[Digital Foundry] The complete Xbox One architects interview

[NTMBK]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Quite a few interesting snippets talking about things like virtualization (the GPU is entirely virtualised, impressive), choices for hardware, interplay with software. One example:

Digital Foundry: CPU-side, I'm curious. Why did you choose eight Jaguar cores rather than, say, four Piledriver cores? Is it all about performance per watt?

Nick Baker: The extra power and area associated with getting that additional IPC boost going from Jaguar to Piledriver... It's not the right decision to make for a console. Being able to hit the sweet spot of power/performance per area and make it a more parallel problem. That's what it's all about. How we're partitioning cores between the title and the operating system works out as well in that respect.

That one's for you, ShintaiDK.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not sure why you want to mention me.

And what did you expect him to say? They still champion eSRAM as well. Even tho it makes the PS4 50% faster in GPU. Not to mention they had to increase both CPU and GPU frequency because it was too underwhelming and games still gets downscaled on release day. the Xbox One design decisions is just as good as Windows 8.

Sony is still heard laughing over eSRAM. Easiest console victory ever.

But he confirms what I keep telling about the cores and games.

 

[NTMBK]

Not sure why you want to mention me.

I thought you were still lamenting that they didn't use Piledriver cores?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I thought you were still lamenting that they didn't use Piledriver cores?

And you expected the Xbox guy to say what? They already admitted via the frequency change that the CPU is too weak.

 

[Erenhardt]

And you expected the Xbox guy to say what? They already admitted via the frequency change that the CPU is too weak.

The fact that Titan have boost feature is a proof of it being too weak?

 

[ShintaiDK]

The fact that Titan have boost feature is a proof of it being too weak?

What does boost have to do with anything? Its a base clock increase.

 

[frozentundra123456]

X-Box one--- how to design a slower console that is more expensive.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

And you expected the Xbox guy to say what? They already admitted via the frequency change that the CPU is too weak.

They couldn't have admitted that they had some headroom left on their TDP spec and decided to use it up for extra performance could they?

 

[ShintaiDK]

They couldn't have admitted that they had some headroom left on their TDP spec and decided to use it up for extra performance could they?

Then you wouldnt say in an interview that developers couldnt reach the desired FPS because the CPU was too weak. Not to mention 8 countries removed from release launch.

"Interestingly, the biggest source of your frame-rate drops actually comes from the CPU, not the GPU," Goossen reveals. "Adding the margin on the CPU... we actually had titles that were losing frames largely because they were CPU-bound in terms of their core threads. In providing what looks like a very little boost, it's actually a very significant win for us in making sure that we get the steady frame-rates on our console."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects

And all the champion for eSRAM as well. Even tho everyone and their mother knows it was the wrong path.

"What we're seeing in titles is adopting the notion of dynamic resolution scaling to avoid glitching frame-rate. As they start getting into an area where they're starting to hit on the margin there where they could potentially go over their frame budget, they could start dynamically scaling back on resolution and they can keep their HUD in terms of true resolution and the 3D content is squeezing. Again, from my aspect as a gamer I'd rather have a consistent frame-rate and some squeezing on the number of pixels than have those frame-rate glitches."

Some games dont even start as 1080p like Crysis Ryse. 900p instead.

 

[NTMBK]

And all the champion for eSRAM as well. Even tho everyone and their mother knows it was the wrong path.

I think MS just got unlucky there. Sony gambled that they would be able to get high enough density memory modules for 8GB GDDR5, and MS didn't want to risk that. If the memory market had gone slightly differently (if the Hynix fire had come 12 months earlier, for instance) then we could be sat here talking about how the PS4 is crippled by having only 4GB memory. As it is, the gamble paid off.

Some games dont even start as 1080p like Crysis Ryse. 900p instead.

Meh, I can kind of buy their reasoning. I'd take improved image quality over resolution a lot of the time, especially if it's upscaled by a high quality scaler with decent filtering. They claim the XBone has a very good hardware upscaler... but we'll see.

(I'm also not that fussed right now, as the TV in my lounge is still a 720p panel D: Waiting for 4K to get reasonably priced before I upgrade)

I still think that the PS4 is the stronger games console, no doubt about that. But I still find it interesting to read about the XBone's choices. They seem to have really focused on the non-gaming aspects of the console- snapping apps alongside games (which is probably why they put in a hardware rescaler in the first place), completely partitioning the machine between the "system" VM and the "game" VM, using Kinect to control the entire entertainment system. Some weeks I'll use my 360 more for DVDs and Netflix than for games, so I can see where they're coming from.

 

[Madpacket]

Meh, I'm guessing the reason for virtualizing has more to do with piracy than ensuring the useless kinetic sensor remains responsive. I like that they're using a decent DSP for the audio even if half of it will be used for voice recognition.

I suspect in the end once developers get a handle on using the SRAM you won't see huge differences between the two consoles. The real problem is the pricing, launching at 500 is simply a mistake.

 

[nenforcer]

The PS3 / XBOX 360 generation never really supported 1080P gaming despite the HDMI support. It's a little disconcerting that these launch titles still aren't rendering at the full 1920 x 1080.

The PS3 was touted as the more powerful console upon launch and it clearly had more expensive hardware with potentially more capability but was much more difficult to program for. By the time it was all said and done, however, the XBOX 360 supported higher resolutions with more advanced anti aliasing techniques due in large part to the onboard embedded SRAM frame buffer on the Xenos GPU.

We'll just have to wait and see what the developers do. The PS4 has them beat in price and what looks to be performance out of the gate.

 

[Zodiark1593]

The PS3 / XBOX 360 generation never really supported 1080P gaming despite the HDMI support. It's a little disconcerting that these launch titles still aren't rendering at the full 1920 x 1080.

The PS3 was touted as the more powerful console upon launch and it clearly had more expensive hardware with potentially more capability but was much more difficult to program for. By the time it was all said and done, however, the XBOX 360 supported higher resolutions with more advanced anti aliasing techniques due in large part to the onboard embedded SRAM frame buffer on the Xenos GPU.

We'll just have to wait and see what the developers do. The PS4 has them beat in price and what looks to be performance out of the gate.

At this rate, we won't be seeing mainstream 4K gaming for at least another two console gens.

 

[tential]

I think people are putting too much merit on resolution.
Yes, PS4 will be more capable at higher resolutions.

However, I explained resolution to my mom, aunt, uncle, and cousin. None of them understood what I was saying/talking about NOR CARED. These aren't the only people either. In my fraternity at school, I explained it as well when people got 720p HDTVs. They didn't care, all they cared was they had an "HDTV!!!!!".

In short, we're tech people so yes this matters to us. How much will it matter to the general public? Especially when BOTH consoles will say "1080p" on it and explaining to someone "It's rendered in 900p then upscales to 1080p! (lol)".
The 90% of people buying consoles are buying them so they DONT have to understand things like this. They won't care.

IMO, MS may have a chance at selling a console with inferior hardware at a more expensive pricepoint. They might be trying to pull an Apple over Sony, and it may work since MS has some gimmicky features that people will LOVE (especially in the US).

I think people should know by now that consolewars are NEVER won on hardware. Just look at Dreamcast, and other consoles that had better graphics/hardware and still lost.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think people are putting too much merit on resolution.
Yes, PS4 will be more capable at higher resolutions.

However, I explained resolution to my mom, aunt, uncle, and cousin. None of them understood what I was saying/talking about NOR CARED. These aren't the only people either. In my fraternity at school, I explained it as well when people got 720p HDTVs. They didn't care, all they cared was they had an "HDTV!!!!!".

