-
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.
Why 792p on XBO?
- Thread starter andromeduck
- Start date
Fixed for accuracy:
It took me way too long to find what you changed in the picture haha.
aspiegamer
Member
I'm trying to take my conversion process euphemistically by saying I'm "becoming an even more informed consumer".
For example, I never in a billion years would ever have figured out or would expect to read in gaming media that the 792p thing seems specifically tied to the alleged ESRAM bottleneck on the XB1. We have some honest-to-god objective reasoning for public consumption as to how that might be impacting development. Think of all the fanboy warring saved by bookmarking this OP! You're doing Christ's Work here.
Is this some kind of PSA (...warning?) for all Junior Members? Now how am I supposed to get to sleep? Meanie.
EGOMON
Member
I keep hearing that with time devs will learn the hardware and the tools and they will be able to output higher resolution on XBO but isn't learning the hardware and matured dev tools will result in a more demanding games technically? isn't that going to even get worse?
Am not techy person i was just wondering
Am not techy person i was just wondering
It's been rumored that future games that don't use motion control will be taking advantage of the GPU reserve used for Kinect motion. This wouldn't have an impact on people who have kinect plugged in since voice will still be there (apparently) but it will more than likely impact the ability to skype or have yourself in your twitch stream while playing those games.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
The games will be as technically demanding as the developers want them to be. Of course as devs get to grips with the Xbone and the dev tools improve, the same thing will happen with PS4 development so it's all a moot point as far as the gap between the two consoles is concerned.
Games always improve throughout a generation. I mean, we may see a handful of 720p games on the Xbox One in the future but overall I would say to just expect this from here on out (outside of a few exceptions)...
Sports, Racers, Platformers, and Puzzle games will more than likely remain 1080p on the system. The action games like fighters & shooters (especially the "AAA" ones) can be any range though. If 30 FPS then expect 900p-1080p. If 60 FPS then expect 720p-900p.
You'd have a higher resolution TV cutting off the edges of a lower resolution image.
Honestly it's kind of screwy.
Good thread. The conclusion makes a lot of sense.
It's tough to give a solid answer since there are so many factors that can impact resolution. Some techniques will get more efficient while others will get replaced with heavier ones. I personally hope that resolution remains a focus (at least for 30fps games) before other tradeoffs since a lot of the minute details and effects that would be added with a resolution drop would be negated without being able to see them clearly.
It's tough to give a solid answer since there are so many factors that can impact resolution. Some techniques will get more efficient while others will get replaced with heavier ones. I personally hope that resolution remains a focus (at least for 30fps games) before other tradeoffs since a lot of the minute details and effects that would be added with a resolution drop would be negated without being able to see them clearly.
andromeduck
Member
Far more likely we'll start seeing tiled rendering IMO
better locality - doing bulk transfers is usually easier on the memory controllers and avoids having to constantly stream in the pixbuffs -> more bandwidth for textures/assets
Can you explain to me the difference? Is there a way to increase IQ other than AA or super sampling?
would be curious to see the tech behind why if this is the case.
binarymelon
Member
What's the height of the game window when something is snapped?
ethomaz
Banned
Not much tech I guess... more pixels on screen = better scaling.
500p scales better to 1080p than 400p for example... scales works trying create addiction pixels based in the original... more is always better. 1079p scaled to 1080p I'm sure you won't see difference unless you use a 1600% zoom.
LukasTaves
Member
"Deferred shading uses a G-Buffer that is 20 bytes per pixel and a radiance target that is 8 bytes per pixel for a total of 28 bytes per pixel.
source"
This is not a recipe, games have different gbuffer layouts with different precision requirements.
Infamous gbuffer is very hefty, but Sucker Punch themselves noted that they could optimize further but didn't have the need to (but probably will on future releases as it also leads to performance boost due the lower bandwidth requirements).
source"
This is not a recipe, games have different gbuffer layouts with different precision requirements.
Infamous gbuffer is very hefty, but Sucker Punch themselves noted that they could optimize further but didn't have the need to (but probably will on future releases as it also leads to performance boost due the lower bandwidth requirements).
LukasTaves
Member
Because Titanfall drops are not related to the gpu.
Respawn even implied that the game is so cpu bound that it impacts the rendering time the gpu have (meaning if they solved the cpu bottleneck even the resolution could be lifted a little)
Riky
$MSFT
They are scaled to 1080p, all 360 games are and some PS3 games.
There are a few native 1080p games, Ridge Racer 7 was one and a few sports and smaller titles.
quickwhips
Member
I would rather see 60 fps at 720 then 55 at 792 or what ever as an example...i know it doesn't work that way.
I don't think what he said was "hive-minding." It didn't read to me as saying "I think what GAF tells me to think" as it did "thanks to GAF, I'm now noticing and nitpicking things I hadn't been aware of before." Ignorance is bliss, that sort of thing.
They're just output resolutions that the game supports, not an indication of the internal resolution rendered.
Thanks
If anything, I would imagine the opposite. 720p scales into 1080p at a nice 2:3 ratio, while 792p is a less pretty 11:15. From what I know about upscaling, it would be easier to optimize for and reduce artifacts with 2:3, especially given that 720p to 1080p upscaling is something that has been extensively studied and worked on for years and years.
I think this is the real reason - to be able to claim that they're running at "higher than 720p" and dodge the stigma of 720p, even though any sort of gain in image quality is negligible.
Note that 792p is exactly 10% more resolution in each direction than 720p: 792 - 720 = 72 / 720 = .10 * 100% = 10%
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Interesting read.
Ha, I doubt that helps with the stigma at all.
The fact that it is still 700-something pixels is not a good look in this day and age of retina displays and 4k tvs.
This
So they can say "welp, it isn't 720p"
Ha, I doubt that helps with the stigma at all.
The fact that it is still 700-something pixels is not a good look in this day and age of retina displays and 4k tvs.
All of these responses that 792p = 720p + 10%. 10% more of what? There is not 10% more total pixels, if that's what everybody is trying to say.
792p = 1408 x 792 = 1,115,136 pixels
720p = 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
720p -> 792p represents a total pixel increase of 21%, not 10%.
792p = 1408 x 792 = 1,115,136 pixels
720p = 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
720p -> 792p represents a total pixel increase of 21%, not 10%.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
I just have an image of the dev team first running the game at 1080p, shitty frame and all then simply working down from it until they get a stable frame rate..792p was it for this game.
If that was the reason for it, then it would make a whole lot more sense to bump it up 8 more lines to 800p and get out of the 700's completely. I tend to side with the ESRAM limitations theory, as it just makes more sense.
could be due to aspect ratio
1280x720=1.777777777778
1408x792=1.777777777778
1600x900=1.777777777778
1920x1080=1.777777777778
1424x800=1.78
It kills me seeing a first page with so many vapid responses ignoring the entire write-up in the original post. The idea of optimizing for the smaller pocket of faster ram in the XB1 makes perfect sense, since it eliminates the need to make too many changes in a multi-platform optimization pipeline. Cross-gen and multi-platform titles will probably see this more often than not.
ZehDon
Member
A lot of the issues with some of these early current-gen titles are going to be related to cross-gen versions. Regardless of what the game does, they must operate and function on the PS360WiiU consoles. Being that all of them use different architecture compared to the Xbone and PS4, its reasonable that Ubisoft's teams had to target the lowest common denominators when designing the game. The Xbone and PS4 versions can do more visually, but all of the behind-the-scene systems still need to scale down. This is also part of the reason why Watch_Dogs running at sub-1080p on the PS4 is such a point of contention - technically, the 360 can run the game, so hitting 1080 shouldn't have been that much of a problem on hardware that's approximately ten times more powerful. There isn't an eSRAM bottleneck to justify the low resolution.
Welcome aboard.
Bingo!
It would be the aspect ratio, if they don't match up then the devs would either have to put black bars on the screen (aka The Order 1886) or stretch the image to fit the screen (which would look horrible).
A lot of the issues with some of these early current-gen titles are going to be related to cross-gen versions. Regardless of what the game does, they must operate and function on the PS360WiiU consoles. Being that all of them use different architecture compared to the Xbone and PS4, its reasonable that Ubisoft's teams had to target the lowest common denominators when designing the game. The Xbone and PS4 versions can do more visually, but all of the behind-the-scene systems still need to scale down. This is also part of the reason why Watch_Dogs running at sub-1080p on the PS4 is such a point of contention - technically, the 360 can run the game, so hitting 1080 shouldn't have been that much of a problem on hardware that's approximately ten times more powerful. There isn't an eSRAM bottleneck to justify the low resolution.
Welcome aboard.
Thanks
GT5 looked pretty fine
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Best guess is there was a rumored 10% Kinect reservation to be removed, and 792P is precisely 10% more than 1280x720.
1408 = a 10% increase over 1280
and
792 = a 10% increase over 720.
This makes the most sense to me.
I know it may not necessarily translate to performance that way, but this is how I always saw the choice of 792p.
1408 = a 10% increase over 1280
and
792 = a 10% increase over 720.
This makes the most sense to me.
I know it may not necessarily translate to performance that way, but this is how I always saw the choice of 792p.
Where were you last gen where the sub-HD resolutions were all over the map? It's going to be a thing going forward on both consoles just like last time.
There isn't. Scaling something is scaling something. What might actually matter is the type of scaling algorithm--that is, certain scaling %s might look crisper or something by the interpolation, like how you choose different scaling methods in Photoshop when you want to reduce something versus blow it up.
I know nothing about the XB1 or PS4's scaling abilities however. The buffer seems like the most reasonable reason for the odd number.
It doesn't translate to performance at all that way. Resolution hardly affects load linearly, but 792p is 21% more pixels than 720p.
10% more vertical resolution... 720 x 1.10 = 792
yellow submarine
Member
Threads like this are why less and less devs bother coming to GAF and taking it seriously.
Instead of getting an actual explanation, I get some guy making up shit because the numbers match and 8 + 1 + 11 = 9/11
Instead of getting an actual explanation, I get some guy making up shit because the numbers match and 8 + 1 + 11 = 9/11
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Yea, was looking at the individual numbers in isolation as opposed to multiplied by one another.
I'm no graphics expert of any kind but there are quite a few 1080p & 900p titles on X1 that would argue against 792p(on only 2 titles) being a mythical perfect resolution for X1.
IGN Native Resolution List
IGN Native Resolution List