpu+gpu operations. amount of RAM is not easily scalable with resolution. we're talking about stuff like sound, physics et. Series S will have to at least allocated 3-3.5 GB of RAM for CPU operations. Then we have 4.5-5 GB VRAM for GPU operations, which is nearly the half amount what Series X/PS5 can allocate
and here is the part where problems starts, for example in rdr 2, you can run intended game textures with 4 GB @4K. But you cannot run the intended game textures with a 2 GB card even if you run the game at 360p (literally). the game needs a minimum of 3 GBs of buffer regardless of resolution for its intended textures. anything between does not work either.
in other terms, let me create an example so you understand;
ps4 / xbox one had 8 gb ram, which 3.5/4 GB they could allocate to their games for GPU operations and 2.5-3 GB for CPU operations.
say there was an additional console named ps3.5 and xbox half xd. say these consoles have a total of 5 GB RAM compared to ps4's 8 GB RAM.
now, this 5 gb console would need to at least allocate 1-1.5 GB to system. say they cut intricate corners and managed to fit CPU operations into 2 GBs of buffer. That lefts us with 2 GB of VRAM that GPU can use for its own operations.
Lets see how RDR 2 looks on 2 GB buffer ;
now back to the topic, if such a theroticail ps3.5 did exist, the low textures would not look like that. instead, rockstar would have to create a set of 2 GB compliant textures that looked decent. that's the "pain" part. series s will practically force developers to create an alternative set of textures specifically tailored for series s. they call it a pain because most of devs think the gains won't justify the costs and i totally agree with them. thats another topic of course.
as i said, some people in this thread are delusional and keep talking about "devs have to care for min spec and thats lower than series s". above picture is a proof that devs dont care about min spec either. do you really think rockstar gave any kind of care for 2 GB min spec gpus? those textures look okay to you? they just butchered their original textures probably with a generalized algorythm that created what we call "low" textures in mere hours and called it a day.
they cant do that for series s. if a ps3.5 existed, they couldn't do that for that console either. they would have to make "extra" effort to make the game look good in terms of textures on that potential ps3.5 with 2 GBs of budget for GPU operations.
all of this talk is relevant for series s. textures intended for a 10 GB buffer won't be easily turned down to 5 GBs just by reducing resolution alone. they would have to look like how RDR 2's low textures look like on 2 GB GPUs compared to 4 GB GPus if they only used a "flick of a switch". if they make extra effort, they will look okay (the pain part)
yamaci17
Member
well, although it can be a pain or not (i have no idea), it will actually be beneficial for 4 gb/6 gb gpus on desktop space
these people will be able to play with decent looking textures throughout the entire generation, unlike the last generation where 2 GB GPU owners were left to rot and forced to upgrade so that their games did not look like a ps2.5 game
i had a 2 gb gpu and it couldn't even run medium textures back then. all i had was the low setting option. whereas my friend with a 3 gb 1060 run the ultra textures just fine. it really hurt me, knowing that it would actually be possible to present decent looking textures that also fits into a 2 gb budget with appopriate techniques and methods. just 1 gb being shy, made the textures look like this;
are there exceptions? sure. are there PC ports that actually have decent textures for 2 GB GPUs? definitely
this game also looks fantastic with 2 gb buffers
but these are very "rare" exceptions, sadly. most 3rd party games looked like ac origins / rdr 2 on low textures.
thats why im actually happy that series s is the way it is XD i dont know how much of a "pain" it is, but it is clear that some devs can pull it off. you won't hear such complaints from forza or fromsoftware developers, their games always scaled well into the low end
those who complain about RAM and power are the ones that makes games that fails to scale with lower end hardware. that's why they keep voicing concerns, because they never bothered for "min spec pc" to begin with, as you can see with ac origins and rdr 2 examples. maybe it has something to do with the way their engines handle textures and LODs. some games are good, some games are bad. now all games must be somewhat good
and that's a good thing.would I still wish series s to had more VRAM? definetely. a total of 12 GB would be great, at least.
am I happy that series s's existence will provide a healthier aging for most low-mid range GPUs? yes
Last edited:
dcmk7
Banned
Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.
In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.
FlyyGOD
Member
MS sure is suffering for it with higher sales and market share gains.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Which has always been crazy being 3x weaker.
Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.
In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.
nominedomine
Banned
Missed on both by a good margin. He and MS's marketing team were either clueless or just trying to deceive people.
Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.
In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.
His claims also seem to assume everything would be running at 4K on the Series X. I think it's pretty likely MS expected another Xbox One X situation (where the extra power compared to PS would be used for higher resolutions).
Last edited:
Hoddi
Member
I would suggest trying out Doom Eternal. Most games still rely on preloaded texture data while DE is more modern in that it doesn't have any texture quality setting. It rather has a texture pool size where the difference between high and low saves 3GB of VRAM and instead relies on the disk to keep the smaller pool fed. There's otherwise no difference in texture quality (that I've noticed) but I saw a roughly 50% increase in disk reads when I tested it.
