“It was clearly a bit more complicated to extract the maximum power from the Xbox One when you’re trying to do that. I think eSRAM is easy to use. The only problem is…Part of the problem is that it’s just a little bit too small to output 1080p within that size. It’s such a small size within there that we can’t do everything in 1080p with that little buffer of super-fast RAM.
“
They are releasing a new SDK that’s much faster and we will be comfortably running at 1080p on Xbox One.
“It means you have to do it in chunks or using tricks, tiling it and so on. It’s a bit like the reverse of the PS3. PS3 was harder to program for than the Xbox 360. Now it seems like everything has reversed but it doesn’t mean it’s far less powerful – it’s just a pain in the ass to start with. We are on fine ground now but the first few months were hell.
"They are releasing a new SDK that’s much faster and we will be comfortably running at 1080p on Xbox One. We were worried six months ago and we are not anymore, it’s got better and they are quite comparable machines. The Xbox One is a bit more multimedia, a bit more hub-centric so its a bit more complex. There’s stuff you can and can’t do because it’s a sort of multimedia hub. PS4 doesn’t have that. PS4 is just a games machine.
"At least on paper, [PS4 is] a bit more powerful. But I think the Xbox One is gonna catch up. But definitely there’s this eSRAM. PS4 has 8GB and it’s almost as fast as eSRAM [bandwidth wise] but at the same time you can go a little bit further with it, because you don’t have this slower memory. That’s also why you don’t have that many games running in 1080p, because you have to make it smaller, for what you can fit into the eSRAM with the Xbox One."
Why include eSRAM at all if it becomes a limiting factor? Simply due to its bandwidth for tiled texture middleware, which is reportedly 192 GB/s. Also, it appropriately helps make Cloud gaming more possible on normal internet connections thanks to its LZ encode/decode compression abilities. So whether we believe so or not, Microsoft knew what it was doing when it included eSRAM into the Xbox One. We’ll just have to wait and see if devs can deliver the best visual experience possible while taking advantage of the eSRAM’s many benefits.
http://gamingbolt.com/why-xbox-ones-esram-feels-limited-despite-potential-to-store-6gb-of-tiled-textures-using-dx-11-2#JeJDG1VSV27UtEFg.99
cigi silk skrev:Styrvolt - jeg er sådan set ikke totalt uenig i det du siger.
Men MS har arbejdet intensivt på at integrere ESRAM, MOVE engines til at flytte textures m.m. ind på den samme "die"- APU'en. Dvs. at der kan flyttes textures i en hastighed som PS4 på ingen måde kan være med på. Så det er IKKE den samme APU når de tager de andre ellementer med.
Crytek had this to say about Xbox One's Move Engines: "Xbox One's move engine has proven to be quite useful to us by accelerating streaming of texture data, etc. How well that fares overall and compares to the prowess of PS4's compute engines remains to be seen and likely depends on the specific type of game you want to build."
Well both consoles use AMD chipsets which have support for partial resident textures in hardware. The difference is mainly in how the eSRAM will be leveraged for this as opposed to main RAM and how good a job Sony or other developers can write effective tools to match DirectX 11.2's feature set.
It honestly looks like part of the X1's chipset was built for tiling textures with their built-in support into the data move engines and placing the eSRAM there to handle it easily.
Either way, it looks like partial resident resources will play a big role in future X1 games. Such a big role MS gave it dedicated hardware. I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about it soon enough.
Annxii skrev:Flops er en teoretisk beregning af processering kraft i CPU/GPU/APU. Det har intet med RAM at gøre uanset om det er med eller uden G.
tue69 skrev:Til gengæld så er det da rart at se, at der også er noget at debattere på et lidt højere plan end bare billeder af facepalms og kaniner med pandekager på hovedet.
Det bliver dog endnu bedre i løbet af 2014, når vi skal til at diskutere eksklusiver. Titanfall ser jo fedt ud, og det samme gør The Order. Og når vi så engang er færdige med at diskutere dem, så kommer God of War vs. Gears of War og Halo vs. Uncharted.
Major Oblivious skrev:tue69 skrev:Til gengæld så er det da rart at se, at der også er noget at debattere på et lidt højere plan end bare billeder af facepalms og kaniner med pandekager på hovedet.
Det bliver dog endnu bedre i løbet af 2014, når vi skal til at diskutere eksklusiver. Titanfall ser jo fedt ud, og det samme gør The Order. Og når vi så engang er færdige med at diskutere dem, så kommer God of War vs. Gears of War og Halo vs. Uncharted.
So True.. Hvad andet interessant er også, at både MS, Sony og udviklerne har væsentlig mere travlt med at lære og optimerer til Next-Gen end ved sidste generation.
Sledgehammer er eksempelvis ude at bekræfte Next-Gen bliver deres hovedfokus for det næste CoD
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/02/10/914602
Jeg har en fornemmelse af, at både PS3 og Xbox 360 hurtigere vil blive nedprioriteret end ved sidste generationsskift.
Major Oblivious skrev:Ja, forskellen er rasende stor! Spillede lidt Blops 2 med min lillebror i weekenden, og forskellen fra dét og BF4 på Next-Gen stod voldsom klar i min bevidsthed
Men jeg også ganske enig med Prozel.. Blops 2 er et væsentlig bedre spil end Ghost.
Synes dog at de nye DLC baner i Ghost er rigtig fede, hvilket gør spillet en hel del mere fornøjelig. Men standard-banerne er bæ.
Det er som om at de har sagt. Vi skal bare have folk til at mødes på midten, og skyde vildt på hinanden.
Prozel skrev:Bare ærgerligt at Ghost er forfærdeligt ift. Blops 2. Kunne jeg ikke have fået en next gen port af blops 2 i stedet for?
cigi silk skrev:@Styrvolt - udmærket lægmands forklaring
Brugere der læser dette forum: Ingen og 21 gæster