ShabbadooJr
Member
If I end up purchasing a 720, it'll most likely be because of the media capabilities over the PS4. MLB.TV and ESPN are better on 360 or non-existent on the PS3 this gen. Although making them gold-exclusive could nullify that.
DF: Orbis vs Durango Spec Analysis
- Thread starter iamshadowlark
- Start date
Pachterballs
Banned
um, yeah, I don't think these people exist. Unless they're snow blind.
pop in LOTR or anything with high level of detail... and the argument goes away
SneakyStephan
Banned
Pixar movies are rendered at something like 8000p or even more.... then downsampled to 1080p (or whatever they store their master copy in, probably 4k) then to whatever res you watch it in.
That's an insane amount of pixels to sample from.... more AA than you'll ever get on a PC
It's ridiculous to compare that to native 720p.
FUD indeed... in your post.
Manmademan
Member
"lead platform" is going to be determined by more things than hardware power. could be ease of development, could be marketshare, could be moneyhats. If microsoft's focus on casual media functions va kinect takes off to the degree that the wii did (i don't think this is likely, but humor me) you could see nearly EVERY third party game built for Durango, with Orbis getting ports that may not run as well or only slightly better, hardware advantage be damned- this happened quite a bit with ps2/xbox.
regardless, its counterproductive or cost effective to make a game that runs very well on orbis but not well on durango, since more copies will be sold if a game is built to run well on and be easily ported between both consoles. likewise devs will simply not bother learning to squeeze every last ounce of power out of either console.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Apples and oranges.
It's a total different situation. Orbis is not an 'exotic' hardware or 'unique' like ps3. In my opinion will be more tough to optimize Durango porting for its bottleneck (if the late leaks are reliable), it's in a similar situation of the ps3 hardware. To be honest, I have the suspect the next gen will be quite boring, because the new hardware are quite standard & not offer something of 'experimental'. Could be more interesting an evolution of the CEll cpu, but sony not has more money.
Can Crusher
Banned
Yeah aside from clock changes I don't see how significant hardware changes can occur right now without delaying a system to 2014.
Specially considering these are SoC chips with plenty of yield problems. Which I think is a major point of consideration.
MWS Natural
Member
UH....720p IS HD, it always has been.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
I'm a bit confused with the reservation of RAM reading this bkilian post.
I take it that when not playing/running a game the full RAM is available to be used by the system? In Durango's case that would be 8GB available when not running a game. More than enough to run a full fat Windows 8 OS if they wished. Even adding many more things than are listed in the above quote, I can't see why the system would need 3GB of RAM reserved compared to 32MB for 360.
I guess another reason for the high amount is Kinect 2 is much cheaper/simplified and some of the chips/RAM are contained inside Durango. The final box could reserve 2GB total RAM with 1GB for Kinect 2 and 1GB for the OS?
bkilian said:
I take it that when not playing/running a game the full RAM is available to be used by the system? In Durango's case that would be 8GB available when not running a game. More than enough to run a full fat Windows 8 OS if they wished. Even adding many more things than are listed in the above quote, I can't see why the system would need 3GB of RAM reserved compared to 32MB for 360.
I guess another reason for the high amount is Kinect 2 is much cheaper/simplified and some of the chips/RAM are contained inside Durango. The final box could reserve 2GB total RAM with 1GB for Kinect 2 and 1GB for the OS?
iceatcs
Junior Member
If multiplatform can't have Orbis advantage with the rumours of specs and ease to development are true. Then why did 360 have some better versions.
I think we will see either platform will have advantage rather than force equal in multiplatform because both likely have different graphic programmers.
I think we will see either platform will have advantage rather than force equal in multiplatform because both likely have different graphic programmers.
KAZian slip? ;-)
Technically, changes from MS side could have occurred anytime after these docs were released, sometime around nine months ago. Would devs be aware of said change? Would it have leaked? But more importantly I am curious as to what features MS is wanting and willing to gimp their system for in order to have 8gb of RAM. I am aware of the current speculation as to why and don't need it rehashed, just in case it seemed like I was asking.
Can Crusher
Banned
Exactly, Superdae's hint that specs had changed only got my attention because he was comparing it to a target spec doc from february 2012.
I've read that the specs were locked in October, so I would wager that from February to October they went through massive amount of trials regarding the manufacturing of said target spec, and that any changes good or bad would've occurred then. Once it's locked, I think the whole point is to improve the remaining yield problems.
Did they change? Ilherre said no, so I say no. And yeah I too am curious at seeing what MS will do to justify their design priorities.
Smaller price? More features? etc
H_Prestige
Banned
How do PC ports of 360 games run so much better?
I don't think a dev will actively downgrade performance, if performance boosts come automatically. Durango is just a cut down version of Orbis.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Well "on par" translate to "lower, but ballpark". If it sold more, they would have said so. Not to mention Win 7 upgrade was $129 at release and Win 8 was as cheap as $15.
BrainZEROX
Member
I think there is a chance for a paradigm shift when it comes to Durango. Xbox 360 was a game console which was able to run one service at time: gaming or multimedia services. Durango could be a home entertainment server that is able to simultaneoulsy run game services and multimedia or cloud services. The gamer kid could play a game which would run in a pre-allocated memory space (the 5GB portion) while multimedia service could run background for another member of the family (photo/video streaming or cloud services to a Windows phone or tablet). Then I could see why memory segmentation is anticipated for Durango. That could also explain the last lines of DF's article:
Boss Man
Member
Okay
Lagspike_exe
Member
Devs will probably tailor the games for Durango and then boost the resolution/IQ for the Orbis version. Sony's first party will be the real showcase.
It's not possible to have forced equal on both platforms. For one you can't force both versions to have the exact same framerate problems if you get what I'm saying.
BruiserBear
Banned
That's what I've been thinking as well.
Durango version: 720p 4x anti aliasing
Orbis version: 720p 8x anti aliasing, and maybe 1080p in some cases?
If that ends up being the case, and there is certainly no reason that shouldn't be possible based on the specs as we know them, that could mean Orbis versions having a real nice image quality advantage.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I don't see devs wasting bandwidth on 4x, let alone 8x MSAA. There are better uses for the resources.
I would guess we will see 1080P 0AA, 2xAA, FXAA, etc.
You can see how performance goes down with more MSAA, that 660Ti is 192-bit GDDR5, which is 130GB/s.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Yeah, something like that. If these are true performance figures, a 720p 2x MSAA Durango game could easily achieve something like 1280x1080 with maybe even 4xMSAA. That should look really nicely on 1080p TVs.
Can Crusher
Banned
720p can't be real.
I think they both have to target 1080p. Native 1080p is much better than 720p with a bunch of AA.
I think they both have to target 1080p. Native 1080p is much better than 720p with a bunch of AA.
Bullshit.
I care about image quality more than anyone else on this forum, and I will never, ever, ever game on a PC. On my 50-inch Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M (ISF-Day activated, D-nice-calibrated), there is a HUGE visual difference between content that is 1080p-native and 720p.
720p is blurry, smeary shit compared to 1:1 pixel-mapped 1080p.
Can Crusher
Banned
So that just means you care about image quality on your TV. Not about image quality overall or you would in fact be gaming on a PC, because it doesn't make sense to care more about image quality than anybody on this forum and show such an allergy to PC gaming.
Nah, it's just that I've always believed that the purpose of a PC is to create and edit content, not play games.
This is utterly nonsensical. If you cared so much about IQ, you'd be gaming in the one place where you have full control over it.
Angelus Errare
Banned
If you did then you'd be gaming on PC. Since at 1920x1080 a PC will always provide better IQ than well...anything even when connected to your TV.
So no, no you don't care about IQ more than anyone else on this forum.
Thank God it can play games as well.
Can Crusher
Banned
So you only discovered the internet when it reached mobile phones and videogame consoles?
Why do many people never seem to factor in that as a generation wears on, what tends to get sacrificed is IQ and frame rates? Just looking at this generation, where we're getting games like FC3, AC3, and Battlefield 3 running at some really poor frame rates should show that.
Sure, you may start the next generation with 1080p 30FPS, but chances are very, very good that by the end of it, you'll be running 720p or even sub-HD with fluctuating frame rates. Hoping for a certain image quality is kind of futile; you'll eventually lose it, because developers have shown that they're willing to trade image quality for effects and cheap AA.
Sure, we get a bump up on the resolution most every generation, but we're currently running sub-HD as a standard, with the associated fluctuating frame rates to go with it. I'm not holding my breath for 1080p out of the gate, considering what some of the cross-generational games we've seen are.
EDIT: What everybody else above me said, there's a word for what was just posted. It's called shoot-in-foot.
Sure, you may start the next generation with 1080p 30FPS, but chances are very, very good that by the end of it, you'll be running 720p or even sub-HD with fluctuating frame rates. Hoping for a certain image quality is kind of futile; you'll eventually lose it, because developers have shown that they're willing to trade image quality for effects and cheap AA.
Sure, we get a bump up on the resolution most every generation, but we're currently running sub-HD as a standard, with the associated fluctuating frame rates to go with it. I'm not holding my breath for 1080p out of the gate, considering what some of the cross-generational games we've seen are.
EDIT: What everybody else above me said, there's a word for what was just posted. It's called shoot-in-foot.
Manmademan
Member
because the PS3 is a LOT more difficult to develop for than either a 360 or a PC?
BruiserBear
Banned
We are most certainly not running sub-HD as a standard on consoles. The majority of games are true 720p.
Snapshot King
Member
While this is true, one would hope that there would be a move towards harder and faster standards for your game before it can ship, this time around.
H_Prestige
Banned
I'm talking about ps4 ports of 720 games, which I assume will be commonplace.
Currently we have the ps4 having the same exact CPU as 720. It has the same GPU architecture, just a lot more of it. No reason not to expect multiplatform games to have visible improvements on ps4, possibly even 60fps vs 30fps.
BloodMoney
Banned
1080p @ 60fps or I'm out.
720p is garbage, antiquated, old tech... as is 30fps.
720p is garbage, antiquated, old tech... as is 30fps.
MoonLightWave
Member
This makes no sense. Stahp!
BruiserBear
Banned
It does to me. I want nothing to do with PC gaming. I care about image quality, but I'm not willing to deal with the hurdles necessary to get it on a PC. Not to mention the large number of games that simply never get a PC release.
Well, could you give me some examples?
I was specifically referring to games that are pushing the hardware to the point where the game is running on fumes, for the most part, which is why my examples were multi-million sellers. Sure, we've got smaller stuff on Xbox Live or PSN, but I wasn't really taking those into account. Most of these discussions are informally centered around big budget games that push graphical capabilities, so I followed suite.
But I could always just be flat-out wrong, so I'd like to hear your examples.
Manmademan
Member
we know nothing about the development environment of either though.
if hypothetically durango has a lot of overhead and does not allow devs to "code to the metal" to get the most out of it, but the PS4 DOES then you will likely see third party ports simply target the lowest common denominator. Games will look good on Orbis, possibly even better- but you're not going to get the kind of performance that first party games are going to be squeezing out of it- the return for the investment required just wouldn't make sense. This of course assumes durango has roughly equal or greater marketshare than Orbis. If either one hit wii or ps2 levels of dominance then this argument changes.
I'm not saying there will be NO improvement on Ps4, but it's definitely not going to be the kind of gap you will see with sony's first parties who are going to be dedicating their time to squeezing the most out of the hardware.
BruiserBear
Banned
How many games do I need to list here to convince you?
Nearly every single PS3 exclusive runs at 720p. Those are often big budget games, with impressive visuals.
Last fall the 360 had two big exclusives. Halo 4 and Forza Horizons. Both games are native 720p.
lol, 720p isn't garbage. most people sit far enough away they can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.
sure, 1080p is better but it still won't be a forced standard with these consoles. A good gaming PC is still needed for smooth 1080p on new games.
and you're definitely out if you think 60fps will be standard. not enough people buying games give a shit. (and those who do will get the PC version) 30 fps will be used for the vast majority of console next gen games. bet on it.
You said sub-HD is the standard when it is not. It would be easier to list the few that aren't since the majority of games, XBLA/PSN or full retail, run at 720p. It's an unfortunate misconception that people are using to assume next gen would have trouble with 1080p despite the hardware.
BruiserBear
Banned
I think the biggest reason people think that is because the biggest franchise of this gen, COD, runs sub 720p. Also, some early 360 exclusives, including Halo 3 were sub 720p.
H_Prestige
Banned
And some recent games as well (Crysis 3) unfortunately, it's a fact that an alarming number of console games run at sub HD. :/
I thought/somewhat still think that primarily because the latest slew of 3rd party games to be released recently were sub-720p. Sure, you have a solid number of exceptions that forms a pretty consistent trend for having 720p, but the recent trend has been to drop drop drop dat resolution in order to get the game to run at all.