In short, we're tech people so yes this matters to us. How much will it matter to the general public? Especially when BOTH consoles will say "1080p" on it and explaining to someone "It's rendered in 900p then upscales to 1080p! (lol)".
The 90% of people buying consoles are buying them so they DONT have to understand things like this. They won't care.

IMO, MS may have a chance at selling a console with inferior hardware at a more expensive pricepoint. They might be trying to pull an Apple over Sony, and it may work since MS has some gimmicky features that people will LOVE (especially in the US).

I think people should know by now that consolewars are NEVER won on hardware. Just look at Dreamcast, and other consoles that had better graphics/hardware and still lost.

I agree the console wars wont be won on hardware per se. The problem is the Xbox is too expensive as well. I think it will actually come down to the games, not so much the multi-media features. But after the initial hoopla dies down, I think the price of the x-box will have to come down.

 

[Zodiark1593]

I think people are putting too much merit on resolution.
Yes, PS4 will be more capable at higher resolutions.

However, I explained resolution to my mom, aunt, uncle, and cousin. None of them understood what I was saying/talking about NOR CARED. These aren't the only people either. In my fraternity at school, I explained it as well when people got 720p HDTVs. They didn't care, all they cared was they had an "HDTV!!!!!".

In short, we're tech people so yes this matters to us. How much will it matter to the general public? Especially when BOTH consoles will say "1080p" on it and explaining to someone "It's rendered in 900p then upscales to 1080p! (lol)".
The 90% of people buying consoles are buying them so they DONT have to understand things like this. They won't care.

IMO, MS may have a chance at selling a console with inferior hardware at a more expensive pricepoint. They might be trying to pull an Apple over Sony, and it may work since MS has some gimmicky features that people will LOVE (especially in the US).

I think people should know by now that consolewars are NEVER won on hardware. Just look at Dreamcast, and other consoles that had better graphics/hardware and still lost.

Back in the days before I learned to spot the small details in visuals, I didn't think there was much difference at all in visuals between the PS2 and the Xbox (original). All I cared about was the games I wanted were on the PS2, and the fact it can play my current PS1 games.

Superior games will (hopefully) save the day.

 

[beginner99]

PS4 has soemthign like a 7850 class GPU. Hence if you lower IQ enough 1080p 60 fps should be possible. It's also faster than a HD5850 which I still have. That sure makes you wonder why it won't run 1080p? -> CPU bottleneck IMHO.

 

[Zodiark1593]

PS4 has soemthign like a 7850 class GPU. Hence if you lower IQ enough 1080p 60 fps should be possible. It's also faster than a HD5850 which I still have. That sure makes you wonder why it won't run 1080p? -> CPU bottleneck IMHO.

No, a CPU bottleneck would be more likely to strike at lower resolution and IQ where the GPU has the light load and bandwidth isn't saturated.

What is more likely is that (some) developers want to push IQ (image quality) at the expense of resolution and framerate. Others (the CoD series for example) would probably try to hit 60 fps full time at the expense of both IQ and Resolution, though the former would probably be of higher priority in that case.

 

[Madpacket]

Yeah you have to remember console developers are used to shooting for 720P/30FPS as the performance benchmark.

Instead of developers saying "wow, we now have enough horsepower to render @ 1080P/60FPS!" they're instead saying "wow, we now have enough horse power to add tons more detail at 720P/30FPS or if we're really lucky, 900P up-scaled to 1080P!".

What is better? well that depends on your audience and type of game.

 

[nenforcer]

At this rate, we won't be seeing mainstream 4K gaming for at least another two console gens.

Yeah, if your counting PS4 and XBOX One as 1 of the next generations still, we won't see standard 4K until around 2020 I'm guessing.

These consoles claim to support 4K over HDMI 1.4 I believe but they won't have the power to push that many pixels.

 

[hawtdawg]

At this rate, we won't be seeing mainstream 4K gaming for at least another two console gens.

Nah, PS5 or whatever should be able to do it, though I doubt there would be any demand for it. Most people don't even sit close enough to their TV's to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p