Disabling RT and lowering resolution to 1440p then saves another 2GB or so. I saw a total reduction from ~9.5GB to ~4.5GB with these three changes.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Jason never said anything wrong. People made up statements like 'XSS would runs games exactly like the XSX' Or that he 'promised' all XSS games would have raytracing and 120fps modes. Essentially they created false statements and tried to hold MS to them in an attempt to call both Jason a liar and MS frauds. It was/is quite sad.
It was always clear the experience between the two SKUs is the same with Quick Resume, Smart Delivery, and support for the same game play modes like the number of players in Battlefield.
You'd think you'd get a serious answer but this is what what most criticisms of the XSS.
The decision to create the XSS expanded MS's reach to more gamers and that console is a serious value proposition vs a console that largely exists as a bullet point to increase a perceived value despite it be largely unavailable for the advertised price.
kyliethicc
Member
John Wick
Member
Didn't they initially claim that XSS would be SX but at 1440p?
Razvedka
Banned
I'm not sure how this is news. We heard early on from ID that (prior to being bought by Microsoft) they really didn't like the S console due to the constraints imposed by the system and how it would hurt games they made.
Despite damage control from certain parties, this has always been the reality. So it's good to see someone as high profile as Digital Foundry publicly discussing it with well sourced information, but this just conforms to the earlier opinions from high profile devs.
And no, I don't care if the Series S being a 'cheaper console' is a wonderful thing because it allows more people to enjoy 'next gen gaming' or whatever iteration of a class-based argument one may conjure.
Despite damage control from certain parties, this has always been the reality. So it's good to see someone as high profile as Digital Foundry publicly discussing it with well sourced information, but this just conforms to the earlier opinions from high profile devs.
And no, I don't care if the Series S being a 'cheaper console' is a wonderful thing because it allows more people to enjoy 'next gen gaming' or whatever iteration of a class-based argument one may conjure.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
The reality is that nobody here can describe how the Series S is "hurting games"
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.
In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.
Yep
Razvedka
Banned
You mean apart from all the developers saying it sucks and its hindering their ability to make games? Surely besides that, right?The reality is that nobody here can describe how the Series S is "hurting games"
Bernd Lauert
Banned
"all the devlopers", yeah? Anyway, you (nor anybody else) can't describe how it's hurting games, that's just reality.
Last edited:
nominedomine
Banned
Yes, I wasn't contradicting that.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Care to name the features missing on the XSS the XSX has besides the optical drive?
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Read what I quoted and try again
Razvedka
Banned
I mean I guess it all depends on your perspective.
"I think you're going to see some badly cut down versions" straight from the DF video. But generally speaking, if you have one platform which is considerably weaker it means that whatever ambitions you have must ultimately be capable of 'living' on that machine and running (ideally) respectfully. So that's always going to be your ceiling in development. It won't be what the Series X or PS5 can do, but what the Series S can do.
Xbox Series S Memory Constraints Allegedly Causing Development Issues
According to Digital Foundry, many developers have alleged that the Xbox Series S is "a bit of a pain at times" due to memory constraints.
exputer.com
It isn't hyperbole for me to say, based on what DF is saying now and those like ID have said in the past, that the Series S is hindering next-gen game development. Because it is.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The narrative to the quote you responded to was MS deceived people with the XSS. If you don't believe that then we are good.
again these highly ambitious devs are welcome to only go with PS5 then if they think it's impossible on Series S. They're not forced to release on Xbox. Alex says there's been impressive Series S 3rd party releases already so he's like we'll see, and John's point is mainly around only RT workflow setups. Something that will be extremely rare until maybe the end of the generation + won't be that efficient even on XSX/PS5 which would probably dissuade studios from doing it.
AutumnLeaves
Member
That last sentence. Thank you very much for the laughter.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
So you believe that MS deceived people with the XSS then?
Razvedka
Banned
Time will not be kind to this argument. Best case scenario for the S as the years roll on are severely scaled back titles, and even in this scenario its sheer existence is detrimental and not beneficial towards games running on SX or PS5.
But this entire thread is full of ideological arguments so really it doesn't matter what is said here tbh. Same thing when ID spoke up.
Edit: and honestly time hasn't even been kind to this argument so far with respect to the S.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
So with xss we are getting XSX @1440p?
We are getting 60 and 120fps in every game that XSX is?
Bernd Lauert
Banned
How is it hindering next-gen game development? Could you describe it?
ShaquilleOatmeal
Member
While I find it commendable that Xbox has a console appealing to a more casual, cost-conscious audience, I do have to wonder if a couple years in this thing starts holding back Series X titles.
Isn't it a mandatory to make S/X compatible games - never Series X exclusives?
And if that is the case, isn't that just another incentive for developers to consider simply PS5/PC exclusivity so they're not bottlenecked by this Series S inferiority?
