(RUMOR) Xbox One GPU reserve getting smaller soon, down from 10% to 2%

ibrXMK0YZddy7.gif

lol great gif as usual. only thing wrong, is that if someone should have tears, thats microsoft.
I will keep using their new console and buying stuff on it, as long as it feels good and doesnt feel dated to me. lots of people will do the same.
and when this "feeling dated" eventually happens, it wont be customer tears for sure ;)
 
Not really. Some will, of course, but not all of them. We've seen plenty of examples over the years of developers not doing this. Hell, the oXbox wasn't even remotely close to the PS2 in terms of sales but the power gap and ease of development still resulted in publishers like Ubisoft focusing on it more than the PS2.

Then take a look at how gimped a number of PS3 versions were last gen, even though sales were neck and neck with the 360. This improved over time but again, only because they were neck and neck (and even then, you'd get the odd game that really suffered, like Skyrim).

If the Xbone falls behind as much as most people think it will, what incentive will there be to focus on it?



That's part of his point. He's saying the PS4 is perceived to be more powerful, even when the games look the same.

Memory setup and gigaflops aside, they both run on APUs manifactured by AMD, this will make multiplatform development considerably less complicated than previous gens. This could maybe make it easier for developers to scale between platforms without sacrificing playability.

But of course its just a theory.
 
This is a stunner to people like nib, but I've said this all along. My first ever NeoGAF post said exactly this, that it didn't matter how much stronger the PS4 was, just that Microsoft gave devs enough power to make great looking next gen games, and there is no credible argument, in my opinion, that they haven't done precisely that. The fact that the stronger hardware will get higher resolutions or performance (particularly when they're at the same resolution, as is the case with Tomb Raider) is a surprise to nobody. I've said all along that I didn't demand nor expect for all xbox one games to be at 1080p, and that it would obviously be better suited at lower resolutions. The real issue my good buddy nib has is with me actually having something positive to say about the Xbox One, and not hopping on the negative bandwagon about how weak and incapable it is. Beyond that, I stand by all that I've said, and, hell, Ryse practically proved a big part of what I was saying from the very start, and it did so at launch no less. The game is not only *gasp* sub 1080p, but nothing else on either system looks quite as good. Who with a straight face can look at that game at launch, with tools and drivers that were widely criticized as not being complete or where they need to be, and in which it was known from the start would take more time and dev effort to get the most out of the hardware, and somehow still claim the Xbox One doesn't have plenty enough power to deliver incredible looking games well into its life?

The FPS and resolution disparity in the games are only an indication of the extra hardware power of the PS4. I see that you are not disputing that, but that it doesn't make that much of a difference. However, that extra power doesn't have to go to FPS or resolution. The PS4 could run XB1 graphic quality games but for output to virtual goggles. Having VR on the PS4 and not on the XB1 would be a huge differentiator, and it wouldn't need techie videos with side by side comparisons to point out.

As I just pointed out in a previous post, the PS4 has 100% more ROPs and 50% more GPU cores. No amount of optimization of drivers or development tools is going to make up that difference. That will translate to a significant and noticeable difference in games.
 
This is a stunner to people like nib, but I've said this all along. My first ever NeoGAF post said exactly this, that it didn't matter how much stronger the PS4 was, just that Microsoft gave devs enough power to make great looking next gen games, and there is no credible argument, in my opinion, that they haven't done precisely that. The fact that the stronger hardware will get higher resolutions or performance (particularly when they're at the same resolution, as is the case with Tomb Raider) is a surprise to nobody. I've said all along that I didn't demand nor expect for all xbox one games to be at 1080p, and that it would obviously be better suited at lower resolutions. The real issue my good buddy nib has is with me actually having something positive to say about the Xbox One, and not hopping on the negative bandwagon about how weak and incapable it is. Beyond that, I stand by all that I've said, and, hell, Ryse practically proved a big part of what I was saying from the very start, and it did so at launch no less. The game is not only *gasp* sub 1080p, but nothing else on either system looks quite as good. Who with a straight face can look at that game at launch, with tools and drivers that were widely criticized as not being complete or where they need to be, and in which it was known from the start would take more time and dev effort to get the most out of the hardware, and somehow still claim the Xbox One doesn't have plenty enough power to deliver incredible looking games well into its life?

Ryse and KZSF are both the graphical kings. Ryse is not by any means a leap over KZ though.
 
People that say games will be designed around weaker hardware are still coming to grasp it seems with the fact that this doesnt change the ps4 multiplats will run or look better or both.
 
The Tomb Raider Definitive Edition disparity came under that "speed boost". That improvement is already factored in the current analysis. However this is all besides the point. There is no software upgrade that is going to get around the PS4 having 100% more ROPs and 50% more GPU cores.
Exactly. The PS4 is simply much more powerful:
Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +300%
Beyond that, I stand by all that I've said, and, hell, Ryse practically proved a big part of what I was saying from the very start, and it did so at launch no less. The game is not only *gasp* sub 1080p, but nothing else on either system looks quite as good.
Of course --> "KILLZONE: Shadow Fall" does!
And it's a 1080p game.
 
I agree. They are both very inconsistent as well. Some parts of both games are pretty ugly.

Not to mention Ryse has a much smaller scope, worse framerate and resolution. On top of that, it's probably very low on CPU usage. Not much number crunching required for a glorified QTE battle system.
 
...I read some posts and I cant understand whats wrong with some posters and their ..hate?

I mean, bottom line, all this effort and emotions surely is worth more than 500$ over the period of a generation, right?
 
I agree that gamers know the ps4 is more powerful and skews our belief that games look better on one system than the other. I don't buy dad's etc would have a skewed vision of what's better.

Well I know for certain dads don't know jack - you can ask the lad i went to school with who recieved a commodore plus 4 for christmas rather than an amiga.

Joke post? Or are you seriously using anecdotal evidence from ~30 years ago as proof?

We're living in 2014, word of mouth is easier and more important than ever and it's saying the PS4 is more powerful. Anyone with even a little interest is going to hear these things.

Memory setup and gigaflops aside, they both run on APUs manifactured by AMD, this will make multiplatform development considerably less complicated than previous gens. This could maybe make it easier for developers to scale between platforms without sacrificing playability.

But of course its just a theory.

Having similar architectures will certainly help both in a way (like the relatively weak CPUs forcing developers to be more efficient in that area) but there's still plenty of points of difference that could impact things (Skyrim's troubles, for example, weren't because of the Cell but because of the memory).

It'll depend entirely on the developers and I could easily see a number of them focusing on the PS4 and then downporting to the Xbone, especially if the Xbone is in distant second place.

What reason would there be to prioritise the Xbone in that situation?
 
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, any amount of extra power helps, but doesn't this bring the specs a little closer to what we all already knew last year? With the reservation the TF was down to 1.1 I think? With it now being less that should put it back to around 1.3TF no? The power difference between the consoles, and the talk of PS4 version of games being superior, was already taking in account the full specs of both systems. When it was known that the XB1 had a huge reservation, that just made things worse.
 
I agree that gamers know the ps4 is more powerful and skews our belief that games look better on one system than the other. I don't buy dad's etc would have a skewed vision of what's better.

Well I know for certain dads don't know jack - you can ask the lad i went to school with who recieved a commodore plus 4 for christmas rather than an amiga.

Changes like what MS are making now, or the upclocks they made last year, aren't actually about giving developers more power for a few extra frames. It's for us, it's for articles to be written and stories to spread that might change the narrative of the Xbox One as a technically inferior machine.

Buy it or not, I'm just telling you I work at the busiest videogame store in my country and I hear it on a daily basis. Common people believe games look better on PS4, whether the difference is noticeable from game to game or not doesn't matter.

It's not the 80s anymore man. Dads... dads have changed.
 
I don't get why XB1 users should be happy about this. It seems like people buying the console didn't do so because it was powerful, but because of the extra features (like snap) that the ps4 can't do. It'll probably get a bit closer to parity with ps4, but do XB1 users care if it means they can't use a feature they, potentially, chose the XB1 for?



From the details, apparently 10% of resources were reserved for Kinect (8% video, 2% audio split). Since Kinect still needs to hear you at all times, the 2% remains mandatory, but not all games use Kinect all the time, especially not an issue if Kinect is not recording and tracking you, so imagine if your game didn't use Kinect like CoD: Ghosts or BF4, devs were pretty much being screwed out of 10% worth of GPU resources. Having the choice now to dig in to that extra 8% is a good thing, there's zero negative as a result.

In short, from my understanding, this shouldn't affect snap functionality or voice commands. Also devs still have the option, the difference now is that it's not mandatory, so if someone made a Kinect game and wanted to use the 10%, they still can. Kinect Party fans rejoice!
 
So in DBZ terms the X1 went from
Is this right guys?

Seriously though will this drip feed backwards into current games..i.e. with the OS update give back the 8% to BF4 or Dead Rising 3 say (which suffer most from FPS dips from the launch games?)
 
Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +300%


Xbone needs to be updated to 1.28 TF


Originally 1.31 TF - 10% = 1.18 TF. Now 1.31 - 2% = 1.28 ;-)
 
So in DBZ terms the X1 went from

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/125/2/9/goku_normal_render_by_lobo46-d4ylav4.png[IMG]

too
[IMG]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/083/4/e/goku_the_super_saiyan_by_salvamakoto-d5z6b37.png[IMG]

Is this right guys?
[/QUOTE]

Wtf, first no you're not right, and use the quote on these stupid massive pictures.
 
This is a stunner to people like nib, but I've said this all along. My first ever NeoGAF post said exactly this, that it didn't matter how much stronger the PS4 was, just that Microsoft gave devs enough power to make great looking next gen games, and there is no credible argument, in my opinion, that they haven't done precisely that. The fact that the stronger hardware will get higher resolutions or performance (particularly when they're at the same resolution, as is the case with Tomb Raider) is a surprise to nobody. I've said all along that I didn't demand nor expect for all xbox one games to be at 1080p, and that it would obviously be better suited at lower resolutions. The real issue my good buddy nib has is with me actually having something positive to say about the Xbox One, and not hopping on the negative bandwagon about how weak and incapable it is. Beyond that, I stand by all that I've said, and, hell, Ryse practically proved a big part of what I was saying from the very start, and it did so at launch no less. The game is not only *gasp* sub 1080p, but nothing else on either system looks quite as good. Who with a straight face can look at that game at launch, with tools and drivers that were widely criticized as not being complete or where they need to be, and in which it was known from the start would take more time and dev effort to get the most out of the hardware, and somehow still claim the Xbox One doesn't have plenty enough power to deliver incredible looking games well into its life?
I think the reason that "people like nib" might have problems with what you say may have more to do with the fact that you spend a lot of time trying to have it both ways, as exemplified by this very post. Here you spend the first half of this paragraph downplaying power difference, espousing XBO's "good enough" approach and then try to end by bragging yet again (lost count of how many times you've claimed this now) about how Ryse is the best looking game on either system, subjectivity be damned. Trying to defend "good enough" while continuously bragging about "best looking" maybe just tends to make people think you aren't all that serious about one of the two in these arguments...
 
I think the reason that "people like nib" might have problems with what you say may have more to do with the fact that you spend a lot of time trying to have it both ways, as exemplified by this very post. Here you spend the first half of this paragraph downplaying power difference, espousing XBO's "good enough" approach and then try to end by bragging yet again (lost count of how many times you've claimed this now) about how Ryse is the best looking game on either system, subjectivity be damned. Trying to defend "good enough" while continuously bragging about "best looking" maybe just tends to make people think you aren't all that serious about one of the two in these arguments...

It's Sage. Not much to say apart from that.
 
Not possible because dead rising 3 uses kinect gestures. Those 8% will only be for games that dont use the camera.

I disabled them as soon as I realised that I could, they were irritating as hell. Not sure bf4 devs would prioritise leaning above having 8% more gpu to play with either.
 
They will be designed around the least common denominator so they will hold up fine. They will probably just look and run better on the PS4 but still fully playable on Xbox.

Why is this expected, though? Games in the 360/PS3 gen were most definitely NOT designed around the lowest common denominator. The Triple had vastly inferior ports of many games.
 
question would come down to the fact that microsoft has already pulled the reserve. Doesn't the reserve usually sit there for a good 2 years before being unlocked to allow more push down the line? Because if Xbox has already pulled its reserve how much does the PS4 as well have in reserve? Because the PS4 is already pushing 30 FPS more no problem with the likes of tomb raider. Also the resolution gate has been huge from the get go. This will minorly get better as the ESDRAM (i think its called I forget so many RAM's) gets utilized better down the road.

If Sony is reserving a good amount as well its just going to push them even further as the generation goes on.
 
The sad part is this little change will probably do little in getting next gen games to 1080p resolution. Looks like MS is feeling the pressure from all the resolution gate scandals in the media, and is trying to do the best they can especially when Albert was posting trying to downplay the power differences. First it was the uplock, now this.
 
Of course --> "KILLZONE: Shadow Fall" does!
And it's a 1080p game.

Yeah someone might prefer the appearance of Ryse stylistically but from a technical stand point, in terms of proving the system's early capabilities, this isn't much of a debate. Shadow Fall is a more visually impressive game in terms of what's taking place technically with a 40% higher resolution and a notably higher frame rate. People bring up Ryse like it means something. Yeah sure, if you drop the res and cut the fps you can have a game that almost looks as good as a high end PS4 title. This is the same difference we are seeing with multi plats too...move along nothing to see really...

This rumoured 8% is going to mean very little to change that. It's 8%, a direct bump of a 30 fps game is 3 fps. It's not going to mean the difference between 30 and 60 fps or suddenly 720p games are going to be 1080p. Best thing to come out of this is that the min fps will have better protection from dips.


The tech battle is over really. If MS can keep acquiring games like they did with Gears, that's a better strategy really. Let's see them bring back some really OG Xbox exclusives like NG and Otogi. Then I'm on board no hesitation.
 
The before would be Eternal Jobber Krillin, the after would be when Krillin had his "Hidden Potential" unlocked, and then still kept getting beat by most.
 
They will be designed around the least common denominator so they will hold up fine. They will probably just look and run better on the PS4 but still fully playable on Xbox.

Yep just like Skyrim on PS3. There can be no possible consequences of having the weaker console [either due to specs or programming difficulties, funny enough XB1 has both this go round]
 
Question . Is the esRAM bottleneck created pre processing or post processing. If it is post processing, will the 8% additional power make a difference ?

Question 2. 1.28 tflop or 1.31, its still considerably behind 1.8 tflops so will be fps difference be 8% as well, which for a console doing either 30 fps or 45 fps will make it 33-50 respectively ?
 
And >30fps, Ryse framerate sometimes go <30

Change that to framerate half the time go <30. Kind of pathetic if you think about it. I haven't seen any other game struggles so much with framerate minus a free to play game but even that game has a 60fps base.
 
Who with a straight face can look at that game at launch, with tools and drivers that were widely criticized as not being complete or where they need to be, and in which it was known from the start would take more time and dev effort to get the most out of the hardware, and somehow still claim the Xbox One doesn't have plenty enough power to deliver incredible looking games well into its life?

Wow now that's a run-on sentence. Congrats Senju, that's an incredible accomplishment

Anyways back on topic, the PS3 delivered incredible looking games with TLOU and Beyond thus there is no reason for next-gen? Or what? where is the mythical line that makes next-gen make sense? Some would argue that even the PS4 isn't next gen as it can't deliver 1080p/60fps across all games so simply qualifying your response with Penello's standard PR response is not helpful
 
Tiny leap.

Actually it's not even a leap haha. I don't see this making much of a difference though it's nice for devs.
 
The FPS and resolution disparity in the games are only an indication of the extra hardware power of the PS4. I see that you are not disputing that, but that it doesn't make that much of a difference. However, that extra power doesn't have to go to FPS or resolution. The PS4 could run XB1 graphic quality games but for output to virtual goggles. Having VR on the PS4 and not on the XB1 would be a huge differentiator, and it wouldn't need techie videos with side by side comparisons to point out.

As I just pointed out in a previous post, the PS4 has 100% more ROPs and 50% more GPU cores. No amount of optimization of drivers or development tools is going to make up that difference. That will translate to a significant and noticeable difference in games.

This is purely a matter of opinion some people may not even care or notice 720p vs 900p or 900p vs 1080p or even 720p vs 1080p and 30-45fps compared to 45-60fps.

Some people will care but its not like its a fact that these difference are significant or noticeable to everyone. People didnt seems that bothered with the PS3 versions of games like cod:ghosts looking way worse on the PS3.cod ghosts on PS3 looks way worse then the 360 version compared to how the X1 version looks to the PS4, the X1 version still looks good and a nice leap over the previos gen because of this the advantage the PS4 has are some what diminishing.Some ppl will find the PS4 advantages to be significant to them but the majority of people will find it less of a issue then the PS3 graphics were.
 
Top Bottom