• 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.

Opinion Hardware No, Series S/Lockhart Will NOT Hold Back Series X (From Technology POV). Here's Why.

Neo_game

Member
Mar 19, 2020
421
472
270
What the hell is all this babbling about?

Lockhart isn't forcing all those PS5 exclusives and console exclusives to be native 4K. Lockhart isn't preventing Sony from releasing a PS5 Pro. Lockhart is the 1/4 res version of the XSX with the same CPU and SSD. Nothing more, nothing less.
My point was that gfx quality is definitely being held back due to the S because the PS5 and X are used as pro models just like the current gen PS4 Pro and X. As far as mid gen upgrades goes this is obviously my assumption and it depends on various factors like how far can the price for pro models like the X and PS5 come down to and how well does the S model does etc ...
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Rule of thumb: generally around these parts (thanks to past precedent), when referring to Phil Spencer this is almost never used in good connotation. It's also very disingenuous. He actually has done technical-related work too. This isn't hard to find out.

From Wikipedia:

"Spencer joined Microsoft in 1988 as an intern and has worked in a number of technical roles, leading the development of Microsoft's first CD-ROM-based titles (such as Encarta), development manager for Microsoft Money, and general manager of Microsoft's online and offline consumer productivity products including Microsoft Works and Microsoft Picture It! [4][5] "

Also you guys realize Mark Cerny was also effectively serving as a marketing person during Road to PS5, right? Even if he was discussing technical aspects of the system, he very selectively ignored highlighting any weaknesses or negatives to hardware design decisions they made.

The act of only selling you the good aspects of something and downplaying/omitting the downsides...is basically marketing.



Try actually being specific. I'm certain if you were, we could tell how many of those "things" are genuine and how many are just fanciful conjecture.



This reads like a fanboy comment and ignores the fact that people by and large are WAY more interested in Series X than they were for Xbox One during this relative time frame period. Not just the Xbox community but also a large amount of the PlayStation and Nintendo communities as, gasp!, many of them are multi-platform owners and play on more than one device.



You're absolutely reaching to try implying this as a negative. At least MS got a chance to actually reveal their system at a live gaming show. That'll probably be the last time it happens until the midgen refreshes. And FWIW the reception to that reveal is unanimously positive and impressive to say the least. Hardly recall a single account of people thinking it was a "bad" thing to do...you might just be the first.



This was a comment mentioned by Matt Booty during... E3 2019. Meaning the two-year period covers up to holiday 2021, or the 1st year of next-gen.

'Ya know, the same period that's usually always filled with cross-gen games anyway, and where 1st party hardly ever does anything that can be considered a genuine game design paradigm shift (i.e just last-gen games with much prettier graphics and usually using some of the new hardware features as gimmicks).



And this is bad how? You realize Sony is starting to shift to a similar model too, right? And bringing more of their games to PC at that. I swear there's this very interesting response from some people where if Sony announces or basically reveals they're doing the EXACT same thing Microsoft does, suddenly that thing is good for the industry and is showered with praise.

It reeks of strong bias favoritism and comes off like partisan politics.



Oh so now next-gen just being prettier games is a good thing again? Again this is funny, because ever since Sony did the Road to PS5 presentation one thing I've observed is people hyping up how much SSDs will change game design, and yet (somewhat stupidly) enough every single example they bring up basically boils down to "prettier graphics".

Now that isn't me saying the SSDs won't have an impact on future game design, but at least try arguing for benefits that don't essentially mean "better graphics", which is what 90% of people who argue for benefit of SSDs to next-gen (usually from the perspective of Sony's SSD I/O) routinely do. But here, you are creating another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position for MS because just a few paragraphs earlier you went on about how much of a "marketing guy" (as a deregotive) Phil Spencer supposedly is. Yet here in the quote you grab, he's being rather non-"marketing guy" like and honest about the aspect of visual diminishing returns...but oh no. NOW he's killing hype for next-gen because he isn't trying to sell you a pitch strong enough even if that'd mean embellishing on a few things.

Next thing you know he does exactly what you said he should've done and you'd probably just find another thing to criticize him on. Like RT for example; never mind they have already shown the stuff you said he should've mentioned here (regardless if they're in-engine or not Hellblade 2 and Project: Mara still have the best facial animations/details and RT of any next-gen demonstration so far, between both consoles), I'm sure if he just went on talking about ray-tracing again the probability's very high you'd just focus on him mentioning prettier graphics again because "he'd know" them "using Series S as the base cuts back the gameplay design scope on Series X so it's just a resolution box" (placed those in quotes because that's your prevailing theory and not something I'd come within ten feet of touching as my own xD).



I love how you ignore all the other marketing they've done which has gone over fantastically to cherry-pick this single non-issue of a quote from Spencer to attempt painting their entire next-gen marketing as ineffective.



I truly fear for your mental sanity after July 23rd destroys all of these points of concern for you. More curious if you'll just accept being wrong or if a new goalpost gets set up.

Exciting times ahead!
Microsoft: Here's our 12 Tflops beast of a console!
Also Microsoft: It's not going to have any exclusives for the coming 2 years

How is that not bad marketing? They could have just said nothing and tell us they're hard at work on Series X games.

How is saying "we don't care which console you buy" not a slap in the face for the developers who are currently working on Series X games and consumers expecting to get 100% support on it?

How did anyone who green lighted the May event not know it would be a terrible idea to show that as a first impression of Series X games?

And now we are hearing about a 4Tflops Lockhart that does pretty much the same at one third of the price... Truth is it's almost as if MS doesn't expect us to buy the Series X and that its there as some kind of niche product, like the X1X. I do hope I'm wrong and that Series X has more to offer than just 4k and 60fps but I got a feeling that that's going to be their biggest talking point in July when they show their "next gen" Halo and Forza running in 120fps.
 
Last edited:

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
Microsoft: Here's our 12 Tflops beast of a console!
Also Microsoft: It's not going to have any exclusives for the coming 2 years

How is that not bad marketing? They could have just said nothing and tell us they're hard at work on Series X games.

How is saying "we don't care which console you buy" not a slap in the face for the developers who are currently working on Series X games and consumers expecting to get 100% support on it?

How did anyone who green lighted the May event not know it would be a terrible idea to show that as a first impression of Series X games?

And now we are hearing about a 4Tflops Lockhart that does pretty much the same at one third of the price... Truth is it's almost as if MS doesn't expect us to buy the Series X and that its there as some kind of niche product, like the X1X. I do hope I'm wrong and that Series X has more to offer than just 4k and 60fps but I got a feeling that that's going to be their biggest talking point in July when they show their "next gen" Halo and Forza running in 120fps.

The only bad piece of marketing your post in the May event. Which they have publicly acknowledged and said they will do better.