Isn't it a mandatory to make S/X compatible games - never Series X exclusives?
And if that is the case, isn't that just another incentive for developers to consider simply PS5/PC exclusivity so they're not bottlenecked by this Series S inferiority?
Last edited:
Razvedka
Banned
I already did. See here:
Presumably, this will be too vague for you to buy into or otherwise insufficient.
To remind everyone what the ID guys were saying pre-MS ownership:
The memory situation is a big issue on the S. The much lower amount of memory and the split memory banks with drastically slower speeds will be a major issue. Aggressively lowering the render resolutions will marginally help but will not completely counteract the deficiencies.
— Billy Khan(@billykhan) September 10, 2020
And Sasan Sepehr of Remedy said the S would be 'trouble' for him as a technical producer where game optimization is concerned:
As a consumer, I love this!
As a Technical Producer, I see trouble!!!https://t.co/fdPWGL5Yx5
— Sasan Sepehr (@xC4RM1N3x) September 9, 2020
Source: https://wccftech.com/id-software-devs-concerns-xbox-series-s-specs/
Last edited:
Andodalf
Banned
in 5 years when the series s is comparable to a min spec Pc, they’re in real trouble! thankfully we’ll already be saying out Series Z are starting to feel old by then anyway!
nominedomine
Banned
Imagine if there was a console released alongside the Xbox One in 2013 that had about 1/3 the GPU power, considerably less RAM and slower RAM for $299. What an awful machine it would've been, it would've without a doubt held games back, that's what the Series S is but for 2020 instead of 2013.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not sure why people are picking on this post. I know it's the hip thing to pick on Riky here, but he's absolutely right here.
-
Think of it like a 1070 vs a 2060.
Sure in some cases the 1070 will pull ahead, but it does not have the new features the 20xx series brings.
Similarly, while in some cases One X may pull ahead on legacy games/code owing to its stronger, albeit older generation GPU ... ultimately it cannot do the new features the Series S GPU can do. RDNA2, VRS, hardware based RT etc.
On top of other hardware level upgrades like the native SSD and the generational leap in CPU.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
So the only concrete thing I see is that the assets have to be made with the Series S in mind. PC kinda makes this argument obsolete though, consoles have never been the equivalent of the minimum spec on PC. Or do people actually believe that XSX/PS5 will be the minimum spec for PC? It's gonna take another 5+ years for that to happen.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Ah see and thus the reason I asked my question. Do you think Jason Ronald, one of the Xbox hardware engineers, was making the claim that every piece of software running on the XSS would have certain graphical features or that every XSS would have the same system level features as the XSX?
Has a platform holder ever made promises that all software running on their systems would perform a certain way or do they make general claims about what a system is capable of?
Who determines what graphical effects are used in a game, the developers or Jason Ronald?
Did you complain every time a game runs on PS5 and XSX less than 4K when that's what was 'promised'?
If you are so convinced MS 'lied' to customers are you prepared to issue a formal complaint to the BBB and sue for their 'fraud'? Should be easy money right?
There continues to be a stream of disingenuous commentary about the budget system this generation. No one can point out how they or games have been 'injured'. Commentary from a guy many Sony fans make of is now being taken as gospel. Goal post shifting all around when games show XSS' capabilities. People complaining the loudest don't own the system and in many cases don't know what they are talking about. It's a sight to behold. How about letting the market decide.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Yeah, Series S is so awful that it is *checks notes* equal to your average gaming PC nowadays. Absolutely terrible
AutumnLeaves
Member
Yeah, Series S is so awful that it is *checks notes* equal to your average gaming PC nowadays. Absolutely terrible
What is average PC for you?
Razvedka
Banned
This entire posts literally contradicts what Axel, principal engine programmer at ID said.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
How does it contradict that? Unless you think XSX/PS5 would be the min spec if the XSS didn't exist, of course. Which would be a bold prediction to say the least.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It's not about what I or you think.
MS made the claim end of discussion.
The other things you are saying is irrelevant to this fact.
IMO 2 more TF's alone would make MS claim a reality.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It's more powerful than the average gaming PC which doesn't have a nvme SSD.Yeah, Series S is so awful that it is *checks notes* equal to your average gaming PC nowadays. Absolutely terrible
Razvedka
Banned
The PS5 and XSX would be the minimum spec, yes. I don't understand how that's a bold prediction when consoles have traditionally always served as 'the bar' for game tech typically as its where the most money is made. The industry follows the money, so it goes to the consoles.
PCs have for a long time now been something of an afterthought. You build a game to work on consoles and then port it to PC with slider bars to crank things up or down, but the game was not made for PC. There will always be exceptions of course, like Crysis or what not. This isn't an absolute, but it is the past and current state of affairs.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
You mentioned cranking settings down... exactly that will happen for XSS too. I don't see the issue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked