Microsoft Xbox One update adds more GPU bandwidth

[MentalIlness]

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/38258/microsoft-xbox-one-update-adds-more-gpu-bandwidth/index.html

Microsoft Xbox One software update will add more GPU bandwidth for developers to take advantage of along with other features

The One has been criticized as not performing as well as the PS4 by some game developers. Microsoft is looking to unlock more performance for its new game console with a software update. The update will reportedly increase the GPU bandwidth inside the console.

The increased bandwidth will hit in the June system update. Along with more GPU bandwidth, the update will also bring with it external hard drive support. Microsoft's Phil Spencer announced that the update would be coming via a tweet.

Microsoft said, "In June we're releasing a new SDK making it possible for developers to access additional GPU resources previously reserved for and system functions. The additional resources allow access to up to 10 percent additional GPU performance. We're committed to giving developers new tools and flexibility to make their Xbox One games even better by giving them the option to use the GPU reserve in whatever way is best for them and their games."

 

[desura]

How? I'm guessing taking resources away from kinect?

 

[Topweasel]

How? I'm guessing taking resources away from kinect?

Probably has more with them optimizing the UI and with comes freeing up resources there I thought the Kinect was mostly CPU overhead. But yeah if they had a couple killer options that they wanted to save resources for on the Kinect, the change of focus away from the Kinect as a core component probably could mean freeing up resources there.

 

[futurefields]

I think kinect is mostly gpu driven might be wrong

Either way XB1 needs all the help in this department it can get

 

[cmdrdredd]

Supposedly they will reduce the draw the kinect has on the system's resources. There is some reserved for the kinect now, they are reducing that. They say 10% but even if that is true it will be behind the PS4 anyway.

 

[SAWYER]

Why bother? The Xbox One is technically inferior to the ps4 and will always be. Most people do not care, only neckbeards

 

[cmdrdredd]

Why bother? The Xbox One is technically inferior to the ps4 and will always be. Most people do not care, only neckbeards

Cause they are posting this info on the internet. People who do see it will care, especially fanboys.

 

[Subyman]

I don't see how this will help much. Hardware to hardware, PS4 has 50% more shaders and less overhead with their dashboard/no kinect. One of the biggest problems is the RAM not a few percentage points of compute on the GPU.

 

[Anteaus]

When you develop software on a console, regardless which brand, resources are limited and often scarce. There are advantages to this, though the benefits might not always translate directly into FPS. There is plenty of ram on both systems for 1080P. I think those GPU cycles will be put to good use, though the benefits won't necessarily be apparant to the gamer.

No one denies that the PS4 has better specs in some categories, but real world performance has not been as lopsided as many had hoped. Everyone knows that Killzone will always look better on PS4 and Gears of War will always look better on Xbox. It's all the titles in between that matter and to date only in a few of them are the differences discernable and even then barely.

Real world differences were more apparent on the PS3/360 than they are on the PS4/XB1 today. As a photographer I can tell you that pixel peepers will always find evidence to make their point, even if that evidence is rooted in hyperbole and minutia. If PS4 performance is so much better as people say it is, it would be much more obvious. That isn't to say that the PS4 isn't the better console. I'm just saying that if it is, graphics aren't the reason and people should stop talking about shaders and tech specs as if numbers on a paper matter.

I find the PS4 to be the Payton Manning of this generation's game consoles. Great overall and technically superior in many ways, but once you get on the field even a rookie can make you look stupid. The PS4 is great, but anyone who thinks it will win every battle against the XB1 purely because of some tech spec is naive.

 

[smackababy]

I think the update was just allowing developers to allow the system to free up resources always allocated to the Kinect, if they weren't using the Kinect. I guess that is good, if you aren't using the Kinect in your game. Sadly, I actually like nearly all the Kinect integration I have seen in games (Madden, Fifa, DR3) and am saddened it will likely be much less in the future.

 

[Lil Frier]

I think the question really becomes what happens when developers make a game without Kinect in-mind, meaning with that GPU consumption. Will using the Kinect's voice commands cause the console to slow down or anything?

 

[smackababy]

I think the question really becomes what happens when developers make a game without Kinect in-mind, meaning with that GPU consumption. Will using the Kinect's voice commands cause the console to slow down or anything?

I think, if they make a game that uses the Kinect allocated resources, the system will have to allocate resources for the Kinect on the fly. That could cause slow downs, but, if a developer did that, there is a really good chance their game won't be using the Kinect and it would be taking your focus out of the game app itself, so any slowdown wouldn't really be noticed.

It might just disable the Kinect altogether though. I think it depends on how MS handles using the Kinect outside of the dedicated resources.


I think the most likely scenario is that developers are going to continue to develop using the current spec and people with the Kinect disabled or not connected at all, will see slight improvements in very specific areas. In reality, this is like a 10% boost, which isn't going to translate into anything meaningful. If your game was running 720p @ 60fps, this isn't going to allow it to run 1080p @ 60 fps.

 

[futurefields]

I think the most likely scenario is that developers are going to continue to develop using the current spec and people with the Kinect disabled or not connected at all, will see slight improvements in very specific areas.

I think this is probably the least likely scenario in which the situation will manifest itself.

I'd say it's more likely they that will increase latency times on the System UI end to consume less resources. Just a slight increase in the systems latency will free up the processing they need. The end result being that it will feel slightly less-snappy to people accustomed to using Kinect 2.0 in it's original incarnation when it had 10% resource draw and running lower latency.

Not sure what the latency is now, but for example if they bumped it from 20ms to 40-60ms it would feel pretty much the same but use 1/2 to 1/4 of the resources.

 

[Todd33]

GPUs don't have bandwidth, but OK Phil keep up that wishful thinking for the morale of the troops.

 

[Maverickbcp]

GPUs don't have bandwidth, but OK Phil keep up that wishful thinking for the morale of the troops.

 

[zerocool84]

When you develop software on a console, regardless which brand, resources are limited and often scarce. There are advantages to this, though the benefits might not always translate directly into FPS. There is plenty of ram on both systems for 1080P. I think those GPU cycles will be put to good use, though the benefits won't necessarily be apparant to the gamer.

No one denies that the PS4 has better specs in some categories, but real world performance has not been as lopsided as many had hoped. Everyone knows that Killzone will always look better on PS4 and Gears of War will always look better on Xbox. It's all the titles in between that matter and to date only in a few of them are the differences discernable and even then barely.

Real world differences were more apparent on the PS3/360 than they are on the PS4/XB1 today. As a photographer I can tell you that pixel peepers will always find evidence to make their point, even if that evidence is rooted in hyperbole and minutia. If PS4 performance is so much better as people say it is, it would be much more obvious. That isn't to say that the PS4 isn't the better console. I'm just saying that if it is, graphics aren't the reason and people should stop talking about shaders and tech specs as if numbers on a paper matter.

I find the PS4 to be the Payton Manning of this generation's game consoles. Great overall and technically superior in many ways, but once you get on the field even a rookie can make you look stupid. The PS4 is great, but anyone who thinks it will win every battle against the XB1 purely because of some tech spec is naive.

Barely any differences between Xbone and PS4 games? The same game running at 720p on one system and the other running at 1080p isn't a small difference. And that's not one game, that's multiple games.

The differences between PS3 and 360 were not big at all compared to what we have today. There is a larger gap now between the two.

 

[Anteaus]

Barely any differences between Xbone and PS4 games? The same game running at 720p on one system and the other running at 1080p isn't a small difference. And that's not one game, that's multiple games.

The differences between PS3 and 360 were not big at all compared to what we have today. There is a larger gap now between the two.

Those were release titles but your point is taken.

In spite of it, subjectively, real world differences are less apparent. The games you are describing do in fact run at 720P native on XB1, but they are still scaled up to 1080P before the player even sees it. Plus they are release games and not a good sampling of what will come. There will always be specific titles that tend to prefer one console over the other, but in general it's not noticeable unless someone literally sticks a PS4/XB1 and looks for it.

Ironically, Watch Dogs won't run at 1080P on either system. Neither did AC4. Statistically speaking, there aren't enough games to determine how either system will trend. It's quite possible that over the course of the next 3 years the XB1 might have more 1080P games than the PS4. Naturally that's highly unlikely, but my point is that none of us, including yourself, can say that those technical differences will manifest into a more enjoyable experience. This will be my last post on this topic because it is a never-ending circle so I will give you the final word. That said, I love my XB1 in spite of it's performance difference.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/13/watch-dogs-resolution-frame-rate/

 

[Lil Frier]

Barely any differences between Xbone and PS4 games? The same game running at 720p on one system and the other running at 1080p isn't a small difference. And that's not one game, that's multiple games.

The differences between PS3 and 360 were not big at all compared to what we have today. There is a larger gap now between the two.

Ghosts is the only game I've seen actually be 720p on the One and 1080p on the PS4. The others are usually coming at 720/900 (BF4) or 900/1080 (Trials Fusion), but the 720-1080 gap has only occurred that one time, from what I recall. Maybe ACIV was that as well? I don't recall.

 

[zerocool84]

Ghosts is the only game I've seen actually be 720p on the One and 1080p on the PS4. The others are usually coming at 720/900 (BF4) or 900/1080 (Trials Fusion), but the 720-1080 gap has only occurred that one time, from what I recall. Maybe ACIV was that as well? I don't recall.

 

[Wingznut]

So, your screenshots seem to back up Frier's claim...

 

[Arkaign]

ZeroCool has it right. It's not a small gap, and it's not a 'few' games. 10% (more than is possible to recover from reserved resources in totality, closer to 8% max) of GPU isn't going to come anywhere close to covering that gap.

It doesn't mean that the XB1 versions will suck, but it does mean that they are quite often the lesser versions (more often than not by a fair margin even with confirmed upcoming games).

And upscaling SUCKS, I'm sorry but it's true, for both PS4 and XB1. It's so bad that I'd rather play native 720p on a native 720p display than 792p/900p upscaled to 1080p on a 1080p display. Upscaling introduces all kinds of weird blurring and artifacts during the process that really uglifies things.

It sort of gets back to a way I think XB1 could find its feet instead of all these secret sauce bullcrap stories about hidden GPUs, DX12 (won't do jack squat for console, as low level draw call API ALREADY there, herp derp), yadda.

What should they do? Embrace 720p. As possible pile on the AA/effects and maintain a solid framerate without screen tearing. A great example is Titanfall. On the XB1 there is rather considerable screen tearing, slowdown in big battles, some nasty aliasing, etc. All because they went for some stupid 792p resolution that has zero benefit. 720p would have let them offer a smoother experience, less/zero tearing, and better AA.

But we all know why they chose 792p. Because it isn't 720p. And somehow 720p has become a dirty word, lol.

And then you have incompetent devs as well. The new EA MMA game is 900p on both the XB1 and PS4, but the XB1 version is 2X MSAA with some sketchy motion blur, and the PS4 version is 4X MSAA with more advanced motion blur. My thoughts : WHY THE ACTUAL HELL ARE YOU IMPLEMENTING MOTION BLUR IN A FREAKING FIGHTING GAME. IDIOTS. 1080p TXAA for XB1 and 1080p MSAA for PS4 should have been easily achievable with only two fighters in a confined space and very little else going on. NBA 14 looks miles better and there are a ton of other things going on in that game compared to this one. I played the demo on an XB1 and it looked like puke, mostly due to the motion blur, but the upscaling didn't help either.

/rant

 

[futurefields]

I agree with Arkaign. They will never close the gap with PS4 with this little system optimizations, the gap in the hardware is simply too great. XB1 should ditch the resolution-war and embrace 720p because the system simply isn't powerful enough for 1080p, and the games will suffer if they try to force it.

 

[Lil Frier]

So, your screenshots seem to back up Frier's claim...

No, MGS was also on the list, though I can't say I count that half-game, haha. The unreleased Witcher 3 is also there, but we're talking about current titles, so Ghosts and MGS seem to be it for the actual 720/1080 split.

 

[Wingznut]

No, MGS was also on the list, though I can't say I count that half-game, haha. The unreleased Witcher 3 is also there, but we're talking about current titles, so Ghosts and MGS seem to be it for the actual 720/1080 split.

Yeah, I didn't count MGS either. "half-game" is a generous description.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think it's a problem when a game that uses an engine as old as titanfall isn't 1080p in 2014 no matter how you slice it. Battlefield 4 I can understand a bit(because I know the specs and understand them), and games that use newer and more advanced engines. I even think it's kind of sad the PS4 doesn't constantly hit 1080p. Still the games are good and look miles better than the 360 and PS3 even at this early point.

Part of me though really thinks it's a shame that 1080p has been a standard for almost as long as the 360 has been out and the new consoles in 2014 can't consistently perform at that level. I deal with it because some of the games are really good anyway and I cannot play them elsewhere.*sigh*