• 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.

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
Yeah? How much exactly?
The XSS has 8GB of memory for games. PC needs about half of that for the OS alone minimum. The PC would also require a competent video card so while PC would have more memory it also wouldn't be used nearly as efficiently. Again more memory != to better performance. More memory would allow for less optimization of your code but unlimited memory is not an option on consoles.

Consoles require careful RAM management which is why not using SFS could cause issues. It is available precisely because consoles have less RAM in general than PCs not just XSS. You shouldn't just dump data into RAM on consoles especially when there is fast storage.

The system memory portion on the Series S is very slow and there is only 2GB of it.
That 2GB is for the OS and isn't used for games.
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Goosen confirmed the 8gb of ram for games on Series S in public, I've quoted it.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
This is false. See my edited post above.

FYI, the usable RAM for games on Series S is 7.5GB according to leaked docs. So 2.5GB is allocated for the Xbox OS. That is about what my PC also uses for Windows 11.

MS says 4GB minimum for Windows 11. You can feel free to tell them they are wrong.

How much RAM is needed for 1080p resolutions? Do you know if any of the devs complaining about memory on the XSS are using SFS? If not perhaps they can work with MS to implement it and maximize memory usage on the system. I'm positive MS has a developer support team.

Goosen confirmed the 8gb of ram for games on Series S in public, I've quoted it.
Why would we believe Goosen over a Sony fan on GAF?
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.

MS says 4GB minimum for Windows 11. You can feel free to tell them they are wrong.

How much RAM is needed for 1080p resolutions? Do you know if any of the devs complaining about memory on the XSS are using SFS? If not perhaps they can work with MS to implement it and maximize memory usage on the system. I'm positive MS has a developer support team.


Why would we believe Goosen over a Sony fan on GAF?

Yeah just more lies from the usual suspects, not surprised.

""The biggest consumers for memory are really the render targets and the texture budget and both of those shrink significantly with targeting the lower resolution - so 1440p is 44 per cent of the size of 2160p and so right there, all your render targets get less," says Andrew Goossen. "And with g-buffers and all that, that is a lot of memory right there in terms of memory consumption. And there, the texture budgets are very significant as well, so we feel good about the 8GB that we make available.""
 


in short: you cannot make textures look like on the left to accomodate for series s. on PC, some people can accept that "weak" GPUs. if you think this is a solution, its not. aside from that, as i have said, some games will refuse to run on very old dx 11.0 GPUs (kepler, gtx 700 series)

Luckily, that would never be the difference between 10 and 16 GB of RAM.

I know the analysis you pointed out are 2GB cards, but that kind of LOD is also fit for 1 GB cards and perhaps even lower as unoptimized as it is. So that's basically the difference between 1GB of VRAM (unoptimized) to 8 GB VRAM, optimized. it's an 8 times difference, while we're talking of half resolution in assets meant for 4K here, so things would never, ever, look this bad. If bad at all.

They can, and will batch convert everything if they have to. With luck they'll get tools to optimize textures. The issue for them is most likely down to the fact that mid-res assets take space, and this generation still uses bluray and Series S/Series X games are not different builds when it comes to game code. Add to that the fact that they don't want to optimize things for a platform that is less powerful and not their lead platform.
 
Last edited:

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Microsoft is trying to figure out apple, and is getting beat down they have the best first person shooter the great halo.
 

SlimySnake

Member
i'm not arguing with that, though :) 6700xt and 6600xt is also close to each other, only separated by a small %14 margin on average. %14 is a small change, but they're different models regardless, hence named differently. ps5 is closer to 6600xt, and series x is closer to 6700xt. but people refuse to accept / acknowledge.

some people are so defensive on ps5 that they cannot even accept that there can be a correlation between ps5 and sx performance that amounts to a %10-25 difference (mind you, if a game is compute heavy, it is very normal for series x to have a %20 difference. since console games lock to 60 fps and use DSR all the time, they became more geometry bound, which helps PS5 more than Series X. On PC, you can just unlock FPS and fill all the shaders that RDNA2 can provide to games, and you can see that 6700xt can fly high. series x gets that chance with VRR unlocked modes

i'm not trying to say that %8-10-12-14 is a huge difference. i'm just matching consoles with their counterpart GPUs on PC. i originally gave that example to put series s in picture, and i said that it would be more cool if it was racing with a rx 6600, instead of a 6500xt (mind you, 6500xt is gimped by pcie 4 only and 4 gb vram, therefore it will have misleading benchmarks. but it does not change the fact at its core, its a 5.7 tflops RDNA2 GPU, and purely it is %35-40 faster than series s on equal terms. yet someone also ignored that and refused to accept it. on desktop, most people are overloading the 6500xt with ultra textures and settings and the GPU just buckles down. 4 GB is too small, it should at least had 6 GB though)

for a more honest and fair comparison, we need games that have VRR uncapped mode on both consoles. I hope DL2 gets a PS5 unlocked VRR cap mode so we can see the actual difference between sx and ps5 there aswell

as a matter of fact, I said in this very same topic that PS exclusives tend to have better graphics overall. I don't even know why people are so defensive of PS5 when it comes to hardware. you already have the best software, better games. PS exc developers will end up create games that push PS5 to its boundaries that Xbox SX won't have a chance to run. i'm not saying this difference is meaningful or means anything, I don't even consider this difference as a choosing factor between consoles. i'm just saying it is there. i firmly say that i have no preference over both consoles, i'm just an outsider that analyzes the data. and data tells me that sx seems stronger than ps5, between %8 and %23 (if the game is compute heavy, as i've said again).

data also tells me that sx is akin to 6700xt and ps5 is akin to 6600xt

literally, sx is a 12.15 tflops rdna 2 GPU (peak). 6700xt is a 13.2 tflops rdna 2 gpu.
literally, ps5 is a 10 tflops rdna2 GPU (peak), 6600xt is a 10 tflops rdna 2 gpu

why would i say sx is closer to 6600xt. it is closer to 6700xt in terms of pure, raw specs. and it shows.

I have a 3070. i use xbox series x equivalent settings WHENEVER I can. And I can testify that the performance I'm getting is very close to what series x provides. forza horizon 5, halo infinite, ac valhalla, you name it.
lol I cant believe you have to defend such a data backed post. People need to leave their feelings at the door when discussing specs. We arent discussing the quality of games here. This stuff isnt subjective.

I think the 6700xt should be used as a comparison to the XSX in every single game by DF and NX gamer. It's shocking that this card has been out for almost a year and no one wants to test especially considering how the XSX has performed against the 10 tflops PS5. This card can easily be locked at a clock speed to make it 12.1 tflops and then go nuts. Alex does this all the time. He gets PC settings straight from devs for xbox and ps5 games. Go ahead and run a test. Dont fucking use a 2080 when you have an RDNA 2.0 at your finger tips.

Everyone here has speculated that the split ram architecture might be holding back the XSX. Some have even stated that 52 CU in a two shader engine profile might be creating a bottleneck where these CUs wont be fully utilized in some scenarios. The cerny hypothesis so to speak. Cerny also pointed out how higher clocks are better. The 6700xt performs very well compared to the 2080 and even the 2080 in the Matrix demo like all RDNA 2.0 cards. It's only 9% better than the xsx in tflops, but is performing almost 50% better. Why? Lets fucking find out. Same goes for the 6600xt which roughly on par with the PS5 here despite the CPU bound nature of the demo holding back console GPUs. However, despite being cpu bound, the PS5 performing similar to a 10.7 tflops gpu but why is xsx also performing like one? And that too with coalition's optimizations?

I saw the 6700xt and 6600xt drop below $500 last week. At this point, i might just pick them just do run some tests because these so called professionals clearly dont give a fuck.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
Jesus christ, dude. Minimum 4GB RAM requirement from MS =/= that's how much RAM the OS uses. The actual Windows 11 RAM footprint/usage is way less than 4GB. Win 11 RAM usage is about the same or even less than what Xbox OS uses on Series consoles!
What is your point? The Xbox OS uses less memory than Windows does. MS says 4GB minimum. You don't like that take it up with Microsoft.

Here's how much RAM Win 11 OS is using on my PC (on a fresh boot). About...700MB more than Series S OS usage? That's nowhere near half of 8GB like you falsely claimed DarkMage619 DarkMage619 .

Who Cares Tommy Lee Jones GIF


I answered your question and provided a link showing the amount of memory MS said is needed for Windows.

How about you answer my question and tell me how many of the complaining developers are using sampler feedback streaming on the XSS. They should realize development on consoles is a little different than PC and that's probably the reason MS wanted that feature on their systems. I'm certain it's available within the XDK. It also the reason they created a unified development environment.

Yeah just more lies from the usual suspects, not surprised.

""The biggest consumers for memory are really the render targets and the texture budget and both of those shrink significantly with targeting the lower resolution - so 1440p is 44 per cent of the size of 2160p and so right there, all your render targets get less," says Andrew Goossen. "And with g-buffers and all that, that is a lot of memory right there in terms of memory consumption. And there, the texture budgets are very significant as well, so we feel good about the 8GB that we make available.""
Why do you keep producing evidence contrary to the agenda some are pushing that the XSS is single handedly ruining the generation! It's almost like you own the system and know what you are talking about! Obviously Sony fans would know best.

Still waiting for someone to show evidence that a game had to be compromised in order to get it to run on the S. All we are hearing is a bunch of whining about extra work, which Is meaningless to gamers.

Meme Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
Morgan Freeman Good Luck GIF

Pretty sure you will be waiting a long time to get a legitimate argument from the usual people here about anything regarding the XSS.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
This is false. See my edited post above.

FYI, the usable RAM for games on Series S is 7.5GB according to leaked docs. So 2.5GB is allocated for the Xbox OS. That is about what my PC also uses for Windows 11.
I'm 100% convinced the large o/s footprint on consoles is due to the game DVR allocation. It would be counter productive for the game recording vid to be hammering the secondary storage constantly - it goes into a ram pool first before being flushed out to the SSD periodically.

In saying that, since the consoles are constantly recording, that slow 56 GB/s is getting hammered during gameplay. No way this is not creating a contention mess for devs wanting the full 224 GB/s on S.

Same applies to X with it's setup.
 

Hoddi

Member
I'm 100% convinced the large o/s footprint on consoles is due to the game DVR allocation. It would be counter productive for the game recording vid to be hammering the secondary storage constantly - it goes into a ram pool first before being flushed out to the SSD periodically.

In saying that, since the consoles are constantly recording, that slow 56 GB/s is getting hammered during gameplay. No way this is not creating a contention mess for devs wanting the full 224 GB/s on S.

Same applies to X with it's setup.
I agree on all of that except I have no idea why people think 56GB/s is low bandwidth for a CPU. I'm 99% certain that it's the very same CPU bandwidth that the PS5 has assuming they kept the Garlic/Onion bus layout.

It's also pretty clear that people in this thread have absolutely no idea how much CPU bandwidth is used by games. Even highly bandwidth intensive games like the AC series are only pushing ~8GB/s at 30fps.
 

SlimySnake

Member
I'm 100% convinced the large o/s footprint on consoles is due to the game DVR allocation. It would be counter productive for the game recording vid to be hammering the secondary storage constantly - it goes into a ram pool first before being flushed out to the SSD periodically.

In saying that, since the consoles are constantly recording, that slow 56 GB/s is getting hammered during gameplay. No way this is not creating a contention mess for devs wanting the full 224 GB/s on S.

Same applies to X with it's setup.
From what i remember on the x1, Xbox dvr is very limited and that didn’t improve with the xsx from what I’ve read. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it only records the last 2 minutes where as the ps5 records the last 60 minutes.
 

Shmunter

Member
I agree on all of that except I have no idea why people think 56GB/s is low bandwidth for a CPU. I'm 99% certain that it's the very same CPU bandwidth that the PS5 has assuming they kept the Garlic/Onion bus layout.

It's also pretty clear that people in this thread have absolutely no idea how much CPU bandwidth is used by games. Even highly bandwidth intensive games like the AC series are only pushing ~8GB/s at 30fps.
The issue arises not that cpu doesn’t need more, it is that when your accessing the slow ram the entire bus becomes that speed for that precise moment. This effects the GPU.

For arguments sake, if the slow ram we’re to be accessed 50% of the time, the essential memory speed on the system would be the avg of 224 and 56 = 140gb/s
 

Shmunter

Member
From what i remember on the x1, Xbox dvr is very limited and that didn’t improve with the xsx from what I’ve read. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it only records the last 2 minutes where as the ps5 records the last 60 minutes.
Not sure about Xbox, ps5 sounds right.
 

Dibernium

Neo Member
I think 1080p is low but if you cant tell then its fine. With the Series S version I can clearly see giant chunky blocky artifacts. it is not acceptable IQ. Something like DriveClub and Batman AK look terrible on a large 4k screen despite being native 4k but a good solution like matrix with TSR is fine.

Series S is not able to overcome its raw pixel counts no matter what upscaling they use.
Series S raw pixel fill rate is 75% higher than that of the PS4 Pro, and it did "OK" with dynamic 4K, so why do you think a system all of a sudden will struggle at 1080p on a 1080p screen? If people run the Series S on a 4K screen, and I am one of them, then it is on us. The system was never marketed as a 4K console, hell I have the box mine came in righ beside me and I don't even see 1440p listed as a feature.
 

Dibernium

Neo Member
Series S shouldn't even be. It's literally holding back all of next gen due to its fucking existence.
Drama much? I mean read what you just wrote, then tell me what games are being held back right now. Unless you were being sarcastic, then good one sir!
 
From what i remember on the x1, Xbox dvr is very limited and that didn’t improve with the xsx from what I’ve read. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it only records the last 2 minutes where as the ps5 records the last 60 minutes.

Incorrect.

You need external drive dedicated to capture screenshot/ video to record upto 60 min on xbox.
 

Dibernium

Neo Member
No. It's a piece of crap, with a low amount of RAM running at a low frequency.
You can't get rid of this by simply lowering the resolution.

Thank God that Sony was smart enough not to follow this idiotic trend.
Why, by milking the price of the PS5 another $100 dollars for just a blu ray drive? With that mentality, to really stick it to the competition, Sony should have just released the PS5 disc version only, and for $400. With that being said, the Series S should have been $250 and no more, IMO.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
Here's how much RAM Win 11 OS is using on my PC (on a fresh boot). About...700MB more than Series S OS usage? That's nowhere near half of 8GB like you falsely claimed DarkMage619 DarkMage619 .

So, if you had 8gb of ram you would be left with a bout 5gb of ram available and say you had a 2gb card. You still would be screwed compared to the series S.

What is the gpu memory available for the steam deck and what speed is that? I don't see anyone complaining about the steam deck. Would be interesting to know. I guess its considerably faster.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
So, if you had 8gb of ram you would be left with a bout 5gb of ram available and say you had a 2gb card. You still would be screwed compared to the series S.

What is the gpu memory available for the steam deck and what speed is that? I don't see anyone complaining about the steam deck. Would be interesting to know. I guess its considerably faster.
steam deck has a total of whopping 16 gb memory (for both gpu and cpu operations).

memory will never be a constraint for it

for your first paragraph, i don't think any sane person who plays to latest AAA games would keep rocking a 2 GB GPU. 4 gb can rock it along nowadays. but 6 gb is more future proof. on PC, some desktop applications also use VRAM. windows itself uses a bit of VRAM, which is unpreventable. chrome, discord, spotify, all Electron apps uses VRAM. thankfully you can disable hardware acceleration and push them to the RAM instead (this helped my friend with a 1650s immensely. his %1s improved and framedrops went poof in most of his games).

btw i have never said series s would have 2 gb vram available for gpu operations. i specifically stated that:

ps4
2 GB system
2-2.5 GB RAM (you can see that most of the ports last gen actually only uses 2-2.5 gb ram. again: console settings must be matched to adhere to this limit)
3.5-4 GB VRAM (you can pretty much match ps4 settings and play all last gen games with a 4 GB GPU)

series s
2 GB system
3-3.5 GB RAM
4.5-5 GB VRAM

series x
2.5 GB system
3.5 GB RAM
10 GB VRAM

i don't know about ps5. it doesn't have weird divided memory pools.

this is why ram requirements in this generation will not increase on PC. it will stagnate around 16 gb recommendation. but it won't even fill the 16 GB. at best, they can opportunistically use more RAM available, but that never means that it needs it. this is the biggest misconception PC gamers have in recent years. yes %1s can improve, but we're talking about matching consoles here. its not like ps5/xbox sx have the best %1s in the world.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
steam deck has a total of whopping 16 gb memory (for both gpu and cpu operations).

memory will never be a constraint for it

for your first paragraph, i don't think any sane person who plays to latest AAA games would keep rocking a 2 GB GPU. 4 gb can rock it along nowadays. but 6 gb is more future proof. on PC, some desktop applications also use VRAM. windows itself uses a bit of VRAM, which is unpreventable. chrome, discord, spotify, all Electron apps uses VRAM. thankfully you can disable hardware acceleration and push them to the RAM instead (this helped my friend with a 1650s immensely. his %1s improved and framedrops went poof in most of his games).

btw i have never said series s would have 2 gb vram available for gpu operations. i specifically stated that:

ps4
2 GB system
2-2.5 GB RAM (you can see that most of the ports last gen actually only uses 2-2.5 gb ram. again: console settings must be matched to adhere to this limit)
3.5-4 GB VRAM (you can pretty much match ps4 settings and play all last gen games with a 4 GB GPU)

series s
2 GB system
3-3.5 GB RAM
4.5-5 GB VRAM

series x
2.5 GB system
3.5 GB RAM
10 GB VRAM

i don't know about ps5. it doesn't have weird divided memory pools.

this is why ram requirements in this generation will not increase on PC. it will stagnate around 16 gb recommendation. but it won't even fill the 16 GB. at best, they can opportunistically use more RAM available, but that never means that it needs it. this is the biggest misconception PC gamers have in recent years. yes %1s can improve, but we're talking about matching consoles here. its not like ps5/xbox sx have the best %1s in the world.

Just want to say, I really appreciate your posts. You always back up with actual evidence and data. Thanks for the input.

For some reason I thought the steamdeck had a split pool of memory. 8gb for graphics like the series s and 8 gb for os and overhead. I could be wrong.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
steam deck has a total of whopping 16 gb memory (for both gpu and cpu operations).

memory will never be a constraint for it

for your first paragraph, i don't think any sane person who plays to latest AAA games would keep rocking a 2 GB GPU. 4 gb can rock it along nowadays. but 6 gb is more future proof. on PC, some desktop applications also use VRAM. windows itself uses a bit of VRAM, which is unpreventable. chrome, discord, spotify, all Electron apps uses VRAM. thankfully you can disable hardware acceleration and push them to the RAM instead (this helped my friend with a 1650s immensely. his %1s improved and framedrops went poof in most of his games).

btw i have never said series s would have 2 gb vram available for gpu operations. i specifically stated that:

ps4
2 GB system
2-2.5 GB RAM (you can see that most of the ports last gen actually only uses 2-2.5 gb ram. again: console settings must be matched to adhere to this limit)
3.5-4 GB VRAM (you can pretty much match ps4 settings and play all last gen games with a 4 GB GPU)

series s
2 GB system
3-3.5 GB RAM
4.5-5 GB VRAM

series x
2.5 GB system
3.5 GB RAM
10 GB VRAM

i don't know about ps5. it doesn't have weird divided memory pools.

this is why ram requirements in this generation will not increase on PC. it will stagnate around 16 gb recommendation. but it won't even fill the 16 GB. at best, they can opportunistically use more RAM available, but that never means that it needs it. this is the biggest misconception PC gamers have in recent years. yes %1s can improve, but we're talking about matching consoles here. its not like ps5/xbox sx have the best %1s in the world.
Steam Deck was mentioned earlier do you expect the Steam Deck to outperform the XSS? It does have more total RAM.
 
I'm 100% convinced the large o/s footprint on consoles is due to the game DVR allocation. It would be counter productive for the game recording vid to be hammering the secondary storage constantly - it goes into a ram pool first before being flushed out to the SSD periodically.

In saying that, since the consoles are constantly recording, that slow 56 GB/s is getting hammered during gameplay. No way this is not creating a contention mess for devs wanting the full 224 GB/s on S.

Same applies to X with it's setup.
Humor Boomer GIF
 

yamaci17

Member
Steam Deck was mentioned earlier do you expect the Steam Deck to outperform the XSS? It does have more total RAM.

no, i never said anything like that. i think valve simply wanted to remove any potential of steam deck being a pain for developers and users.

steam deck may also require more ram for Proton and compatibility reasons. that's just my guess. they also have their gamescope thing going.

at best, you can run best possible textures games have to offer, but i don't know if it will be meaningful or not with a small screen at 720p. even then, series s will still run games with higher, more respectable settings so its not a relevant comparison

i'm not saying more memory=better. i'm just saying more memory = less headaches, being able to use best possible textures without being a pain for devs

my example for 2 gb gpus stand still. ps4 is much, much weaker than a gtx 770 but due to having 2 gb, gtx 770's power is either a) severely limited or b)have to run ugly low textures. not that it has relevancy to this comparison. devs can never have such ugly textures on series s. everyone would raise hell. its impossible. they will have to through whatever pain they have to go through. its not even a question :) amd im glad they do.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
no, i never said anything like that. i think valve simply wanted to remove any potential of steam deck being a pain for developers and users.

steam deck may also require more ram for Proton and compatibility reasons. that's just my guess. they also have their gamescope thing going.

at best, you can run best possible textures games have to offer, but i don't know if it will be meaningful or not with a small screen at 720p. but some games benefit most from the textures so yeah, games may look... a tad bit better than series s in cases where you cannot use ultra textures on series s (currently far cry 6, for example)

but with a small, limited bandwidth, running those textures may also create problems for steam deck. so, not sure on that front.
I wasn't accusing you of any claim. There was just a back and forth about RAM and some seem to be claiming that a platform with more RAM would outperform a system with less without much consideration to the CPU and GPU. I would assume that since the Steam Deck is still a PC it would have more RAM. Historically PCs have had more RAM than consoles.
 

Dampf

Member
Here's how much RAM Win 11 OS is using on my PC (on a fresh boot). About...700MB more than Series S OS usage? That's nowhere near half of 8GB like you falsely claimed DarkMage619 DarkMage619 .

Also keep in mind Windows allocates memory as it needs. If your system ram is more pressured, it will free up RAM for other tasks. So it needs even less than 2.7 GB RAM.

In games, Series S has around 3-5 GB available as VRAM depending how much DRAM the game logic needs. If you compare the texture, quality and resolution settings from a wide range of multiplatform titles between PC and XSS you will see most of the time Series S is using similar texture quality as a PC GPU with 4 GB VRAM would.

This is why modern entry level GPUs have 4 GB VRAM as well.
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
So, if you had 8gb of ram you would be left with a bout 5gb of ram available and say you had a 2gb card. You still would be screwed compared to the series S.
No one in their right mind would use a 2GB card for current-gen titles. Most common VRAM amount according to Steam survey is 8GB. So total usable memory from both system RAM + VRAM would be ~13.5GB. Almost +70% more than Series S. 6GB is next, which would mean 11+GB total (which is still a lot more than what's available to XSS).

What is the gpu memory available for the steam deck and what speed is that? I don't see anyone complaining about the steam deck. Would be interesting to know. I guess its considerably faster.
No one complains about Steam Deck because it has the same amount of total RAM as XSX/PS5 (i.e. 16GB unified memory), but it's obviously different type and a lot slower.
 