You seem to have issues with the strategy and not their marketing. Nothing they have done or said is a slap in the face to anyone.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
The only bad piece of marketing your post in the May event. Which they have publicly acknowledged and said they will do better.

You seem to have issues with the strategy and not their marketing. Nothing they have done or said is a slap in the face to anyone.
You think announcing a next gen console and then follow that up by saying it won't have any exclusives for the next 2 years is good marketing?

Maybe I am overreacting a bit but tell me honestly, what has MS said or shown so far that really creates a desire for next gen and wants you to go out and buy a Series X? All they've talked about is BC, Smart Delivery and "Optimized for Series X games running in 4k/120fps. Maybe that doesn't sound too bad but that has mostly to do with the fact that we haven't seen much of the true next gen games yet. Somehow people don't seem to realize what MS's cross platform strategy actually entails. Which is weird as they've already given us an appetizer of what "Optimized for Series X" games mean in May, and it sure was a yucky one.

I also don't think May was a colossal marketing mistake. They just showed us exactly what they promised; games that scale across a whole bunch of devices and run in 4k/60fps on Series X. Their games not looking next gen is part of their whole strategy and I got a feeling we'll see the same thing in a couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
You think announcing a next gen console and then follow that up by saying it won't have any exclusives for the next 2 years is good marketing?

Maybe I am overreacting a bit but tell me honestly, what has MS said or shown so far that really creates a desire for next gen and wants you to go out and buy a Series X? All they've talked about is BC, Smart Delivery and "Optimized for Series X games running in 4k/120fps. Maybe that doesn't sound too bad but that has mostly to do with the fact that we haven't seen much of the true next gen games yet. Somehow people don't seem to realize what MS's cross platform strategy actually entails. Which is weird as they've already given us an appetizer of what "Optimized for Series X" games mean in May, and it sure was a yucky one.

I also don't think May was a colossal marketing mistake. They just showed us exactly what they promised; games that scale across a whole bunch of devices and run in 4k/60fps on Series X. Their games not looking next gen is part of their whole strategy and I got a feeling we'll see the same thing in a couple of weeks. So yeah, Lockhart won't be holding Series X back but that has nothing to do with their shared architecture. It has everything to do with the fact that MS cares more about building their GP subscibers who are mostly playing on potato pc's (at least compared to these next gen consoles).
Are you going to buy a ps5 or series X then buy multiplatform games on PS4/one?

No, if you own one of those consoles are you going to buy games for the newest platform you own because it will play the best. That doesnt change with series X. If you want to play the best version of Halo Infinite on console you need a Series X. If you want to play the highest fidelity version of cross gen games, they will be on series X.

Theres nothing negative intmarketing saying you are offering your consumers the choice to play the game where they want. Again, you have an issue with their strategy not their marketing. You don't like that they are supporting older hardware for longer.

You are being insanely disingenuous with your claims. Microsoft supporting PC and Lockhart does not make games "not look next gen." If you genuinely think that games will not look better in the next gen on Microsoft platforms you are either purposefully lying to yourself to justify a ps5 purchase or were never going to be happy with whatever Microsoft shows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Are you going to buy a ps5 or series X then buy multiplatform games on PS4/one?

No, if you own one of those consoles are you going to buy games for the newest platform you own because it will play the best. That doesnt change with series X. If you want to play the best version of Halo Infinite on console you need a Series X. If you want to play the highest fidelity version of cross gen games, they will be on series X.

Theres nothing negative intmarketing saying you are offering your consumers the choice to play the game where they want. Again, you have an issue with their strategy not their marketing. You don't like that they are supporting older hardware for longer.

You are being insanely disingenuous with your claims. Microsoft supporting PC and Lockhart does not make games "not look next gen." If you genuinely think that games will not look better in the next gen on Microsoft platforms you are either purposefully lying to yourself to justify a ps5 purchase or were never going to be happy with whatever Microsoft shows.
Maybe I'm just looking at this too much from a marketing perspective. But look at Sony, they have over 100m customers playing on a ps4 right now and who are probably perfectly fine with it. When Sony launches their ps5, they will be leaving those 100m customers behind and they basically have to start from scratch. In order to do that they need to convince people why they should upgrade and they do so by doing what they've always been doing; showing new games and experiences that are a generational leap over what's possible before and can only be played on ps5. Sony could show their event in a craptastic 1080p stream and still get people excited about next gen gaming.

MS is doing things different. They are talking about cross platform games, scalable graphics and not forcing people to upgrade. Which is a good thing, but its also a double edged sword as people who don't care about 4k and 120fps won't see a real point in upgrading. Personally, I don't like it and I would much rather see a complete reset like it always has been. Besides the lack of gameplay, it's also the main reason why the May event bombed so hard. Sure, you can pretend it never happened and write it off as just bad marketing. But the truth is that just 120fps and 4k isn't going to fire up consumers the way that the promise of completely new experiences will.

I'm not lying to myself when (besides the resolution and fps) I don't think MS's exclusives in July will look that much better. I'm literally just listening to what Phil Spencer been saying for months... Its just weird that nobody seems to want to listen to him.

"Xbox boss Phil Spencer has acknowledged that it's been challenging to demonstrate the true leap that the Xbox Series X will provide over the Xbox One, but it appears that could be changing once people are actually able to try out the systems for themselves in longer gameplay sessions. In Reggie's new podcast, Spencer said one of the most defining characteristics of next-gen games is how they "feel" with faster and more stable frame rates. This is a new challenge, Spencer said, because for previous console transitions throughout history, the power of new systems was immediately apparent with better graphics."
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

anothertech

Member
Oct 1, 2014
3,997
1,064
635
They're already doing this for PC.
If you are expecting every first party game to be on PC, then yes that will also hamper the potential of the SeX version.

Closed system console development with same components for everyone greatly increases production quality potential. SSD features, RAM use, clock speeds and gpu are utilized far more effectively in a closed system for gameplay and visuals.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
7,751
8,132
870
Maybe I'm just looking at this too much from a marketing perspective. But look at Sony, they have over 100m customers playing on a ps4 right now and who are probably perfectly fine with it. When Sony launches their ps5, they will be leaving those 100m customers behind and they basically have to start from scratch. In order to do that they need to convince people why they should upgrade and they do so by doing what they've always been doing; showing new games and experiences that are a generational leap over what's possible before and can only be played on ps5. Sony could show their event in a craptastic 1080p stream and still get people excited about next gen gaming.

MS is doing things different. They are talking about cross platform games, scalable graphics and not forcing people to upgrade. Which is a good thing, but its also a double edged sword as people who don't care about 4k and 120fps won't see a real point in upgrading. Personally, I don't like it and I would much rather see a complete reset like it always has been. Besides the lack of gameplay, it's also the main reason why the May event bombed so hard. Sure, you can pretend it never happened and write it off as just bad marketing. But the truth is that just 120fps and 4k isn't going to fire up consumers the way that completely new experiences, that take a dramatic leap from previous consoles, will.

I'm not lying to myself when (besides the resolution and fps) I don't think MS's exclusives in Julywill look that much better. I'm literally just listening to what Phil Spencer been saying for months...

"Xbox boss Phil Spencer has acknowledged that it's been challenging to demonstrate the true leap that the Xbox Series X will provide over the Xbox One, but it appears that could be changing once people are actually able to try out the systems for themselves in longer gameplay sessions. In Reggie's new podcast, Spencer said one of the most defining characteristics of next-gen games is how they "feel" with faster and more stable frame rates. This is a new challenge, Spencer said, because for previous console transitions throughout history, the power of new systems was immediately apparent with better graphics."
I'm pretty much on the same page. I'm looking forward to MS July reveal because I am interested to see what the studios they acquired are able to show. I'm equally, perhaps more looking forward to seeing what Sony has been holding back. If MS shows something that blows me away and will be out sooner than later, there's a really good chance I get a Series S when it launches and wait for a price drop on PS5. If not, it will be a PS5 that I get first. The only thing I have completely ruled out for this year is Series X. I don't have any 4k TV's, and don't plan to get one until I need a replacement. The initial Series X specs were delicious reading material, but now I don't believe Series X offers anything for the extra money (S to X) than resolution settings that I can't use anyway.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
If you are expecting every first party game to be on PC, then yes that will also hamper the potential of the SeX version.

Closed system console development with same components for everyone greatly increases production quality potential. SSD features, RAM use, clock speeds and gpu are utilized far more effectively in a closed system for gameplay and visuals.
I thought this was Microsoft's plan.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,468
5,762
655
So, we have quite a lot of claims that Lockhart will hold on XBX, but I haven't saw anyone naming even a single example of when/where/how it will do so, it's all like "It will, because I say so!"... C'mon guys, I'm sure you can do better than that, instead of posting walls of text over and over again better give us at least 3-5 examples/scenarios where Lockhart won't allow to do something on the Series X.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X-Fighter

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
So, we have quite a lot of claims that Lockhart will hold on XBX, but I haven't saw anyone naming even a single example of when/where/how it will do so, it's all like "It will, because I say so!"... C'mon guys, I'm sure you can do better than that, instead of posting walls of text over and over again better give us at least 3-5 examples/scenarios where Lockhart won't allow to do something on the Series X.
It will hold Series X back in any situation where developers want to use those 12Tflops for anything other than just 4k and 60fps.
 
Last edited:

01011001

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3,559
5,487
455
It will hold Series X back in any situation where developers want to use those 12Tflops for anything other than just 4k and 120fps.
show me evidence for that in the real world, through examples with 2 GPUs using identical architecture.

Cyberpunk 2077 will most likely max out a 2080ti to its fullest while also being able to run on a below 4tf GPU
 
Last edited:

peter42O

Member
Aug 9, 2014
3,867
1,736
580
Series S isn't going to hold anything back. Developers will still be able to develop the games that they want to make without compromise. Think of Series S as a PC running at 1080P resolution on low settings while Series X will run the same game at 4K resolution on high to ultra settings. It's that simple.

Does the 2013 base PS4 or Xbox One hold back games from looking even better on a PS4 Pro or Xbox One X? Nope. Why anyone thinks this is an even an issue is beyond me.

Also, Microsoft will have cross-gen titles through 2021. So basically, four games. Gears Tactics, Forza Horizon 5, Forza Motorsport 8 and Halo Infinite. Other games like Hellblade 2, Fable, Everwild, etc. will all be Series S/X and PC only.
 

NT80

Member
Aug 7, 2019
170
92
200
It will hold Series X back in any situation where developers want to use those 12Tflops for anything other than just 4k and 60fps.
That's what I was thinking might be the case and if 4K is as resource intensive as expected I'd much rather they target 1440p to 1800p most of the time. I'm not sure they will with Lockhart there though.
 

blly155

13 year old console warrior. Put me on ignore.
Aug 3, 2014
11,983
5,311
845
Series S won't hold consoles back. It'll run all next gen games but only at 1080p. Maybe even 900p. Loads of people still have 1080p screens and aren't ready to get a 4K TV.

1080p is still the most common resolution even on PC by a large amount.

I reckon Series S will be just a refreshed, maybe slightly more powerful, Xbox One X.
 
Last edited:

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Series S isn't going to hold anything back. Developers will still be able to develop the games that they want to make without compromise. Think of Series S as a PC running at 1080P resolution on low settings while Series X will run the same game at 4K resolution on high to ultra settings. It's that simple.

Does the 2013 base PS4 or Xbox One hold back games from looking even better on a PS4 Pro or Xbox One X? Nope. Why anyone thinks this is an even an issue is beyond me.

Also, Microsoft will have cross-gen titles through 2021. So basically, four games. Gears Tactics, Forza Horizon 5, Forza Motorsport 8 and Halo Infinite. Other games like Hellblade 2, Fable, Everwild, etc. will all be Series S/X and PC only.
The X1X is 5 times more powerful than the Xone, yet unless you have a 4k tv, you won't be able to tell the difference between a Xone and X1X game. Of course the Xone is holding back the X1X, it's just that the mid-gen consoles weren't supposed to do anything more than play base console games in 4k. We will never know exactly what the ps4 pro and X1X were truly capable off, but here's a ps4 pro tech demo running in 1080p 30fps, that would never have been possible if it had to run on a base ps4 as well:


This isn't rocket science guys. If you're making a game and pick 1080p 30fps as the target for both Series X and Series S. Doesn't it make sense that you could be a lot more ambitious with them 12Tflops compared to 4Tflops?
 
Last edited:

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
The X1X is 5 times more powerful than the Xone, yet unless you have a 4k tv, you won't be able to tell the difference between a Xone and X1X game. Of course the Xone is holding back the X1X, it's just that the mid-gen consoles weren't supposed to do anything more than play base console games in 4k. We will never know exactly what the ps4 pro and X1X were truly capable off, but here's a ps4 pro tech demo running in 1080p 30fps, that would never have been possible if it had to run on a base ps4 as well:


This isn't rocket science guys. If you're making a game and pick 1080p 30fps as the target for both Series X and Series S. Doesn't it make sense that you could be a lot more ambitious with them 12Tflops compared to 4Tflops?
You keep repeating yourself without any evidence. A tech demo is not a game. Remember the Zelda Tech Demos on Wii U. Never happened. Remember the Square Enix Tech Demos? Never happened. Tech Demos give you an idea of what a machine is capable of in an extremely limited and controlled set of code.

I will state this again. Games are designed around features. Not teraflops.

You can argue till you are blue in the face but again by your logic any machine that's weaker than the highest TF numbered card or console is held back by anything lower.

So if the Lockhart is holding back games, ps5 is holding back just as much.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
You keep repeating yourself without any evidence. A tech demo is not a game. Remember the Zelda Tech Demos on Wii U. Never happened. Remember the Square Enix Tech Demos? Never happened. Tech Demos give you an idea of what a machine is capable of in an extremely limited and controlled set of code.

I will state this again. Games are designed around features. Not teraflops.

You can argue till you are blue in the face but again by your logic any machine that's weaker than the highest TF numbered card or console is held back by anything lower.

So if the Lockhart is holding back games, ps5 is holding back just as much.
Well no developer has ever made a game that targets the Ps4 pro or X1X as the base console, so a tech demo is really all I can show ya.

I can't believe you buy all that same features stuff. A GTX730 has the same features as a GTX760, does that mean it can do everything the GTX760 can? Doesn't that all depend on how hard the higher model is being pushed? A GTX760 can still run something like RDR2 at 1080p and 30fps, while on a GTX730 it's simply unplayable. Even at 360p and the lowest settings it cant go higher than 12fps.

We don't know the exact specs of Lockhart's gpu yet, but if it really will be a $200 console with the same cpu and SSD as Series X, that's going to be one cheap ass gpu, where likely a ton of comprises had to be made. Maybe it has the same core features but what about CU count, memory bandwidth, fill rate etc?
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
Well no developer has ever made a game that targets the Ps4 pro or X1X as the base console, so a tech demo is really all I can show ya.

I can't believe you buy all that same features stuff. A GTX730 has the same features as a GTX760, does that mean it can do everything the GTX760 can? Doesn't that all depend on how hard the higher model is being pushed? A GTX760 can still run something like RDR2 at 1080p and 30fps, while on a GTX730 it's simply unplayable. Even at 360p and the lowest settings it cant go higher than 12fps.

We don't know the exact specs of Lockhart's gpu yet, but if it really will be a $200 console with the same cpu and SSD as Series X, that's going to be one cheap ass gpu, where likely a ton of comprises had to be made. Maybe it has the same core features but what about CU count, memory bandwidth, fill rate etc?
What do you mean I "buy" all the same features stuff. Its a fact. Theres nothing to buy. The GTX 2060 can do everything the GTX 2080 can do. Does the GTX 2060 hold back the 2080? Because in your world apparently it does.

And you are again making comparsions that are not relevant. Not only is the GTX 700 series over 5 years old and trying to somehow compare it to a modern GPU architecture , but you are also trying to claim that the 730 was sold as a gaming card when it wasn't. Its a Keplar card that was not intended to run games in any high end sense. Its got a 64 bit bus and 1 GB or RAM on most models. You are reaching super super hard here.

ALso have no idea where you got the $200 number as most of the more credible rumors are pointing at $299 with a 20 CU GPU and 10 GB of RAM. Which is more than enough for 1080P targets.
 

peter42O

Member
Aug 9, 2014
3,867
1,736
580
The X1X is 5 times more powerful than the Xone, yet unless you have a 4k tv, you won't be able to tell the difference between a Xone and X1X game. Of course the Xone is holding back the X1X, it's just that the mid-gen consoles weren't supposed to do anything more than play base console games in 4k. We will never know exactly what the ps4 pro and X1X were truly capable off, but here's a ps4 pro tech demo running in 1080p 30fps, that would never have been possible if it had to run on a base ps4 as well:


This isn't rocket science guys. If you're making a game and pick 1080p 30fps as the target for both Series X and Series S. Doesn't it make sense that you could be a lot more ambitious with them 12Tflops compared to 4Tflops?
Well no developer has ever made a game that targets the Ps4 pro or X1X as the base console, so a tech demo is really all I can show ya.
Not how development works. Unless it's an exclusive, games are developed on PC and then scaled down accordingly. So if you buy disc version of RDR 2 for Xbox One and play it on the 2013 Xbox One, it will run the entire game but at a lower resolution, less effects and lower frame rate compared to if it's being run on 2017 Xbox One X but the disc itself has all the info and assets on it but will only access what it can based on the console that's running the game.

For example, the ONLY differences between running Halo Infinite on Series S and Series X will be resolution, frame rates and effects like more smoke, foliage, etc. Developers know what they can and can't do when developing a game. Outside of the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor, there was literally no other cross-gen games that had differences between 360/PS3 and Xbox One/PS4 outside of resolution, effects and frame rates.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,387
3,348
460
What do you mean I "buy" all the same features stuff. Its a fact. Theres nothing to buy. The GTX 2060 can do everything the GTX 2080 can do. Does the GTX 2060 hold back the 2080? Because in your world apparently it does.

And you are again making comparsions that are not relevant. Not only is the GTX 700 series over 5 years old and trying to somehow compare it to a modern GPU architecture , but you are also trying to claim that the 730 was sold as a gaming card when it wasn't. Its a Keplar card that was not intended to run games in any high end sense. Its got a 64 bit bus and 1 GB or RAM on most models. You are reaching super super hard here.

ALso have no idea where you got the $200 number as most of the more credible rumors are pointing at $299 with a 20 CU GPU and 10 GB of RAM. Which is more than enough for 1080P targets.
He's reaching, but failing even at that. Because the old 730 does still have feature parity, it can run any instructions the other cards in the series can (just as more of a slideshow than a game). :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

cyber69

Member
Sep 21, 2018
1,613
2,529
385
The only bad piece of marketing your post in the May event. Which they have publicly acknowledged and said they will do better.

You seem to have issues with the strategy and not their marketing. Nothing they have done or said is a slap in the face to anyone.
Agreed. They promised gameplay and gave us PC trailers running on a 2080 Ti. :messenger_loudly_crying:
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
What do you mean I "buy" all the same features stuff. Its a fact. Theres nothing to buy. The GTX 2060 can do everything the GTX 2080 can do. Does the GTX 2060 hold back the 2080? Because in your world apparently it does.

And you are again making comparsions that are not relevant. Not only is the GTX 700 series over 5 years old and trying to somehow compare it to a modern GPU architecture , but you are also trying to claim that the 730 was sold as a gaming card when it wasn't. Its a Keplar card that was not intended to run games in any high end sense. Its got a 64 bit bus and 1 GB or RAM on most models. You are reaching super super hard here.

ALso have no idea where you got the $200 number as most of the more credible rumors are pointing at $299 with a 20 CU GPU and 10 GB of RAM. Which is more than enough for 1080P targets.
Back in the ps2 days being part of the pc master race meant something. You had games like Crysis, Half Life 2 etc. that were designed specifically for high end pc's and looked generations ahead of anything on consoles. Unfortunately, those days are behind us. Every game we've been playing on pc since 2013 has been designed around the limitations of the Xone/ps4, which is roughly a GTX750. So yeah, a RTX2060 isn't going to hold back the RTX2080 when its running games that were designed for a gpu that has less than a tenth of the power. It would be a different story if someone decided to make a game specifically for the RTX series, though. Then the game would have had to be designed around the limitations of the RTX2060, which has pretty poor Ray Tracing performance compared to the other RTX cards for example.

The reason I mentioned the GTX730 is that it has roughly 1/3 the power of a ps4. Now, for arguments sake, lets say Sony released a $100 budget ps4 sku that instead of a GTX750 had a GTX730, half the memory and the same cpu. Since parity is a thing that developers have to work around, they would have had to set acceptable performance targets for all platforms, meaning something like RDR2 would have had to hit at least 720p at 30fps on the cheaper ps4. In its current state the game is hitting 12fps at 360p on a GTX730 lol. So what do you think Rockstar would have had to do to make it hit that 720p/30fps on there? They would have had to make serious compromises and RDR2 would have ended up looking like a completely different game across all platforms.

I know the GTX730 was a super budget gpu that wasn't really meant for gaming. But if Lockhart really will be $200 with the same cpu and SSD as Series X, it sounds like Lockhart will be rocking a $40 gpu... Do we really want next gen games that run fine on a $40 gpu for the next 7 years or so. Or do we want to be completely blown away by graphics and experiences that we conceive to be impossible today?
 
Last edited:

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
As OP pointed out, I think that "holding back next-gen" is a way too broad generalization of the complaints about Lockharts.
Really, the issue from a performance POV, is that it very well may show poorly optimized and undesirable versions of games even at 1080p.
Though hopefully not as dire as SoM PS3, it's likely to get a similarly unfavorable reputation for poor ports as the OG X1.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,468
5,762
655
[...], it's just that the mid-gen consoles weren't supposed to do anything more than play base console games in 4k
The exact same way the upcoming consoles will. You are foolish if you believe anyone will make a 1080p game on PS5/XBX, everyone is clearly jumping on the 4K ship, despite how great reception CBR got, and will try to squeeze the best possible visuals from there on, not the other way around. If something will be holding back the developers, it's the 10-12TF the consoles have to offer, nothing more, but 4K is here to stay whether you like it or not.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
As OP pointed out, I think that "holding back next-gen" is a way too broad generalization of the complaints about Lockharts.
Really, the issue from a performance POV, is that it very well may show poorly optimized and undesirable versions of games even at 1080p.
Though hopefully not as dire as SoM PS3, it's likely to get a similarly unfavorable reputation for poor ports as the OG X1.
People keep saying this, without actually checking the numbers. Lockhart is a 1080p machine. As long as XSX keeps rendering natively 4K and even 1800p, Lockhart is able to render above 1080p. It's only when Xbox Series X would go to 1440p, that Lockhart has to scale down to 900p. How often do you think that will happen?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
People keep saying this, without actually checking the numbers. Lockhart is a 1080p machine. As long as XSX keeps rendering natively 4K and even 1800p, Lockhart is able to render above 1080p. It's only when Xbox Series X would go to 1440p, that Lockhart has to scale down to 900p. How often do you think that will happen?

I think people would be more aware of the numbers if MS shared them...

Nonetheless, the main problems for development
1) Even if capable of 1080p, the Lockhart would require optimization from teams already stretched-thin; not requiring this was one of the major advantages consoles had over PCs
2) Certain tech (UE5, Minecraft RT) will push the main consoles sub-4K, but would push the Lockhart below 1080p (as seen in your graph)
3) MS is reportedly telling devs to aim for 1440p, which the Lockhart can't naturally reach (again, per your graph)

This all compounds to the risk of having a system that technically runs stuff, but does so badly (like OG X1 today)
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
I think people would be more aware of the numbers if MS shared them...

Nonetheless, the main problems for development
1) Even if capable of 1080p, the Lockhart would require optimization from teams already stretched-thin; not requiring this was one of the major advantages consoles had over PCs
2) Certain tech (UE5, Minecraft RT) will push the main consoles sub-4K, but would push the Lockhart below 1080p (as seen in your graph)
3) MS is reportedly telling devs to aim for 1440p, which the Lockhart can't naturally reach (again, per your graph)

This all compounds to the risk of having a system that technically runs stuff, but does so badly (like OG X1 today)
Well the graph is based on the rumoured numbers, the actual ones we'll get in August.

1) Don't see why... With the rumoured numbers it's capable of 1080p with room to spare, so what optimization will be required? Give an actual example
2) These are assumptions that UE5 and RT will push the main consoles sub-4K. UE5 was a demo that was created to look as good as possible, a demo that was too big to create an actual game from. Minecraft RT is for PC, so not sure if that's a fair comparison to consoles with dedicated RT hardware.
3) Where did you get that from? I might have missed this, can you give me the source?
 

eastwood333

Banned
Nov 3, 2019
1,689
3,152
480
Wow, people are still trying to claim Lockhart will hold next gen back lol. It has the same CPU as XSX. It has the same SSD as the XSX. It'll just have a weaker gpu and no disc drive according to reports. People should watch the RedTechGaming video on this.

MS would not be putting this thing out if it were to hampering XSX. There have been several respectable insiders and devs who've commented on this and have stated that MS has released updated SDK's that have specific profiles just for Lockhart.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
The exact same way the upcoming consoles will. You are foolish if you believe anyone will make a 1080p game on PS5/XBX, everyone is clearly jumping on the 4K ship, despite how great reception CBR got, and will try to squeeze the best possible visuals from there on, not the other way around. If something will be holding back the developers, it's the 10-12TF the consoles have to offer, nothing more, but 4K is here to stay whether you like it or not.
Maybe they will tell us its 4k, just like the ps4 pro and X1X were supposed to be 4k consoles. But in reality they both will be using upscaling techniques and nobody cares. Things like DLLS look almost as good as 4k but at a fraction of the cost, so why wouldn't we want developers to use it, especially when you throw something like Ray Tracing in the mix. In the end console developers will always be as efficient as possible and try to get the best visuals out of these boxes, or at least they should be. Now, just ask yourself what looks more impressive; Minecraft in 4k or Minecraft with Path Tracing at 1080p (with DLSS enabled)?

Here's an interesting read why aiming for native 4k is a terrible idea on these next gen consoles. Hell, if 4k and 60fps becomes standard we'll be playing the same games we're playing now lol.

However, when looking at prior transitions, the danger in prioritising 'true 4K' across the board is that too much of those extra GPU resources will be spent painting pixels, with not enough power dedicated to providing an actual leap in graphical fidelity - the stuff that actually matters in defining new experiences associated with a new wave of console hardware.

 

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
Well the graph is based on the rumoured numbers, the actual ones we'll get in August.

1) Don't see why... With the rumoured numbers it's capable of 1080p with room to spare, so what optimization will be required? Give an actual example
2) These are assumptions that UE5 and RT will push the main consoles sub-4K. UE5 was a demo that was created to look as good as possible, a demo that was too big to create an actual game from. Minecraft RT is for PC, so not sure if that's a fair comparison to consoles with dedicated RT hardware.
3) Where did you get that from? I might have missed this, can you give me the source?
The graph is based on a linear relationship between pixel density and TF count, can you read it?

1) Optimization needs to happen for each version to maximize gains; even if you could run PC code straight, you'd be missing out on features and potentially run in avoidable bottlenecks. It's the reason a ton of PC ports ran (and still run sometimes) badly on far more performant hardware. Optimization is essential, and stacks to how many devices you code for. For example, RE3 ran at 4K on X1X, but had a very inconsistent performance and required additional optimization (and lower res) to run properly.
2) UE5 tech demo, as all previous consoles' tech demo is representative; as with UE4 and UE3 games will look better on it.
The lower res + lossless reconstruction allows stuff like virtualized geometry to function. Lockhart would need to run with traditional LODs (and a lot extra work) to hit 1080p.
Minecraft RT, you forgot about, but it's a 1080p SeX tech demo too; Lockhart would scale it to below 720p.
3) "Microsoft’s ideal target performances are said to be 4K resolution and 60 frames-per-second on Anaconda and 1440p resolution and 60 frames-per-second on Lockhart" and talks with devs; it'd make sense to distinguish it from uniquely 1080p last-gen devices.

Still, MS is refusing to talk about it less than 4 months from release, and I feel this lack of confidence is obviously affecting speculation.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,468
5,762
655
People keep saying this, without actually checking the numbers. Lockhart is a 1080p machine. As long as XSX keeps rendering natively 4K and even 1800p, Lockhart is able to render above 1080p. It's only when Xbox Series X would go to 1440p, that Lockhart has to scale down to 900p. How often do you think that will happen?
Yeah, logically I'd say the both consoles will scale something like:

Series X / Lockhart:
2160p30/60 = 1080p30/60
1800p30/60 = 900p30/60
1600p30/60 = 800p30/60
1440p30/60 = 720p30/60

Although I'm skeptical if Series X will lack in power and will have to go down as low as 1440-1600p, if PS5 already does native 4K so will the XBX. Maybe in the future when more demanding games show up, but it would be 1800p on PS5 and still native 4K on XBX. Or 1600p on PS5 in the worst case scenario and only then the resolution would have to drop 1800p on XBX as well. And everything would be then upscaled by CBR anyway. Because I don't see PS5 dropping to 1440p, let alone XBX. And given that Lockhart is supposedly targeting 1/4th of the resolution with 1/3rd of the processing power, so the scaling shouldn't be as linear as it has some headroom, I'd say that even if the XBX will render a game at 1600-1800p the Lockhart should still be able to do native 1080p anyway.
 
Last edited:

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
Yeah, logically I'd say the both consoles will scale something like:

Series X / Lockhart:
2160p30/60 = 1080p30/60
1800p30/60 = 900p30/60
1600p30/60 = 800p30/60
1440p30/60 = 720p30/60

Although I'm skeptical if Series X will lack in power and will have to go down as low as 1440-1600p, if PS5 already does native 4K so will the XBX. Maybe in the future when more demanding games show up, but it would be 1800p on PS5 and still native 4K on XBX. Or 1600p on PS5 in the worst case scenario and only then the resolution would have to drop 1800p on XBX as well. And everything would be then upscaled by CBR anyway. Because I don't see PS5 dropping to 1440p, let alone XBX. And given that Lockhart is supposedly targeting 1/4th of the resolution with 1/3rd of the processing power, so the scaling shouldn't be as linear as it has some headroom, I'd say that even if the XBX will render a game at 1600-1800p the Lockhart should still be able to do native 1080p anyway.
We have already seen tech that pushes both consoles in those ranges, and would push Lockhart below 1080p.
 

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,376
2,576
505
34
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
I am going to make life easy for me and going to compare the best Xbox Series X/S/PC exclusive games with the best PS5 exclusive games.

Is it a perfect way to do it? Hell no, but it is the one that matters the most. The Xbox Series X has the advantage with the more powerful hardware though.

And the most important thing is that the next gen consoles are going to have more RAM. The devs will find a way to fill that up and soon we will be thirsty for even more.

(Side note : Super glad the Xbox One and PS4 did have 8GB of RAM instead of 4GB. Very late change, but one that paid off)
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
Back in the ps2 days being part of the pc master race meant something. You had games like Crysis, Half Life 2 etc. that were designed specifically for high end pc's and looked generations ahead of anything on consoles. Unfortunately, those days are behind us. Every game we've been playing on pc since 2013 has been designed around the limitations of the Xone/ps4, which is roughly a GTX750. So yeah, a RTX2060 isn't going to hold back the RTX2080 when its running games that were designed for a gpu that has less than a tenth of the power. It would be a different story if someone decided to make a game specifically for the RTX series, though. Then the game would have had to be designed around the limitations of the RTX2060, which has pretty poor Ray Tracing performance compared to the other RTX cards for example.

The reason I mentioned the GTX730 is that it has roughly 1/3 the power of a ps4. Now, for arguments sake, lets say Sony released a $100 budget ps4 sku that instead of a GTX750 had a GTX730, half the memory and the same cpu. Since parity is a thing that developers have to work around, they would have had to set acceptable performance targets for all platforms, meaning something like RDR2 would have had to hit at least 720p at 30fps on the cheaper ps4. In its current state the game is hitting 12fps at 360p on a GTX730 lol. So what do you think Rockstar would have had to do to make it hit that 720p/30fps on there? They would have had to make serious compromises and RDR2 would have ended up looking like a completely different game across all platforms.

I know the GTX730 was a super budget gpu that wasn't really meant for gaming. But if Lockhart really will be $200 with the same cpu and SSD as Series X, it sounds like Lockhart will be rocking a $40 gpu... Do we really want next gen games that run fine on a $40 gpu for the next 7 years or so. Or do we want to be completely blown away by graphics and experiences that we conceive to be impossible today?
Your entire comparison again doesn't make sense as the Lockhart isnt rumored to be $199. Said that twice already and you keep trying to say the GPU comparison is fair when it's not.
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,468
5,762
655
We have already seen tech that pushes both consoles in those ranges, and would push Lockhart below 1080p.
Even if, would anyone from the console's targeted audience bother/care? They wouldn't even notice to begin with.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
The graph is based on a linear relationship between pixel density and TF count, can you read it?

1) Optimization needs to happen for each version to maximize gains; even if you could run PC code straight, you'd be missing out on features and potentially run in avoidable bottlenecks. It's the reason a ton of PC ports ran (and still run sometimes) badly on far more performant hardware. Optimization is essential, and stacks to how many devices you code for. For example, RE3 ran at 4K on X1X, but had a very inconsistent performance and required additional optimization (and lower res) to run properly.
2) UE5 tech demo, as all previous consoles' tech demo is representative; as with UE4 and UE3 games will look better on it.
The lower res + lossless reconstruction allows stuff like virtualized geometry to function. Lockhart would need to run with traditional LODs (and a lot extra work) to hit 1080p.
Minecraft RT, you forgot about, but it's a 1080p SeX tech demo too; Lockhart would scale it to below 720p.
3) "Microsoft’s ideal target performances are said to be 4K resolution and 60 frames-per-second on Anaconda and 1440p resolution and 60 frames-per-second on Lockhart" and talks with devs; it'd make sense to distinguish it from uniquely 1080p last-gen devices.

Still, MS is refusing to talk about it less than 4 months from release, and I feel this lack of confidence is obviously affecting speculation.
Yes, I can read the graph, I think we were talking next to each other.

1) Games are being developed for XSX, and then dumbed down. This has already been said by Microsoft.
2) A tech demo is representative? Most demo's are not representative at all, they look way better than anything what we can achieve, because they are demo's that push the system to the max and use all sort of tricks that you can't apply in actual games. Like the UE5 demo, it has already been said that you can't create a full game looking like that because the game would be way too big. In case of Minecraft, that wasn't just ray tracing, that was path tracing. That's very complex and a huge drain on performance, games won't be using that (I think).
3) That's a very old quote, back when developers also had issues with Lockhart. Those are apparently also already gone, and everyone keeps saying it's a 1080p machine, not 1440p, so I don't really see an issue here.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,387
3,348
460
Back in the ps2 days being part of the pc master race meant something. You had games like Crysis, Half Life 2 etc. that were designed specifically for high end pc's and looked generations ahead of anything on consoles. Unfortunately, those days are behind us. Every game we've been playing on pc since 2013 has been designed around the limitations of the Xone/ps4, which is roughly a GTX750. So yeah, a RTX2060 isn't going to hold back the RTX2080 when its running games that were designed for a gpu that has less than a tenth of the power. It would be a different story if someone decided to make a game specifically for the RTX series, though. Then the game would have had to be designed around the limitations of the RTX2060, which has pretty poor Ray Tracing performance compared to the other RTX cards for example.

The reason I mentioned the GTX730 is that it has roughly 1/3 the power of a ps4. Now, for arguments sake, lets say Sony released a $100 budget ps4 sku that instead of a GTX750 had a GTX730, half the memory and the same cpu. Since parity is a thing that developers have to work around, they would have had to set acceptable performance targets for all platforms, meaning something like RDR2 would have had to hit at least 720p at 30fps on the cheaper ps4. In its current state the game is hitting 12fps at 360p on a GTX730 lol. So what do you think Rockstar would have had to do to make it hit that 720p/30fps on there? They would have had to make serious compromises and RDR2 would have ended up looking like a completely different game across all platforms.

I know the GTX730 was a super budget gpu that wasn't really meant for gaming. But if Lockhart really will be $200 with the same cpu and SSD as Series X, it sounds like Lockhart will be rocking a $40 gpu... Do we really want next gen games that run fine on a $40 gpu for the next 7 years or so. Or do we want to be completely blown away by graphics and experiences that we conceive to be impossible today?
Insane imaginary comparison. Honestly, a .6TF gpu within the same architecture with an acceptable amount of bandwidth (GDDR 5 retained) and memory could probably run anything on PS4 at 540p.

With that said, 540p and below resolutions really weren't viable in 2013 outside of handhelds. This is the first generation where this approach makes sense because 1080p and even 720p are still acceptable resolutions for a lot of people. I've played Spiderman over PSnow on a 24" screen, yeah, the compressed 720p stream isn't going to win any awards, but the game is fun and playable and that's good enough for many.
 
Last edited:

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Yes, I can read the graph, I think we were talking next to each other.

1) Games are being developed for XSX, and then dumbed down. This has already been said by Microsoft.
2) A tech demo is representative? Most demo's are not representative at all, they look way better than anything what we can achieve, because they are demo's that push the system to the max and use all sort of tricks that you can't apply in actual games. Like the UE5 demo, it has already been said that you can't create a full game looking like that because the game would be way too big. In case of Minecraft, that wasn't just ray tracing, that was path tracing. That's very complex and a huge drain on performance, games won't be using that (I think).
3) That's a very old quote, back when developers also had issues with Lockhart. Those are apparently also already gone, and everyone keeps saying it's a 1080p machine, not 1440p, so I don't really see an issue here.
I wonder how many people who are talking about 4k and 120 fps being an absolute must for next gen have actually experienced it. 90% Of the console gamers are used to 1080p or even 720p and the truth is that 1440p would be a huge upgrade for them. Developers should- and will be looking for that sweet spot where they don't have to spend 2/3 of the gpu resources on just resolution. It's called console optimization, and its the very reason why games still look as good as they do today on such crappy hardware.

As Tulipanzo said, we've already seen Sony show stuff in 1440p/30fps like the UE5 demo. They did that because Epic probably realized 1440p/30fps would end up looking a lot more impressive than if they targeted 4k and 60fps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,082
3,419
620
Limiting factor of base level is not in power changes but technology used.
Each technology has base power requirement.

So if you have game where Global Ilumination in non baked form exist then you need strong powerful consoles because PS4 won't be able to run it. Not because it lacks some hardware technology but because base power of system is simply not enough to run proper global lighting.

Now things like that impact game creation.

Let us say like in UE5 demo character walks into corridor that is without any light source, only ambient lighting from holes.

You can make someone like this in PS4 but scene would have to be static. Aka no destruction and if scene combines outdoors and indoors seen at the same time then time of day can't change. So either you have it and your game doesn't have time of day or you have it and PS4 can't run it.

This is the same exact problem with Lockhart if it exist. Right now you have raytracing, global illumination and reflections on horizon. If 4TF is true then all of those will be just extra effects that never will be used for gameplay reasons and never they will replace something because there is always lower hardware that has to have that thing that raytracing is supposed to replace like baked lighting etc.

And that is just technology reason.

Now let us say that you want to produce scene where war is happening. On base Lockhart you can have 20 tanks at 1080p but on sex you can have 100 tanks at 1080p.

Obviously scene will look much different and developer will not develop 2 different games.

So what developer will cut 100 tanks to 20 tanks and will just bump up some extra effects like better LOD or shadows which cost nothing in $.

That is true cost of baseline.


PS4/xboxone generation was XboxOne and you have seen XboxOne games. PS4 version only run them at better res with some extra small omph nothing more.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
I wonder how many people who are talking about 4k and 120 fps being an absolute must for next gen have actually experienced it. 90% Of the console gamers are used to 1080p or even 720p and the truth is that 1440p would be a huge upgrade for them. Developers should- and will be looking for that sweet spot where they don't have to spend 2/3 of the gpu resources on just resolution. It's called console optimization, and its the very reason why games still look as good as they do today on such crappy hardware.

As Tulipanzo said, we've already seen Sony show stuff in 1440p/30fps like the UE5 demo. They did that because Epic probably realized 1440p/30fps would end up looking a lot more impressive than if they targeted 4k and 60fps.
Going from 1440p => 4K is a much bigger jump in checkerboarding techniques than going from 720p => 1080p. So if we are fine that the PS5 and XSX run games at 1440p and upscale it to 4K on our 4K tv's. What's the issue with Lockhart having to do the same from 720p => 1080p? You'll see less of a difference there than in the case of PS5/XSX.
 
Last edited:

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
Yes, I can read the graph, I think we were talking next to each other.

1) Games are being developed for XSX, and then dumbed down. This has already been said by Microsoft.
2) A tech demo is representative? Most demo's are not representative at all, they look way better than anything what we can achieve, because they are demo's that push the system to the max and use all sort of tricks that you can't apply in actual games. Like the UE5 demo, it has already been said that you can't create a full game looking like that [no it wasn't said lol] because the game would be way too big. In case of Minecraft, that wasn't just ray tracing, that was path tracing. That's very complex and a huge drain on performance, games won't be using that (I think) [Oh well, if YOU think that...]
3) That's a very old quote, back when developers also had issues with Lockhart. Those are apparently also already gone, and everyone keeps saying it's a 1080p machine, not 1440p, so I don't really see an issue here.
The minute somebody uses your own graph to show Lockhart is bad, it becomes "based on rumoured numbers", how convenient!

1) This hasn't been said!!! MS still refuses to admit the Lockhart is real. Nevertheless, it would still require optimization time, as every single sku does, to make it run well. I'm sure Deadly Premonition fans will enjoy having no optimization, but maybe not everyone
2) UE3 and UE4 demos looked worse than pretty much anything on PS4/X1! Please do some research. Epic is selling an engine to developers, they have no reason for their demo to be unrepresentative, and they have said as much for UE5. It's going to benefit SeX too, so I don't see the point in lying...
3) It's from the beginning of the year... There has, on the other hand, been zero verified reports issues have gone away. Again, were MS to admit it's real that'd be great, but 1080p is a supposed target based on the underpowered specs, not a reported target

Going from 1440p => 4K is a much bigger jump in checkerboarding techniques than going from 720p => 1080p. So if we are fine that the PS5 and XSX run games at 1440p and upscale it to 4K on our 4K tv's. What's the issue with Lockhart having to do the same from 720p => 1080p? You'll see less of a difference there than in the case of PS5/XSX.
Cards that can upscale 720p to 1080p are over twice as poweful as Lockhart.
Plus, that's happening to push framerates and effects as high as possible, not because your system is too weak to do 1080p...
 
Last edited:

Tulipanzo

Member
Dec 13, 2019
972
1,582
380
Italy
Even if, would anyone from the console's targeted audience bother/care? They wouldn't even notice to begin with.
The X1 playing stuff at 900p was memed to hell and back in 2013; a sub-1080p "next-gen" console in 2020 is DoA.
 

Jon Neu

..he neus nothing
Jan 21, 2018
3,564
7,063
720
Republic of Catalonia
The X1 playing stuff at 900p was memed to hell and back in 2013; a sub-1080p "next-gen" console in 2020 is DoA.
That's why you will have the Xbox Series X if you want the absolute best graphics.

Lockhart will be the option for the people who don't have 4K tv's and don't want to spend too much.
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,636
11,049
850
The minute somebody uses your own graph to show Lockhart is bad, it becomes "based on rumoured numbers", how convenient!

1) This hasn't been said!!! MS still refuses to admit the Lockhart is real. Nevertheless, it would still require optimization time, as every single sku does, to make it run well. I'm sure Deadly Premonition fans will enjoy having no optimization, but maybe not everyone
2) UE3 and UE4 demos looked worse than pretty much anything on PS4/X1! Please do some research. Epic is selling an engine to developers, they have no reason for their demo to be unrepresentative, and they have said as much for UE5. It's going to benefit SeX too, so I don't see the point in lying...
3) It's from the beginning of the year... There has, on the other hand, been zero verified reports issues have gone away. Again, were MS to admit it's real that'd be great, but 1080p is a supposed target based on the underpowered specs, not a reported target


Cards that can upscale 720p to 1080p are over twice as poweful as Lockhart.
Plus, that's happening to push framerates and effects as high as possible, not because your system is too weak to do 1080p...
Oh the irony of you telling people to do research when you provide zero sources for claims.

Here is a verified thread of Lockhart not being an issue.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
3,146
5,289
425
The minute somebody uses your own graph to show Lockhart is bad, it becomes "based on rumoured numbers", how convenient!

1) This hasn't been said!!! MS still refuses to admit the Lockhart is real. Nevertheless, it would still require optimization time, as every single sku does, to make it run well. I'm sure Deadly Premonition fans will enjoy having no optimization, but maybe not everyone
2) UE3 and UE4 demos looked worse than pretty much anything on PS4/X1! Please do some research. Epic is selling an engine to developers, they have no reason for their demo to be unrepresentative, and they have said as much for UE5. It's going to benefit SeX too, so I don't see the point in lying...
3) It's from the beginning of the year... There has, on the other hand, been zero verified reports issues have gone away. Again, were MS to admit it's real that'd be great, but 1080p is a supposed target based on the underpowered specs, not a reported target
How do you mean someone using my graph that Lockhart is bad. The graph is based on the rumoured numbers, and that's it. I never said that Lockhart will be better than the graph.

1) Microsoft definitely has said that games are being developed for Xbox Series X and then dumbed down. You are forgetting Xbox One X and S. This has nothing to do with Lockhart. Again what optimization if you just lower the resolution? You already have those assets because you are developing for PC too.
2) I'm not lying. The UE5 demo was very large, you can't create games that detailed... Please do some research.
3) Lol, verified reports... When Sony fanboy Schrierer says something we all have to listen, but when other journalists tweet we have to ignore it? 1080p is supposed based on the GPU power rumours, so again, there's no issue here. Not to mention that XSX is targetting 4K 60fps, so there is no issue at all to have 1080p 60fps or 1440p 30fps.