• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hezekiah

Member
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)
Yep, there is a severe lack of understanding with regards to minimum requirements and optimisations.

And your example of Red Dead 2 is one of the most graphically impressive games ever. However it's a 2018 game, which doesn't bode well for a spec sheet which will last until 2027.
 

FrankWza

Member
Here is is again "“Developers have a whole host of different techniques, whether that’s changing the resolution of their title, things like dynamic resolution scaling frame to frame — that’s something we’ve seen a lot of adoption of, especially towards the end of this generation,” explains Ronald. “And obviously the ability to enable and display different visual effects, without actually affecting the fundamental gameplay.”

That's what he actually said before launch, which is exactly what has happened.
You know that’s not the quote he’s referring to. Embarrassing that you would just grab this random quote that basically has no meaning and has nothing to do with what’s being discussed and it’s head to head expectations vs series x. Here it is again:


Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.

In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
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.

Agreed. The CPU and the IO upgrades are so obvious. I don't know how anyone could even try to lump the two systems together with a straight face.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
Just user lower res assets. Saves bandwidth and memory usage. I’m sure it’s not fun but I don’t see how this is any different than pc.
They are doing that and its still not scaling down. Epic had to get Coalition to come and help them manually optimize the Matrix demo which basically meant downgrading the shit out of every setting and it still drops significantly below 533p. If only DF were honest about how far it dips below 533p, we would know just how big the sacrifices were.

We have seen several games that run at native 4k 30 fps on XSX and PS5 and they struggle to run at 1080p 30 fps on the xss with way lower settings when the tflops difference should have them running much higher without any downgrades. Thats how PCs work. I went from a 2080 to a 3080 last month and back and i didnt have to downgrade any settings beyond resolution. Well built PCs simply scale down with tflops as long as you keep the CPU and the RAM the same. Thats not whats happening here. They are reducing reosultion far below the tflops difference AND reducing settings. Clearly cheapening out on the ram and bandwidth was not the right decision.

Now if they didnt need to bring in coalition and the console just automatically scaled down the resolution 50% like they promised then we wouldnt be having this conversation, but they cut too many corners with the spec... 4 instead of 6 tflops, 8 instead of 12 gb, insanely low ssd storage, and now we have a console that is simply not capable of doing what it was designed to do. A budget PC to the mid range XSX PC.
 

Rivet

Gold Member
I think Series S is a great console for its price but it will obviously hinder multiplatform games this gen, which is unfortunate.

All the time spent to make the game work on the Series S limited specs would have been better used elsewhere. And when designing the game, devs will have to constantly keep in mind Series S limitations. It will hinder game scale and innovation.

Everybody loses here, except Series S owners, and MS since they're able to sell more consoles with that model. It should also make the technical gap with competition 1st party exclusives even more obvious than before.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
I think Series S is a great console for its price but it will obviously hinder multiplatform games on this gen, which is unfortunate.

All the time spent to make the game work on the Series S limited specs would have been better used elsewhere. And when designing the game, devs will have to constantly keep in mind Series S limitations. It will hinder game scale and innovation.

Everybody loses here, except Series S owners, and MS since they're able to ship more of them. It should also make the technical gap with competition 1st party exclusives even more obvious than before.
I don't think so. Without the series s xbox wouldn't be selling as well. It was a brilliant move by microsoft!
 

Leyasu

Member
So much concern..

Personally though, I don't think that man 3rd party devs will put much effort into it. It iwll be down to the first party to get running to it's limited potential. When said 1st party devs start getting their games out.....
 

yamaci17

Member
I think Series S is a great console for its price but it will obviously hinder multiplatform games on this gen, which is unfortunate.

All the time spent to make the game work on the Series S limited specs would have been better used elsewhere. And when designing the game, devs will have to constantly keep in mind Series S limitations. It will hinder game scale and innovation.

Everybody loses here, except Series S owners, and MS since they're able to ship more of them. It should also make the technical gap with competition 1st party exclusives even more obvious than before.
forbidden west on ps4 looks 'infinite'ly better than how halo infinite looks on series x with its quality mod gap is huge. actually unbelievable. i compare something like last of us 2 on a ps4 /base model/ and compare to gears 5 on one x (strongest 8th gen console supposedly), and last of us 2 destroys that game as well. i would compare them since some peopel tout gears 5 as one of the best good looking games that one x has exclusivity to run for

it will go from being obvious to being a factor for choosing consoles. imagine having no limitation such as caring for slow ssds, lower amounts of ram and go full ham on unified 16 gb gdrr6+enormously high speed ssd+wonderful single API. they also have no care for PC, sure down the road 2-4 years later they might get PC ports (which is smart because by that time, PCs will be more powerful to handle such exclusive games)

ps5 excs this gen will be something different.
 

SlimySnake

Member
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)
This reminds me of when the PS4 specs were first leaked way back in 2012 or so. The GTX 570 and 580 were the best cards out at the time, people took one look at the tflops and said, yep, thats a 570 at best. Maybe even a 560. I was told to buy a 570 and that it would last me the rest of the gen.

No one bothered to tell me that the 570 had only 1.28 GB of VRAM and the very first next gen multiplatform game simply refused to even enable settings in game. It was Advanced Warfare and it must have been built on the 5GB requirements of the PS5 and X1 because I remember it disabled all of my settings because of the low vram, and while i was able to play the game. it looked like a ps1 game. blurry to the point it could see the pixels. vaseline covered trash. it was hilarious. Oddly enough 4 years later, destiny 2 ran fine at 720p at 60 fps which just goes to show how last gen that game really is. i still have that system and should try and see if i can run games like ac unity on it.

P.S this is what GG released for KZSF back in the day. They only use around 3GB of ram for vram, the rest is for the cpu and shared ram. So 60% of ram available for games was used as vram basically. This time around the CPU is much more powerful so it should use more of the ram than kzsf did, and ray tracing should also use ram for the cpu which just cuts into the vram available to the xss gpu.



 

DarkMage619

Member
"“Developers have a whole host of different techniques, whether that’s changing the resolution of their title, things like dynamic resolution scaling frame to frame — that’s something we’ve seen a lot of adoption of, especially towards the end of this generation,” explains Ronald. “And obviously the ability to enable and display different visual effects, without actually affecting the fundamental gameplay.”

That's what he actually said before launch, which is exactly what has happened.

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.
Jason Ronald made the quote Riky Riky posted. It gives plenty of detail about what is meant with game development. No need to make up silly imagined expectations for a budget console. Information is available if people are being honest in the expectations for the system. Your TF comments are silly because it was told time and time again TF didn't matter. So more goal post shifting.

The XSS has a smaller RAM pool than the XSX it also has techniques to address those shortcomings that have yet to be used. Odd to complain about something and not use the features available to deal with your complaints.
 

Three

Member
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.

You only see that because you're choosing to not see the other parts of the quote. The quote from the id engine dev:
"it always scaled on PC" is nonsense. Every AAA game in the past decade or so has their assets made once so they run on min spec. Increasing sample counts a bit here and there for high settings isn't what you could truly have done with more power. Min spec matters.

New consoles and PC min spec shifting is normal too. People don't buy new hardware if the new games devs are releasing run fine on them because they were made for several years old consoles.

Look at min specs for things like FS2020, or a better example Metro EEE though. Metro EEE now requires a GPU that is high above steams mean/most popular gpu. Metro EEE released mainly because of the new consoles and PC got a new release where its min spec no longer cared about the steam "average pc" in any way.Your GPU had to be new or it wouldn't boot. The users of "the average PC on steam" aren't the ones buying the latest and greatest games and influencing the market as much as you think. Those PC players buying the games upgrade their GPUs.

just as people argue that xbox One and PS4 shouldn't influence game releases since games don't sell on those as much as on PS5/XS. This despite the PS4 and xbox one being "the average console" for a while and it taking years for that to change too. The players buying the games upgrade to new consoles.

The difference is that the XSS is a new console and will be influencing min spec and development for years to come.

I don't understand this constant often contradictory defence of the Series S though. I think the Series S sales have shown that a lot of buyers don't care about these things and it's fine but what's with distorting and denying reality in development?

At least some have come to the realisation that developing on Series S isn't as easy as changing an ini file to 1440p which was what xbox diehards were saying before. Or the crazy idea that the Series S at 1080p is actually more graphically capable than the Series X "because everything scales with res leaving Series S with more GPU power at 1080p than Series X" completely ignoring the idea that there might be 1080/1440p next gen games and some things just don't scale like that.

Before Series S launched that was the silly takes people were going with (easy and just as capable if not more so) as series x, just lower res. maybe they were spurred on by Ronald's video who knows.

At least we're over that but we're now into "the devs are to blame if it's tricky, not the specs and they should probably call MS". Complete 180° turn from what some were arguing before the console actually released.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jason Ronald made the quote Riky Riky posted. It gives plenty of detail about what is meant with game development. No need to make up silly imagined expectations for a budget console. Information is available if people are being honest in the expectations for the system. Your TF comments are silly because it was told time and time again TF didn't matter. So more goal post shifting.

The XSS has a smaller RAM pool than the XSX it also has techniques to address those shortcomings that have yet to be used. Odd to complain about something and not use the features available to deal with your complaints.
The clueless spinning is getting sad.
 

SlimySnake

Member
forbidden west on ps4 looks 'infinite'ly better than how halo infinite looks on series x with its quality mod gap is huge. actually unbelievable. i compare something like last of us 2 on a ps4 /base model/ and compare to gears 5 on one x (strongest 8th gen console supposedly), and last of us 2 destroys that game as well. i would compare them since some peopel tout gears 5 as one of the best good looking games that one x has exclusivity to run for

it will go from being obvious to being a factor for choosing consoles. imagine having no limitation such as caring for slow ssds, lower amounts of ram and go full ham on unified 16 gb gdrr6+enormously high speed ssd+wonderful single API. they also have no care for PC, sure down the road 2-4 years later they might get PC ports (which is smart because by that time, PCs will be more powerful to handle such exclusive games)

ps5 excs this gen will be something different.
We have seen three next gen ps5 exclusives so far and they look meh compared to the matrix and other UE5 demos. Hell, HFW looks better than all of those games. even ratchet in its fidelity mode. I also dont know why the fuck halo looks so ordinary but Forza Horizon comes very close to HFW.

I guess what Im trying to say is that the IO hasnt translated into better visuals so far. I remember posting dev quotes of bluepoint saying how they are transfering 4gb of data every second from the ssd to ram and yet that didnt translate to the game looking as good as the Matrix, the first UE5 demo, the latest UE5 subway demo, Hellblade 2, Avatar, or even a last gen game like HFW.

Maybe they might do something with gameplay, but right now when it comes to the IO powering graphics, color me unimpressed.

Meanwhile, I'll just boot any game I want on the XSS and it plays just fine. All the concern trolling in the world doesn't change that reality for me or anyone else that owns the box.
Yep. It only affects the devs who have to make games for it. Hence the title and topic of thread. This thread isnt about you or anyone else who owns the box.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of when the PS4 specs were first leaked way back in 2012 or so. The GTX 570 and 580 were the best cards out at the time, people took one look at the tflops and said, yep, thats a 570 at best. Maybe even a 560. I was told to buy a 570 and that it would last me the rest of the gen.

No one bothered to tell me that the 570 had only 1.28 GB of VRAM and the very first next gen multiplatform game simply refused to even enable settings in game. It was Advanced Warfare and it must have been built on the 5GB requirements of the PS5 and X1 because I remember it disabled all of my settings because of the low vram, and while i was able to play the game. it looked like a ps1 game. blurry to the point it could see the pixels. vaseline covered trash. it was hilarious. Oddly enough 4 years later, destiny 2 ran fine at 720p at 60 fps which just goes to show how last gen that game really is. i still have that system and should try and see if i can run games like ac unity on it.

Surely you meant that Advanced "Quake III engine if it's not broke keep it" Warfare was the "last gen" game, not Destiny 2,right?
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Meanwhile, I'll just boot any game I want on the XSS and it plays just fine. All the concern trolling in the world doesn't change that reality for me or anyone else that owns the box.
The box is in my house.
In the cases of 30fps instead of 60 and 60 instead of 120 isn't fine for me.
But that's me and I don't play on that box.
 

Rivet

Gold Member
I don't think so. Without the series s xbox wouldn't be selling as well. It was a brilliant move by microsoft!

I agree. For MS Series S was a great move, as long as their Series X customers don't care too much about getting technically slightly inferior 1st party games.

Series S fits MS strategy with Gamepass perfectly. They don't focus on making the most technically advanced games, they want their games to run on every platform...

Like someone said, Gamepass is first and foremost a cheap "value" option for gaming. It's made for the masses. They aim for billions of customers after all. Those who mostly play mobile games right now.
 
Last edited:

elliot5

Member
I agree. For MS Series S was a great move, as long as their Series X customers don't care too much about getting technically slightly inferior 1st party games.

Series S fits MS strategy with Gamepass perfectly. They don't focus on making the most technically advanced games, they want their games to run on every platform...

Like someone said, Gamepass is first and foremost a cheap "value" option for gaming. It's made for the masses. They aim for billions of customers after all. Those who mostly play mobile games right now.
Series X getting technically inferior 1st party games? According to what standard?

MS Doesn't focus on making technically advanced games? What?

Game Pass / Series S is made for mobile gamers?

You're REALLY trying to be more subtle with your trolling after your ban huh
 

Rivet

Gold Member
Series X getting technically inferior 1st party games? According to what standard?

MS Doesn't focus on making technically advanced games? What?

Game Pass / Series S is made for mobile gamers?

You're REALLY trying to be more subtle with your trolling after your ban huh

Their goal is extending their user base, that's why they made Series S. It means finding new customers, so not us. People who generally care a bit less about technicals.

It doesn't mean they won't make great looking games. Don't change the meaning of what I said.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
I agree. For MS Series S was a great move, as long as their Series X customers don't care too much about getting technically slightly inferior 1st party games.

Series S fits MS strategy with Gamepass perfectly. They don't focus on making the most technically advanced games, they want their games to run on every platform...

Like someone said, Gamepass is first and foremost a cheap "value" option for gaming. It's made for the masses. They aim for billions of customers after all. Those who mostly play mobile games right now.
Yep! It's a great play. Ms capturing all then markets. Very smart.
 
Switch outsells basically everything but it doesn't mean its not an underpowered pos in 2022, because it is.

Series S isn't underpowered. It's an entry level system that plays games like Doom Eternal flawlessly at 120fps, along with a wide range of newer next gen games. You ain't buying Series S expecting native 4K or whatever. PS5 and Series X don't even always hit native 4K in demanding next gen titles, so why would anyone automatically expect Series S to always hit 1080p-1440p native? Yet it still does in numerous games.

And at the end of the day, the thing is selling amazing, so it's a reality devs have to deal with. Microsoft were smart for acquiring all these studios. They will work with it. And once more devs start using SFS the memory issue will be resolved.
 

The_Mike

Banned
I don’t want to imagine how gimped the game has to be in the next 4 years in order to accommodate the Series S specs. Not in the graphical sense but in the game design sense. It’s kinda disappointing but it is what it is.
I love how people bitch about the series s holding the generation back the entire generation, while the pc player base just accepts that consoles always have and always will hold back gaming thanks to the fixed specs.
 

Romulus

Member
Series S isn't underpowered. It's an entry level system that plays games like Doom Eternal flawlessly at 120fps, along with a wide range of newer next gen games. You ain't buying Series S expecting native 4K or whatever. PS5 and Series X don't even always hit native 4K in demanding next gen titles, so why would anyone automatically expect Series S to always hit 1080p-1440p native? Yet it still does in numerous games.

And at the end of the day, the thing is selling amazing, so it's a reality devs have to deal with. Microsoft were smart for acquiring all these studios. They will work with it. And once more devs start using SFS the memory issue will be resolved.