Last edited:

Astral Dog

Member
While i don't believe its a major concern and everybody should adapt in time, the burden for developers would be that they can't take 'full' advantage of those 12-13GB of RAM available to games on Series X and PS5(unless they are Sony first party) , when their entire design has to fit on a 8GB machine.

Even with the resolution increase, the difference in memory appears way too big imo to not have any kind of impact, specially if most developers were expecting say at least 10GB to work with.

though in terms of GPU, SSD and CPU the Xbox Series S should be fairly adequate (for 1080p) for a next gen jump and budget gamers love that little box
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Well one benefit John Linneman highlights in the video is with the S target, all games should run like a dream on the big consoles. I think it’s tongue in cheek because what he’s describing is essentially Pro consoles to the main base.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Having different hardwares is more difficult than making a game around a single hardware?

Shocked i say.gif
 
Last edited:

Ezquimacore

Banned
I keep hearing this Bs yet every game runs good enough. What's surprising is that DF is saying this considering they're"computer savvy" and they know damn well there's people right now running games on a 1050ti/1060.
 

Three

Member
So, if you had 8gb of ram you would be left with a bout 5gb of ram available and say you had a 2gb card. You still would be screwed compared to the series S.

What is the gpu memory available for the steam deck and what speed is that? I don't see anyone complaining about the steam deck. Would be interesting to know. I guess it's considerably faster.
"If you had a lower spec machine than the Series S you would have a lower spec machine than the S, and what about this portable"

The thing is, he doesn't, he has 16GB and he was only showing that the OS doesn't use 4GB, that's just the minimum spec.

Nobody complains about the steam deck because Valve doesn't say if you want to release a game on Steam it has to run on the Steam Deck. So it doesn't matter. MS do with the Series S.

The steam deck hasn't even sold that much to have influence on the market like that. Just as most game releases ignore the Switch a lot of games couldn't care less about Steam Deck. They are both pretty sure fire bets for a lot of less graphically demanding indie support though.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Simply having to lower resolution is a compromise.
He has had several receipts given to him already, first party games possibly dropping raytracing patches due to cost/difficulty supporting it and a very direct id engine dev quote about min spec mattering. He won't accept them though.
It's because he doesn't understand the nuances of 'compromise' in game dev.
He thinks 'extra work' is meaningless to gamers therefore who cares about time/money spent getting something working because it won't affect what devs do. It does.
 
Last edited:

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Still waiting for someone to show evidence that a game had to be compromised in order to get it to run on the S. All we are hearing is a bunch of whining about extra work, which Is meaningless to gamers.

Meme Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
It's funny in a thread about Digital Foundry you've apparently never watched a Digital Foundry comparison video before. The S is always compromised. Many times beyond just resolution. Here's a recent one for you and DarkMage619 DarkMage619 and anyone else in complete denial. Enjoy.

 

Hendrick's

Member
It's funny in a thread about Digital Foundry you've apparently never watched a Digital Foundry comparison video before. The S is always compromised. Many times beyond just resolution. Here's a recent one for you and DarkMage619 DarkMage619 and anyone else in complete denial. Enjoy.

Comprehension skills are lacking I see. Let's see if I can make it more clear. Where has a game been compromised on more powerful hardware because of the S?
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Comprehension skills are lacking I see. Let's see if I can make it more clear. Where has a game been compromised on more powerful hardware because of the S?
I was going on your own words. "Still waiting for someone to show evidence that a game had to be compromised in order to get it to run on the S." You mentioned nothing of other hardware. Be precise in your speech bucko.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Banned
lol....that's an entirely different question than what you asked.
It wasn't worded the best, but I understood what he was asking. OF course we all know the Series S version of a game will be held back. That's straight forward. The question is what PS5/XSX games have been held back due to the Series S existence? None.

It's hilarious to see so many folks on an enthusiast forum hating on the Series S when it is doing gangbusters. Are you the ones out of touch?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom