Well that's the huge difference here. With 360 you couldn't do all the things the X1 Kinect is always supposed to be at the ready to do regardless of whether the game itself is a Kinect game. So if they occupy those resources does that mean Kinect functionality will suffer because they assumed it's a Kinect less Xbone or are they just going to do a check and drop the performance if Kinect is hooked up?
-
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.
In Theory: Does Kinect-free Xbox One mean more power for games? [DIGITAL FOUNDRY]
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Imperfected
Member
The 10% reservation for Kinect was always a bit bloated for the sake of future-proofing, much like the initial OS RAM reservations were before they were ultimately paired down to less conservative numbers way back prior to launch. There was always an intention to reduce the GPU allotment set aside for the Kinect when it became clear how much or how little some of the more intensive applications of it (ie, mainly the stuff related to skeletal recognition and the like) were being used.
That said, it's again worth cautioning: virtually no side-by-side hardware comparisons made of the two systems have ever taken into account their respective reservations, whether for Kinect or OS. Considering that every indication has been that MIcrosoft has more "bloat" in both regards (peripherals and OS), such a comparison is likely to be unfavorable for the XB1 even after they aggressively adjust it, so it's probably something they want to be mum about rather than trying to spin to the press as a source of secret sauce.
I mean, if you actually ask people to think critically about this - which is what they're doing - you're just inviting them to the realization that the difference in hardware is even worse than it looks on paper...
That said, it's again worth cautioning: virtually no side-by-side hardware comparisons made of the two systems have ever taken into account their respective reservations, whether for Kinect or OS. Considering that every indication has been that MIcrosoft has more "bloat" in both regards (peripherals and OS), such a comparison is likely to be unfavorable for the XB1 even after they aggressively adjust it, so it's probably something they want to be mum about rather than trying to spin to the press as a source of secret sauce.
I mean, if you actually ask people to think critically about this - which is what they're doing - you're just inviting them to the realization that the difference in hardware is even worse than it looks on paper...
BruiserBear
Banned
Digital Foundry said:
IMO this is the light at the end of the tunnel for the Xbox One, and it already seems to be a reality for the most part.
I own Trials Fusion on both of the next gen consoles, and I find the difference between 900p and 1080p hard to notice for the most part. I think if the Xbox One can start making 900p the norm it's going to be a great thing. Most already are, but we're still seeing the occasional game show up lower than that.
Caayn
Member
Console wars must be fought.
Why would consoles with Kinect have less resources to tap into? If Microsoft is most likely going to give developers the option to use the 8% extra resources when they don't use Kinect. The reason why it's such a hot topic right now is because Microsoft decided to release a SKU without Kinect, making it more likely that MS will give devs access to that option.
I think resolutions will remain around what we're seeing now.
Why? Because developers will add more and more effects, enhance the visual qualities of the games as they go on throughout the generation. So at the expense of boosting resolution, they'll rather make the game look nicer.
What? So you're going to disable all Kinect functions when certain games are played? Way to fuck over (I'm not exaggerating) people who bought the console for voice commands then right? Force them to buy a microphone? lol! What about Skype? Disable that too?! Throw multi-tasking out the window right? Can't believe you couldn't think of these simple reasons.
This.
Caayn
Member
I said 8% didn't I, the other 2% that's used for voice-commands are still intact. I don't see MS ever disabling that 2% reserve.
This is exactly what is happening, and was in the works before MS decided to remove the Kinect.
EDIT: Also, voice will still work, so will snap. The 10% reservation is not completely used up by Kinect depth processing. So this will not boost performance by 8%.
I also said Skype and all that, which use Kinect's video processors. You're going to just take away features from the user when certain games are played?
...How are people getting this confused???? ALL Xbox one consoles will get the 8% GPU because the game itself will turn the Kinect motion off and probably just leave voice controls on. The xboxs aren't getting different hardware and you won't have to unplug it.
The devs will simply have the Kinect not on during their games to use the 8-10% boost.
come on guys, this is simple
1. You can't currently do video Skype while playing a game anyway.
2. Skype doesn't require GPU processing of depth feeds, thus, depth processing being removed will not matter at all, even if Skype were snapped.
Caayn
Member
Seeing you post like this makes me highly doubt that you own a Xbox One and actually know what you're talking about.
SKYPE cannot be used during gaming.
So, I thought most of that 10% on the GPU would have been reserved for the snap function, and not kinect, as the GPU has to overlay different video outputs. Since it has barely anything to do with kinect I'm not sure to which extent it's gonna change anything. I thought Kinect had its own chip for video processing anyway?
WarMacheen
Member
Whether it's 2%, 8%, or 10%, it's not going to matter. The gap is too large to make a noticeable dent. That said, now that I have an Xbone that actually plays discs, I've been enjoying Dead Rising 3. Graphically it's not a showcase, but it is damn fun!
MisterXDTV
Member
Microsoft is just desperate: They tell so many lies that now they keep contradicting themselves.... And this won't help them regain the trust of gamers or casuals....
They are trying to compete directly with PS4 on hardware, which is something they shouldn't do because they can't... Their machine is weaker, Period...
They are trying to compete directly with PS4 on hardware, which is something they shouldn't do because they can't... Their machine is weaker, Period...
I don't think anyone expects otherwise. What's done is done. You can free up some power, improve tools, whatever. It still doesn't match PS4 which will have its own toolset improvements. But strictly looking at XO if they can improve their situation, by any amount, I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
In relation to this thread, and its title, what would you say is the most important thing we should be talking about? Physics? Response time? Bacon?
Careful now, there's a sneaky Sony-positive bit in there.
ethomaz
Banned
Metal Gear is the biggest gap if I'm not wrong.
abracadaver
Member
I still dont understand this. Isnt this old news ?
To me it seemed like 10% were always reserved for kinect (audio and video) when the X1 came out. A few months ago there were articles that they could free up the 8% used for kinect video recognition for games that dont use it. But the 2% for voice recognition will always be used.
Will they now completely disable the voice recognition or are the 10% they are talking about now the 8% for video ?
Also what happens to snapping skype video chat if they disable the kinect resources ?
To me it seemed like 10% were always reserved for kinect (audio and video) when the X1 came out. A few months ago there were articles that they could free up the 8% used for kinect video recognition for games that dont use it. But the 2% for voice recognition will always be used.
Will they now completely disable the voice recognition or are the 10% they are talking about now the 8% for video ?
Also what happens to snapping skype video chat if they disable the kinect resources ?
I thought they were both 720 on one and 1080 on the other?
Edit: Or was the XO version of Ghosts 900? I only played the PS4 version.
Jeronimo Jones
Member
So, there's a chance.
And that's why I'm not concerned about this sky-falling nonsense. Both consoles will smoke the look of their launch titles, especially given the low-level control both seem willing to give to devs. The Kinect processing doesn't matter as much compared to this.
ethomaz
Banned
Both 1080/720 but the framerate Is variable on Ghosts while Metal Gear hold 60fps... if you account the framerate the gap in pixels processed per second is bigger in MGS.
PS4 Metal Gear have dinamic lighting too.
xbone was 720p for CoD Ghosts.
MGS was 720p on xbone and 1080p on PS4 but PS4 had the advanced lighting and skybox. Its actually the game that shows the biggest difference because pretty significant features were missing in the xbone version.
Why are some against the idea of the xbox improving performance? Even if it will never reach PS4 levels, why does it bother them so much that xbox gamers might play games with better performance than it was thought possible 6 months ago. If Nintendo could find a way to increase WiiU performance, well good for them I say. Better for gamers who play that system. Why in the world would I be against it.
Karsticles
Member
Why not quote someone who is actually saying this instead of making a generalized statement?
buckeye4life
Banned
So will twitch streaming be ended if this does transpire ?
family_guy
Member
Why is the reserve on the GPU and not the CPU?
Ok, thanks. Now that you mention it I remember the 4-way split comparisons and the sky was indeed different on the PS4 version.
Angelus Errare
Banned
This is going to be a thing isn't it? There's always going to be another "10% performance" to give back to developers.
MADGAME
Member
If this is possible, wouldn't those with a Kinect need to somehow temporarily disable it to play a game developed with the extra power reserved for it? Seems like a hassle to constantly enable/disable Kinect either by some sort of software-enabled update or manually disconnecting/re-connecting every time.
Imperfected
Member
There are also reservations of RAM and CPU resources. The GPU resources are easier to free up because they are - any devs who've worked with Kinect 2.0, please feel free to clarify here - presumably only needed when doing some of the more complicated tasks the Kinect camera is capable of, like skeletal recognition and volumetric/depth-recognition, both of which involve types of calculations better suited to GPU compute.
Those are also the things least likely to be used by multi-platform developers, however, since they require a lot more time spent learning the tools and programming specifically for the XB1 version. There was always a pretty safe bet that most multiplats wouldn't make any meaningful use of those features.
There were only rumors about the resources being freed up before. Now it seems like that never took place(as confirmed by the Titanfall dev in this article), and the May/June update it likely to have that in there.
Also, Skype video chatting currently cannot be snapped. But even if it did, there is no GPU processing being done on that video feed so it would not be affected.
This isn't a hard concept, why are people having trouble understanding?
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
Ok, really.. this thread of regurgitating stuff from the past.
Xbox-fans need to accept that the One is specced lowered than PS4. The GAP is there no matter what.
PS-fans need to just chill and not take everything so seriously. Yeah, PS4 is more powerful than XboxOne. We all know it.
Do we really need to get into this bickering about x amount of performance increase there etc?
BUT, I do have a comment..
What does power mean if the games are not there?
For arguments sake, if MS go ballistic and start securing games now that the released a machine that is lowered in specs, they have to somehow make things up. They have to make people buy the machine. If they get exclusive games for the plattform, isn´t then 792p better than 0p?
But yeah, regurgitating things as usual..
Xbox-fans need to accept that the One is specced lowered than PS4. The GAP is there no matter what.
PS-fans need to just chill and not take everything so seriously. Yeah, PS4 is more powerful than XboxOne. We all know it.
Do we really need to get into this bickering about x amount of performance increase there etc?
BUT, I do have a comment..
What does power mean if the games are not there?
For arguments sake, if MS go ballistic and start securing games now that the released a machine that is lowered in specs, they have to somehow make things up. They have to make people buy the machine. If they get exclusive games for the plattform, isn´t then 792p better than 0p?
But yeah, regurgitating things as usual..
It will leap beyond the infinite power of da cloud.
BruiserBear
Banned
The big take away I think a lot of people are ignoring, intentionally, is that COD: Ghosts being 720p was seen as the first proof that the XB1 was substantially less powerful than the PS4 last November.
Now we already know that the next COD is going to ship at 900p. That information, along with the recent release of Trials Fusion at 900p and 60fps, suggests the tools/dev kit really were behind where they should have been at launch.
Lots of people love to repeat "the PS4 tools will improve as well", and of course thats true, but we don't know if they were both where they should have been last fall. We had people/devs saying the XB1 wasn't where it should be, and now we have games showing up that seem to be backing up that claim. I suspect we're going to see a lot more 900p out of the XB1 on the low end going forward.
Now we already know that the next COD is going to ship at 900p. That information, along with the recent release of Trials Fusion at 900p and 60fps, suggests the tools/dev kit really were behind where they should have been at launch.
Lots of people love to repeat "the PS4 tools will improve as well", and of course thats true, but we don't know if they were both where they should have been last fall. We had people/devs saying the XB1 wasn't where it should be, and now we have games showing up that seem to be backing up that claim. I suspect we're going to see a lot more 900p out of the XB1 on the low end going forward.
i dont understand how the power gap becomes smaller more time in the new gen. I mean if they get more efficient at developing for X1, PS4 will be as well, so the hardware difference that is now will always be the same, i mean if X1 catches up but PS4 takes there effeciency further the gap stays the same?
What the fuck? Which article were you reading?
BruiserBear
Banned
You don't know that both consoles started on equal footing last November. You're assuming that. There were dev leaks that stated the XB1 wasn't where it should have been, and the Kinect ate up a lot of resources.
So there is potentially more room for improvement on the XB1 side for those reasons. It seems there are more variables there.
Probably because no one actually said that.
dont forget about the CLOUD!! hahaha