Switch wasn't underpowered year 1, it was average for a hybrid machine. That's the entire point, as we pivot to next gen games only with more demanding visuals, the S will lag behind alot more. Also, Doom runs on a highly optimized engine. That's the reason you can only name a couple of examples of "flawless 120fps." And we're just getting started. RT is mostly out of the question, even for really low-resolution games.
It is selling well and is at a great price point. Devs will be fine, but will need to really push that thing. 720p in 2-3 years will likely be common for 60fps modes
 
Last edited:

thebigmanjosh

Gold Member
Not discredited, just not very convincing. I've yet to see an explanation to why reducing resolution/frame rate/settings isn't enough to scale down a XSX/PS5 targeted game. It's easy to see why it doesn't work with last gen, since scaling down CPU und SSD is hard or even impossible. But GPU/RAM? I don't see it.
Heres your explanation:
  • XSX: 10GB @ 560 GB/s, 6GB @ 336 GB/s
  • XSS: 8GB @ 224 GB/s, 2GB @ 56 GB/s
GPU is fine with no RT but we’ll likely see highly reduced or cut RT in many XSS games.
Switch wasn't underpowered year 1, it was average for a hybrid machine. That's the entire point, as we pivot to next gen games only with more demanding visuals, the S will lag behind alot more. Also, Doom runs on a highly optimized engine. That's the reason you can only name a couple of examples of "flawless 120fps." And we're just getting started. RT is pretty mostly of the question, even for really low-resolution games.
It is selling well and is at a great price point. Devs will be fine, but will need to really push that thing. 720p in 2-3 years will likely be common for 60fps modes
Matrix UE5 demo already runs at sub 720p30. I’ll be shocked if lumen runs at all on XSS without serious cutbacks
 

DarkMage619

Member
Series S isn't underpowered. It's an entry level system that plays games like Doom Eternal flawlessly at 120fps, along with a wide range of newer next gen games. You ain't buying Series S expecting native 4K or whatever. PS5 and Series X don't even always hit native 4K in demanding next gen titles, so why would anyone automatically expect Series S to always hit 1080p-1440p native? Yet it still does in numerous games.

And at the end of the day, the thing is selling amazing, so it's a reality devs have to deal with. Microsoft were smart for acquiring all these studios. They will work with it. And once more devs start using SFS the memory issue will be resolved.
Yup and all this talk about it 'holding back the generation' with a Zen2 CPU and an RDNA 2 GPU again shows the disingenuous commentary from non-customers. Just like the Switch right guys?

So these techniques are exclusive to Series S?

What happens once these techniques are necessary for Series X to push the console? Will they magically triple their effectiveness on Series S consoles?
Push it in what way? It's like you guys don't even realize every game coming to Xbox hits PC day and date. You honestly think game developers will make games incapable of running on PCs less powerful than the XSX? I'm sure that is an excellent way to lose business. Again most gaming PCs are weaker than the XSS.

The clueless spinning is getting sad.
Jennifer Lawrence Reaction GIF

Yup it's me spinning not the guys claiming Jason Ronald made promises about how every graphical feature would be used on the budget console when no one said any such thing.

Heres your explanation:
  • XSX: 10GB @ 560 GB/s, 6GB @ 336 GB/s
  • XSS: 8GB @ 224 GB/s, 2GB @ 56 GB/s
GPU is fine with no RT but we’ll likely see highly reduced or cut RT in many XSS games.

Matrix UE5 demo already runs at sub 720p30. I’ll be shocked if lumen runs at all on XSS without serious cutbacks
The 2GB is reserved for the OS on the XSS so its lower speeds has no bearing on games. The lower resolutions on the system are a feature not a bug. It was never promised every game would have raytracing.

Congrats man. You have the most avoided, best post, of all time on here.
Here’s what happened since you posted:

Not Listening Dumb And Dumber GIF

An actual interview with Jason Ronald addressing the same debunked stuff people who don't own the system post over and over again. There is the answer.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Didn't recall hearing this when they where developing for the PS2 a console that had half the memory of the original Xbox, ot those gen7 ports to switch, this is more a complain of having to optimize for 2 consoles.
Well they did, hence the major success of Renderware that generation streaming from DVD for many games - which EA bought at the end of the gen - and it is hardly the same scenario - and not because the Xbox had a stupid Wbuffer instead of a 32bit zbuffer like the PS2, or the PS2 had far more advance shader capabilities like geometry shading in the Reality Synth or had dedicated EmotionEngine Co-processor for inverse kinematics, etc - but because the PS2 launched long before Xbox and probably sold more than Xbox did that gen before it even launched, and so was the market leader by a country mile hence the software follows the money.

Had the PS2 launched when the Xbox did and had the same delaying advantage it too would have had far more memory. The Series S released after the Xbox One X by many years, and yet if fails to best the One X in important ways. So developers are correct to complain IMO.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Yup and all this talk about it 'holding back the generation' with a Zen2 CPU and an RDNA 2 GPU again shows the disingenuous commentary from non-customers. Just like the Switch right guys?


Push it in what way? It's like you guys don't even realize every game coming to Xbox hits PC day and date. You honestly think game developers will make games incapable of running on PCs less powerful than the XSX? I'm sure that is an excellent way to lose business. Again most gaming PCs are weaker than the XSS.


Jennifer Lawrence Reaction GIF

Yup it's me spinning not the guys claiming Jason Ronald made promises about how every graphical feature would be used on the budget console when no one said any such thing.


The 2GB is reserved for the OS on the XSS so its lower speeds has no bearing on games. The lower resolutions on the system are a feature not a bug. It was never promised every game would have raytracing.



An actual interview with Jason Ronald addressing the same debunked stuff people who don't own the system post over and over again. There is the answer.
So xss versions of XSX games are 1440p?
 

Shmunter

Gold Member
Yup and all this talk about it 'holding back the generation' with a Zen2 CPU and an RDNA 2 GPU again shows the disingenuous commentary from non-customers. Just like the Switch right guys?


Push it in what way? It's like you guys don't even realize every game coming to Xbox hits PC day and date. You honestly think game developers will make games incapable of running on PCs less powerful than the XSX? I'm sure that is an excellent way to lose business. Again most gaming PCs are weaker than the XSS.


Jennifer Lawrence Reaction GIF

Yup it's me spinning not the guys claiming Jason Ronald made promises about how every graphical feature would be used on the budget console when no one said any such thing.


The 2GB is reserved for the OS on the XSS so its lower speeds has no bearing on games. The lower resolutions on the system are a feature not a bug. It was never promised every game would have raytracing.



An actual interview with Jason Ronald addressing the same debunked stuff people who don't own the system post over and over again. There is the answer.
Have you reached out to DF to tell them their dev sources are quacks? They would really appreciate you setting the record straight, especially with the receipts you’ve collected directly from MS.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
So xss versions of XSX games are 1440p?
XSS has the exact same feature set as the XSX. Software is entirely up to the devs just like every XSX title isn't in 1440p. It's was a silly argument last time you brought it up.

Have you reached out to DF to tell them their dev sources are quacks? They would really appreciate you setting the record straight, especially with the receipts you’ve collected directly from MS.
Hey you guy like Alex 'Bugaga' now right? If I can take everything he says as gospel I'll remember that next time he reports on PlayStation right? I'm willing to accept that DF is now not a biased anti-Sony source.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Gold Member
XSS has the exact same feature set as the XSX. Software is entirely up to the devs just like every XSX title isn't in 1440p. It's was a silly argument last time you brought it up.


Hey you guy like Alex 'Bugaga' now right? If I can take everything he says as gospel I'll remember that next time he reports on PlayStation right? I'm willing to accept that DF is now not a biased anti-Sony source.
It’s not just Battlestargia, although it would be very difficult for him to admit it. It’s the lot of them DF team.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
XSS has the exact same feature set as the XSX. Software is entirely up to the devs just like every XSX title isn't in 1440p. It's was a silly argument last time you brought it up.


Hey you guy like Alex 'Bugaga' now right? If I can take everything he says as gospel I'll remember that next time he reports on PlayStation right? I'm willing to accept that DF is now not a biased anti-Sony source.
It has 3X less computational power.
If something is gimped it's because of the hardware.. not the software "You don't get blood from a stone"
MS made the claims(which were silly with a 3 X weaker machine)

Can't stand Alex and don't trust DF nor do I need him/them to tell me if a machine 3X weaker can run games @ half the quality of a 3 X more powerful machine.
 

Razvedka

Member
XSS has the exact same feature set as the XSX. Software is entirely up to the devs just like every XSX title isn't in 1440p. It's was a silly argument last time you brought it up.


Hey you guy like Alex 'Bugaga' now right? If I can take everything he says as gospel I'll remember that next time he reports on PlayStation right? I'm willing to accept that DF is now not a biased anti-Sony source.
Both of these responses are deflections.
 

