Support NeoGAF

[Derpcrawler]

I read people responses in my other thread about Kinect and how accurate Microsoft speech recognition is. And seems like all people who are bashing Kinect doing so because Xbox One is weaker than PS4 and they blame Kinect for that.

But is it really Kinect fault? If we look at Xbox One APU it's actually bigger than PS4 APU due to ESRAM. If not for that, Xbox One could easily fit same 8 core Jaguar CPU and at least 20 Radeon CUs. That would push system to 2TF+. For APU budget it doesn't matter if you have more CUs or more embedded memory, it will cost exactly the same to produce as long as die is about same size.

So isn't the main offender here is not Kinect, but DDR3 RAM? I know that Sony gambled with GDDR5, but if Microsoft would go with GDDR5 as well, we could see more powerful console than PS4 with the Kinect and for the same 499 price tag. Even splitting memory pool to say 4Gb DDR3 + 4/6Gb GDDR5 would pretty much allow MSFT to ditch ESRAM and invest that real estate in more beefy GPU. I know devs want unified memory, but say if Microsoft would give them 4/6Gb of GDDR5 leaving DDR3 for system needs, we would still see massive jump in IQ, especially if it would be 6Gb GDDR5 (384-bit wide bus).

So why people keep bashing Kinect for Microsofts poor hardware decisions? Would you still shit on Kinect if console would be 499, but would push better IQ than PS4 if MSFT would go with GDDR5 or DDR3+GDDR5 which would result in more beefy GPU since they wouldn't need ESRAM anymore?

 

[Silky]

Blame Microsoft.

 

[Iacobellis]

Blame Penello.

 

[kasane]

Its gonna be 599

 

[coldone]

no. it is the decision to include eSRAM. It made the chip weaker and slower.

Look at the chip size, it is larger than PS4 and weaker.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Blame TV TV TV

 

[NeoROCK]

Blame Kinect for the system being $100 more expensive.

Blame Microsoft for poor strategy and planning on the hardware.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Its gonna be 599

It wouldn't be that, if they would go with no ESRAM they would have either:

a. Smaller (cheaper) APU
b. Same size APU with more real estate for GPU which would result in ~20CU which would push it beyond PS4

Their BOM would increase by 10-15$ due to use of GDDR5 instead of DDR3 (or mix of both if they would decide to split memory pool), but in the long run it wouldn't matter and it definitely wouldn't push price beyond 499.

 

[Chobel]

Blame Obama.

 

[Al Gore's Thermostat]

Blame this "cloud" stuff. And Microsoft.

I'm willing to bet the console was too far in development when Sony announced the PS4 having 8GB of GDDR5 RAM. Microsoft was probably like, "Ah, fuck it, release it anyway, no one will notice."

 

[Skilletor]

I blame the disparity in power on prioritizing multimedia functions.

 

[Ol No Bones]

The esram. I hope Microsoft fires some architects for that crap.

 

[Markitron]

Yea we can, simply because its more expensive and less powerful. If it was 400 with no kinect it still wouldn't run Battlefield better

 

[Zabka]

Blame app store lust. It's the reason they targeted 8GB RAM so long ago.

 

[NinjaCatfish]

Microsoft's priority was all the extra stuff they tried to add with Xbox One, Kinect being fully integrated, TV functionality, and they valued this over simply a more powerful box.

It's true that they could have sold us both a more powerful box and Kinect, but it would have been even more expensive and they probably decided against that.

 

[artist]

Blame TV TV TV

This.

The TV bit lead to the mandate of requiring a big pool of RAM available, which led to the ESRAM+DDR3 combo which led to the GPU taking a backseat, with the "its good enough" approach.

Blame Kinect for the $499 price tag.

So isn't the main offender here is not Kinect, but DDR3 RAM? I know that Sony gambled with GDDR5, but if Microsoft would go with GDDR5 as well, we could see more powerful console than PS4 with the Kinect and for the same 499 price tag. Even splitting memory pool to say 4Gb DDR3 + 4/6Gb GDDR5 would pretty much allow MSFT to ditch ESRAM and invest that real estate in more beefy GPU. I know devs want unified memory, but say if Microsoft would give them 4/6Gb of GDDR5 leaving DDR3 for system needs, we would still see massive jump in IQ, especially if it would be 6Gb GDDR5 (384-bit wide bus).

Nope.

How would it be more powerful if they could fit similar amount of CUs in that space?

 

[RedRooster]

No use theorizing, what's done is done. They have to live with this decision they made for the entire next gen. Ouch.

 

[Killer]

Blame balance.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Their BOM would increase by 10-15$ due to use of GDDR5 instead of DDR3 (or mix of both if they would decide to split memory pool), but in the long run it wouldn't matter and it definitely wouldn't push price beyond 499.

At the time of development GDDR5 use would've increased it more than $10 - 15 USD

I blame the disparity in power on prioritizing multimedia functions.

This is the real reason

 

[Derpcrawler]

Yea we can, simply because its more expensive and less powerful. If it was 400 with no kinect it still wouldn't run Battlefield better

But is that Kinect fault? Read again, APU is bigger than in PS4, if not for ESRAM, which is byproduct of using DDR3, they would be able to make more powerful APU than is found in PS4 and still it would cost them about the same.

 

[GloveSlap]

Blame TV TV TV

Yep. Its the TV stuff and Kinect, which pretty much go hand in hand.

I also think Microsoft is petrified of another RROD situation, so that might have led to them to shy away from cutting edge components that could overheat and fail.

 

[NeoGash]

Without the Kinect, the system could have been cheaper or stayed the same price but with more powerful hardware. I think MS funked up by focusing on Kinect too much. What would people prefer; better looking and playing games or the ability to talk to your Kinect sometimes and have shittier looking and playing games? Would not buy/10. I'd feel dirty buying an XB1 because that damn Kinect shit they pulled, even when they knew that the hardcore fans didn't like it. Hope it bombs like the Dreamcast TBH and we get a better console next time.

 

[LCGeek]

I blame MS and really underestimating sony more. Kinnect played a part of it and adding to the cost but that only jacked up the price the rest of the system is pretty lame specs wise to me. MS is usually smarter on hardware this generation they got complacent.

 

[Dire]

Everything about the XBone makes it seem like there were fairly severe budget restrictions on R&D and a requirement that the console be sold for a profit from day 1. I think these two more than anything are to blame not only for the weaker hardware and higher price but most of every problem the XBone has had. I think the most interesting question is where was the financial pressure coming from.

 

[Al Gore's Thermostat]

Did Microsoft ever ask if their fans (or a demographic) actually wanted the Kinect?

 

[Zizbuka]

Blame the people who bought multiple 360's because they kept breaking. MS's lesson from last gen was; our fans don't care about quality.

 

[Alchemy]

Kinect is simply part of Microsoft's push for "this thing does all the media things!" and contributed towards its cost, which contributed towards Microsoft being afraid to use GDDR5 RAM. Being forced to use DDR3 meant the system needed a bandaid, which is the SRAM. The SRAM eats up a huge amount of transistor budget on the APU, which is what contributes towards weaker hardware.

Its an all around shit show from Microsoft, Kinect isn't the only problem but it is part of it.

 

[Falaut]

No, but its still weaker hardware, not only in the memory setup but also the processing grunt. Maybe its just language, but I'm a little confused by the OP: questioning the hate of a product and then relating to a bunch of "what ifs".

What if the PS4 has a OJ maker, would you still feel the same about the Xbone's lack of proper party chat?

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

Kinect sucks. eSRAM sucks. They're not really directly related, but some people conflate them.

 

[Markitron]

But is that Kinect fault? Read again, APU is bigger than in PS4, if not for ESRAM, which is byproduct of using DDR3, they would be able to make more powerful APU than is found in PS4 and still it would cost them about the same.

True, but who is to say that DDR3 isnt a by-product of including kinect in the box, we just dont know. Kind of a chicken and egg situation

 

[RedRooster]

Blame the people who bought multiple 360's because they kept breaking. MS's lesson from last gen was; our fans don't care about quality.

To be fair, it was a pretty fantastic console. If my ps4 dies a couple times I'll buy multiples too. Gotta play something.

 

[ultratruman]

When they say 'Xbox One is the Kinect', that isn't just a PR line. Kinect 2.0 is the physical manifestation of Microsoft's ethos for turning Xbox into an all-in-one entertainment platform.

It's not the reason why they have a poorly planned APU for gaming compared to the PS4, but it is emblematic of the problem. That it consumes 10% of the GPU's power doesn't help, though.

 

[jester_]

Blame esRAM - dat more expensive APU

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I don't know what's to blame. All I know is for me the Xbox one is not attractive at all. Behind the polished looking UI and beautiful colors is a slow/weak half assed gaming machine. That's all that matters to me. I could care less what's to blame at this point

 

[Iacobellis]

I don't know what's to blame. All I know is for me the Xbox one is not attractive at all. Behind the polished looking UI and beautiful colors is a slow/weak half assed gaming machine. That's all that matters to me. I could care less what's to blame at this point

The UI does seem more attractive than the new XMB, but the functionality behind it seems awful. PS4 is easy to navigate via a controller, you literally scroll from left to right like before.

 

[lemonade]

Blame the water cooler

 

[KMS]

They Chased the ad dollars of Google, the app dollars of Apple and the selling of viewing/usage habits all in the name of monetizing everything possible about the console making it an expensive jack of all trades master of none.

 

[BasketCasket]

Blame Penello.

Don't blame Penello; he's proven that he knows absolutely nothing about hardware and shouldn't be discussed in hardware conversations.

 

[AAK]

I blame the disparity in power on prioritizing multimedia functions.

This.... but this is only in the context for the hardcore gaming market. We'll see if it was a good decision or not 3-4 years down the road.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Among other things, probably.

 

[purnoman3000]

Did Microsoft ever ask if their fans (or a demographic) actually wanted the Kinect?

Fans answered by buying the original garbage Kinect in droves, you can thank them.


.

 

[SwiftDeath]

A deeper explanation of the problem starts from the initial design goals of the console

MS likely from high up the chain wanted the Xbox to be a multimedia machine, Multiple apps running, snap capability, 3 OS's such that early on it was determined 8 GB's of Ram was absolutely paramount to ensure smooth operation while running so much at one time

At the time of design GDDR5 was far far more prohibitively expensive then it is now (enough so that Sony was planning originally it would seem to use 2GBs GDDR5 because the price was so high). Thus MS needed to use DDR3 memory to achieve that 8GBs of ram and even a split pool of memory seemed prohibitively expensive in the early design stages where key decisions were made. In essence at this point MS was locked into DDR3 memory as the rest of the APU was designed with that in mind

So given that the memory was 8GB's of DDR3, MS had a serious problem. DDR3 is a poor memory to use for graphics processing purposes as its bandwidth is slow in relation to modern graphic memory configurations. Thus they had two options best I can tell. One go with a similar solution to the X360 memory configuration with EDRam on a daughter die or Two go for ESram and build it into the same APU. This was in my opinion MS's fatal flaw. ESram is a space hog on the APU as can clearly be seen from the breakdown of it. So much so that even with a larger die than the PS4, ESram takes up a massive amount of chip space and still only equates to 32mb of usable buffer memory. MS likely went for option Two so as to be able to shrink the APU at a later point in the gen and save on manufacturing costs but had they gone EDram on a daughter die, 64 mb or maybe even 128mb (unlikely) could've been possible

The difficulty with ESram is that the rendering buffer for most next-gen rendering techniques is greater than 32mb at 1080p and with some form of AA

I believe Killzone SF's buffer was quoted at 147mbs

In essence had MS sacrificed some of their Multimedia goals or gone the route of EDram they would have had more room on die for a larger better GPU

As it stands the multimedia approach MS took resulted in the significantly less powerful machine at a higher price point

For comparison, GDDR5 approach on the left (PS4) to ESram approach on the right (XB1)

So why people keep bashing Kinect for Microsofts poor hardware decisions? Would you still shit on Kinect if console would be 499, but would push better IQ than PS4 if MSFT would go with GDDR5 or DDR3+GDDR5 which would result in more beefy GPU since they wouldn't need ESRAM anymore?

The hardware decisions MS made have little to do with Kinect but Kinect does make the box more expensive and is in essence the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to price.

As I have said there was no way MS was going to design a console that used GDDR5 at the price points during the design stages. More ram was worth more to them than fast ram. The best possible solution would've been some EDram configuration assuming MS couldn't scrap some of their media capabilites

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

I blame the rap music.

 

[tazz3]

Kincet is the down fall of x1 and all these that ms has in charge for x1 should be fired

 

[Community Forum]

Blame Canada.

 

[Orayn]

Kinect wasn't single-handedly responsible for a downgrade from something better. They didn't work out finished specs for everything, then decide to pare them back because they'd be over budget with the price of Kinect included. Kinect was factored into the total cost the whole time, which may or may not have lead them to do things like choosing DDR3 or using a GPU with fewer CUs. (The choice to stick with ESRAM was probably the cause of the latter.)

 

[CadetMahoney]

It was a design choice by MS which has cost them dearly in marketshare for the remainder of this gen as ppl will choose the superior performing games.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I don't care about the hardware. I care about the price.

 

[Rolf NB]

IIf we look at Xbox One APU it's actually bigger than PS4 APU due to ESRAM. If not for that, Xbox One could easily fit same 8 core Jaguar CPU and at least 20 Radeon CUs. That would push system to 2TF+. For APU budget it doesn't matter if you have more CUs or more embedded memory, it will cost exactly the same to produce as long as die is about same size.

Agreed.

Even splitting memory pool to say 4Gb DDR3 + 4/6Gb GDDR5 would pretty much allow MSFT to ditch ESRAM and invest that real estate in more beefy GPU.

That's not how memory controllers work. A split of that kind would require two full width memory controllers with their own busses.

I.e. 256bit GDDR5 bus + 256bit GDDR3 bus would produce the results you're thinking of, but would be a big incremental expense (board complexity, total number of chips, more power rails etc).

Splitting the bus in the middle (128bit GDDR5 + 128bit GDDR3) would likewise halve the bandwidths of both pools. That would hardly be better than what they have now.

 

[Manmademan]

no. it is the decision to include eSRAM. It made the chip weaker and slower.

Look at the chip size, it is larger than PS4 and weaker.

In a broader sense, its Kinect. The reason why Microsoft NEEDED 8GB of ram is for the media functions, which revolves around Kinect voice and gestures.

Going with gddr5 was never an option as the required density couldnt be guaranteed.