Checkerboard 1440p is 1280 x 1440, 4k is 1920 x 2160.
You only got a series S….holy shit
It's not that UE5 needs PS5, it's more like UE5 needs PS5 for that scene showed in the demo. I am sure that UE5 is going to be used as mobile game engine as well as for big games and movies.
Xbox should easily be able to do the UE5 demo without any concessions. UE5 is a third party engine first and foremost, and every feature they demo'd would need to work on PC and Xbox.
This.
Harsh. I think they tried to mix things up with Gears 4, and especially 5, but i feel there is only so much you can do with Gears big dude third person cover gameplay. I think Gears needs to go full open world to stand out.
Since I replayed recently the OG trilogy, I feel like being even harsher, especially for 4th game, which was after 3rd pretty bad. Mighty Bleszinski it's not so easy to replace probably...
Where did you get your info on the 1440p checkerboarding? I am not surprised that 1440p checkerboarding is less taxing than 1440p native. I AM surprised that 1440p checkerboarding is less taxing than 1080p. What happens when a 1440p checkerboarded image is displayed on a 1080p set? Artifacts might be seen when 4K checkerboard is shown on a 4k set but I'd imagine a 4k checkerboard image on a 1080p set would look pretty good. Perhaps this is what MS was going for when they were talking 1440p gaming.
That's what checkerboarding is, 1280 x 1440 for 1440p CB and so on, this has been known for years.
I think you might be wrong there. Yes series X has its own powerful solution but even without looking at latency you’re looking at a max 4.8GB/s of streaming versus a max 17GB/s of streaming. Then there is the special I/O hardware complex of the PS5 which is unique and specifically built for ultra low latency and other things while the Xbox solution is way more standard parts.
4.8gb/sec is the average according to MS. 8-9 gb/sec is the average according to Sony.
The 8-9 GB/sec was provided before Oodle texture was announced. When games take advantage of both Kraken and Oodle texture compression it can reach 17.38 GB/sec. The 8-9 GB/sec is probably still in specifications all over the place though.
cbloomrants.blogspot.com
Those are the original values given by Sony, it’s much higher now because of the oodle compression etc. which wasn’t available at that time. I’m pretty sure series X maxes out at 4.8 and it might also be an average at the same time. I could be wrong there but as I remember is 2.4 raw and max 4.8 using compression etc.
1920 * 1080 = 2073600 pixels
That is not actually what happens... CB uses GPU processing to generate the final image.
It renders half the pixels of 1440p.. I don't think the interpolation (or rather.. lack of it) takes anywhere near enough resources to make it only a 20-30% improvement.
It takes.
So after all is said is 1440p CB cheaper or more expensive to render than 1080p? I am hearing two different answers. If it is cheaper there is no reason to ever render at 1080p if you can render at 1440p CB and scale down the image to make it look better on native 1080p screens right? If it's more expensive then the argument that 1440p is cheaper is wrong since the XSS is actually working harder to run RE at 1440p CB than the X1X is running the game at 1080p.
With Sampler Feedback Streaming + the dedicated decompression hardware you're looking at 12GB/s of streaming for textures on Xbox Series X. Sampler Feedback Streaming directly impacts effective SSD streaming speed due to the average 2.5x memory efficiency benefit. Microsoft points out that it benefits their SSD streaming speed also due to the memory efficiency gains.
Yes it is flawed, and if you want to keep it fair you should also take Sony’s 22GB/S max theoretical speed (which would also be obviously flawed).
I keep wondering how people keep coming up with these fantasy numbers, the absolute theoretical max is 6gb/s and that encompasses all those technologies. Where did ms communicate those speeds? I think they communicated max 4.8, or maybe 6 somewhere. I can imagine though it’s hard to find the true speed because ms likes to hide everything that doesn’t compare well, like also sales numbers and profitability of game pass. Also, using all these software solutions take away from CPU power but that is another story altogether.
1440p CB is definitely expensive than 1080p native in performance terms.
Thanks.. wonder why their frame time dropped like 30% in the 2160p native vs 1800p native though? It's like a ~20% rez drop with ~30% frame time drop (head math, forgive me, but it's something like that)
2.4GB/s is theoretical max SSD speeds in Series X... everything else is based in how much you can compress and decompress.
The COD modern warfare engine should be one of the less compatible engine with software VRS and the devs found out software VRS was better than hardware VRS in most aspects: more flexible, better perf, better results. This is a rough summary of this paper:
So 1440p CB is MORE taxing than 1080p. That means the XSS is working HARDER to render RE at 60 fps with no RT than the X1X is running it at 1080p. So my original point was right all along and the XSS is clearly more performant than the most powerful console last generation like it should be.
It does not work that way and you know it
He did not. He has said Tier 2 VRS is a feature supported by the GPU hardware (aka through DX12U or Vulkan on RDNA2 cards and whatever Nvidia architecture). That is a fact.
So what component of the GPU shared on RDNA 2 PC cards, nvidia cards, and XSX/S APUs is responsible for hardware VRS tier 2?
I don't think people have issue understanding that it's streaming in only the portions it needs, therefore leaving out data it doesn't need and increasing effective memory. That's the largest key benefit local hardware streaming has always had.
I don't fuckin know man, I'm not a graphics engineer.
devblogs.microsoft.com