FrankWza

Member
Remember when the Series S was supposed to outperform the PS5?



Man, some of the Xbox teams are no better than fanboys :messenger_grimmacing_
I think some of the experts in this thread said the same thing.
It has 3X less computational power.
If something is gimped it's because of the hardware.. not the software "You don't get blood from a stone"
MS made the claims(which were silly with a 3 X weaker machine)

Can't stand Alex and don't trust DF nor do I need him/them to tell me if a machine 3X weaker can run games @ half the quality of a 3 X more powerful machine.
Him saying what he thinks is one thing.
Him repeating what he’s told, by actual experts, is reporting. And that’s ok.
We don’t need to agree with his opinions and biases. But even he knows not to step on direct quotes from insiders if he wants to be taken seriously .
 

DarkMage619

Member
It has 3X less computational power.
If something is gimped it's because of the hardware.. not the software "You don't get blood from a stone"
MS made the claims(which were silly with a 3 X weaker machine)

Can't stand Alex and don't trust DF nor do I need him/them to tell me if a machine 3X weaker can run games @ half the quality of a 3 X more powerful machine.
You continue to mistake the hardware promises of the same features(quick resume, SSD) with every game having the same graphical settings. MS NEVER promised every game on the XSS would run all games at the same graphical settings nor did they promise all games would run at a particular resolution. Not every game runs at 4K on the PS5 why would the XSS run every game at 1440p? It is the max resolution not a locked resolution for all titles. You can't be serious.
 
The 200$ difference does not make Series S a better deal consider how bad its spec was, and the lack of Blu-ray

200$ dollar could only get me 3-4 games, which is the amount I basically spend every month buying games. A better hardware could carry me through 5 years with overall better gaming experience and the physical copy enable me to resell my old game if I wanted the choice.

The only way I see it, Series S are for extremely light users that mostly just use Game pass exclusively.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
You continue to mistake the hardware promises of the same features(quick resume, SSD) with every game having the same graphical settings. MS NEVER promised every game on the XSS would run all games at the same graphical settings nor did they promise all games would run at a particular resolution. Not every game runs at 4K on the PS5 why would the XSS run every game at 1440p? It is the max resolution not a locked resolution for all titles. You can't be serious.


Note the same experience just at a reduced rendering resolution.

In hindsight he's some way off with his claim.

Quit the BS
 

DarkMage619

Member
Quit the BS

“Developers have a whole host of different techniques, whether that’s changing the resolution of their title, things like dynamic resolution scaling frame to frame — that’s something we’ve seen a lot of adoption of, especially towards the end of this generation,” explains Ronald. “And obviously the ability to enable and display different visual effects, without actually implementing the fundamental gameplay.”

You first.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member

“Developers have a whole host of different techniques, whether that’s changing the resolution of their title, things like dynamic resolution scaling frame to frame — that’s something we’ve seen a lot of adoption of, especially towards the end of this generation,” explains Ronald. “And obviously the ability to enable and display different visual effects, without actually implementing the fundamental gameplay.”

You first.
So you can't read what is posted above.
 

SlimySnake

Member
Well they did, hence the major success of Renderware that generation streaming from DVD for many games - which EA bought at the end of the gen - and it is hardly the same scenario - and not because the Xbox had a stupid Wbuffer instead of a 32bit zbuffer like the PS2, or the PS2 had far more advance shader capabilities like geometry shading in the Reality Synth or had dedicated EmotionEngine Co-processor for inverse kinematics, etc - but because the PS2 launched long before Xbox and probably sold more than Xbox did that gen before it even launched, and so was the market leader by a country mile hence the software follows the money.

Had the PS2 launched when the Xbox did and had the same delaying advantage it too would have had far more memory. The Series S released after the Xbox One X by many years, and yet if fails to best the One X in important ways. So developers are correct to complain IMO.
lol i love how people bring up Xbox Vs ps2 specs as if they came out at the same time. Ps2 was a March 2000 release in Japan. Xbox came out over 18 months later in November 2001. Of course it had better specs. Even the $199 GameCube had better specs than the ps2. RE4 had to be downgraded to run on the ps2.

This is so not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom