DirectX 12 Boosts Xbox One CPU Performance by 50%, GPU by 20% -leak

Pretty clear that it's getting close to national novel writing month in here. -_-

Hahahaha...

I know but i am surprise the thread still even alive TC thread backfire it was proven fake,some site took an article publish on a MS page edit and edit it to show the 50% CPU and 20% GPU part i already linked the original one but people ignore it..lol

Why are we still talking about a fake article?

@tormentos:

Wrong again el tormentos

just another ignorant cow trying to explain pc gaming and hardware usage......

7% is a freaking guess on their part and to the point that project cars is correctly coded for deferred multithreading for the X1 not much else they can do since gpu is the main limiting factor. And the fact that they think they can get another 7% overall performance gain means that its current API is not not as efficient as DX12.......

Async performance not using deferred/singled cpu performance increases quite abit..... since DX11 MT does not allow for multiple tasks to be scheduled simultaneously without adding considerable complexity and idling to the design. This means that gpu spends time waiting on the cpu for work.

Actually DX10 didn't release until near the end 2006 with Vista, Also again you have no clue what the hell your talking about almost all multiplats were built on DX9/shader model 3 based while Dx10 or DX11 were an addon afterthought with vast majority of multiplats.

Farcry 3 released in 2012 only supports DirectX 9.0c and 11, the difference between the two API's were subtle. Batman Arkham city(2011) also was DX9 or DX11, and only real thing DX11 included was tessellation and few extra post processing effects. Through until 2011 vast majority of games had DX9 base and only a selection used other API's with only subtle to moderate additions tacked on with DX 10 if coded for or DX11.

Again the 10-20k geometry chunks done on the 360 was outclassed with introduction of DX11MT, and with processors being leagues faster. If 360's API was so much better why couldn't it outclass 2008+ era cpu's nor 2006 era unified architecture based gpu's ie 8800GT's if it was limited by DX9 or DX10 hmm?.

Again your an idiot..... Pcars on Pc is not coded to same quality, improper cpu usage, excess draw calls on a single thread voids your whole dumbass argument. comparing pc vs PS4 vs X1. And using i3 vs i5 again shows you have no clue why your example is flawed and incorrect. Lets see two cores being split up into 4 threads having only 50% of processing power of each core handling each thread. comparing to a cpu with 4 cores with four threads of course an i3 cant keep up.... cutting processing power in half will yield less performance this does not mean a game is more demanding..... you sir have no clue how it works..... When your only using one thread to handle most if not all draw calls core/thread performance determines how well a cpu can feed a gpu.....

You again showing you have no clue..... DX 10 in Crysis 1 was a ploy to sell Vista and it did not do anything over DX9, they artificially limited max settings, which could be bypassed....

Draw calls are an issue on consoles you fool, if the devs dont code properly, and are using limited methods like single or deferred multi threading. As seen with a crap load of games this gen alone.....

And here goes the hypocrite again..

I could care less if the 7% is a guess when they claim 40% you were eating it you freaking hypocrite and you were making fun of me..hahaha

HYPOCRITE...........hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/project-cars-dev-dx12-can-boost-xbox-one-version-3-32085552/

Project Cars doesn't use DX12 so it was coded just as the PS4 was,while using 7 cores so if it was correctly coded and uses 1.75 ghz cores and the PS4 still has a frame advantage that mean the xbox one CPU advantage mean nothing and that PS4 CPU allow for the PS4 to surpass the xbox one without been hold back,can't have it both ways bro.

But that is impossible because you just claim now the xbox one is correctly coded...lol

It didn't release with Vista but it was part of the SDK since 2005 stated on a MS page,add ons you mean like DX12 is add one for many games coded first under DX11.? Please man stop the sad excuses.

Again the 10-20k geometry chunks done on the 360 was outclassed with introduction of DX11MT, and with processors being leagues faster. If 360's API was so much better why couldn't it outclass 2008+ era cpu's nor 2006 era unified architecture based gpu's ie 8800GT's if it was limited by DX9 or DX10 hmm?.

This part now this is something else...lol

DX11 can't even do 20k draws man,i think it tops at 10k because of the API limitation not because it can't issue more,draw call wise it did outclass many CPU much more powerful and how is the XBO suppose to outclass a 8800GTX.? It was a $600 dollar GPU that release on late 2006 in fact it was2 series abode the PS3 GPU,the 360 was like a X1950 which wasn't close to the 8800GTX,also its api being good doesn't mean it would out power a much stronger GPU,in fact console optimization has work more on the CPU side that on the GPU one.

Again your an idiot..... Pcars on Pc is not coded to same quality, improper cpu usage,

OMFG GTFO with that shit ass excuse consoles since for ever have had better draws than PC,didn't stop stronger PC from beating it,and certainly doesn't stop PC from owning consoles on Project Cars either,you are pathetic the game uses allot of draws big fu**ing deal the i3 can't handle allot of them vs an i5 yeah that is a CPU bottleneck what you have there,you are just to stupid and biased to see it.

you butthurt lemming..

There's plenty of scope for scalability in Project Cars on PC, but while Nvidia's stalwart GTX 750 Ti makes a good fist of matching PS4 visuals, a quad-core processor is required to maintain frame-rate in vehicle-heavy races. It's rare that we become CPU-bound with an entry-level enthusiast GPU like the 750 Ti, but the results here speak for themselves.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-project-cars-face-off

Officially you are OWNED the only one who can't see that i3 bottlenecking that 750TI is you Hypocrite.

@tormentos:

your the hypocrite claiming "no improvement" and you change the subject when your proven wrong.....lol

again you fool X1 gpu's is the main limitation, it wouldn't matter if the it had all eight cores, when you have a game that is more gpu prone a 40% stronger gpu vs a cpu that is around 20% at best, will not give enough gains to make any sizable difference to overcome gpu lead ..... its like comparing a FX 6300 with a r7 270 vs FX 6350 with a r7 260..... if you had a same gpu the faster cpu would give slightly better performance.... having better gpu gives large enough advantage to surpass....

Your an idiot, DX10 was only on Vista...... and Vista didn't officially release until January 30, 2007...... lol DX11 cant do 20k draw calls? O really?

O look DX11 doing abit over a million then doing nearly 2 million with DX11 MT

aw..... cant face the truth that Pcars on Pc wasn't coded correctly? I know it hurts but its ok....

@tormentos: what's the word I'm looking for? Hmmm. Let's see.... Oh yeah!

Liar.

You have continuously said MS lied about cloud computing. You said it was no different than what Sony offers. Now, you change your tune in the face of irrefutable evidence, and even go as far as to say that you always thought the contrary.

Not only are you an asshat fanboy, but you dont even have the integrity to admit when you were wrong. Instead, you lie and say that you never said it.

Loser.

Oh, and you are unoriginal.

They have lie you fool what MS is doing with the cloud is not what they advertize the cloud for.

They advertize the cloud as making the xbox one 40 times as strong as the xbox 360,which is a total lie.

“It’s also been stated that the Xbox One is ten times more powerful than the Xbox 360, so we’re effectively 40 times greater than the Xbox 360 in terms of processing capabilities [using the cloud]. If you look to the cloud as something that is no doubt going to evolve and grow over time, it really spells out that there’s no limit to where the processing power of Xbox One can go. I think that’s a very exciting proposition, not only for Australians, but anyone else who’s going to pick up the Xbox One console.”

http://stevivor.com/2013/05/microsoft-xbox-australia-on-some-of-todays-lingering-xbox-one-questions/

This is what MS was selling you fool,not using the cloud to calculate the results and stream them back to the xbox one,that is the same thing my PS4 does with the Vita it does everything and stream it to the vita.

That is why it works in such a small 4MB connection when processing power on PC runs on GB/s not MB,streaming 2 or 3 teraflops of power over a 4MB connection? GTFO. This is the problem you people don't get,internet connection lack the bandwidth to increment graphics because those process require high bandwidth,in the xbox one case it was latter found it was CPU process what they offload.

There is a problem streaming power to another device specially CPU power,latency is something that kill CPU performance,you can't even begin to compare how low latency is in DDR3 vs an online connection,which is latency rident and slow.

Will your PC CPU work with 4MB of bandwidth and huge latency.?

This ^^ is the question you should ask,is CPU worked on those kind of bandwidth now there would be no need for DDR3 68GB/s.

There are limit to what you can accomplish with cloud computing,streaming power is a no no,the cloud calculating the results for you yeah that can be done,but that is not increasing the xbox one power.

And still stand by it fool,which is reason only the online part work,and for single player it doesn't and is a completely different game,why it can't power it on single player.? Because the world itself is build on the xbox one GPU so trying to keep track of buildings that you destroy which require fast response would not be suited for it,it can cause your building to not be destroy or something of that sort.

I haven't change my argument at all and the cloud can't stream power that is a high bandwidth process even on CPU side let alone the GPU one.

Ok lets start with that bold part.

The PS4 has 40% more power than the xbox one not 70%,saying the biggest problem is the GPU is a joke.The game is already 900p vs 1080p there alone you have 44% more pixels,then the PS4 has extra temporal AA which the xbox one version doesn't have either because the frames would have thank even more,and still the game is up to 16 FPS faster.?

But even if you were right (which you aren't) doesn't that mean that the xbox one CPU advantage is null and will serve for nothing.? It most mean that because PC is a CPU intensive game using allot of draw calls and the developer it self admit the xbox one was CPU bound when allot of cars were in use,and that they use the 7th to fix it why the fu** do you think they use the 7th core for.?

So while you like a blind fool claim that is not CPU intensive,the developer it self claimed so and even claim openly the xbox one version was CPU bound with allot of cars and that they use the 7th core.

SMSRenderTeam

- We stated that high numbers of AI could cause CPU bound scenario's on XB1 and we used the 7th core to eliminate these cases. This is somewhat acknowledged in your updated article.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=162913264

Explain to me how the xbox one would not benefit from 8 cores,when they have to use a 7th core because the xbox one was becoming CPU bound.?

Hahahahaa i keep killing you with link and CONFIRMED info,not my opinion.

Why was the xbox one CPU bound with 6 cores at 1.75ghz while the PS4 was not is the real question you have to ask yourself,like i have say before the GPU is not the only advantage the PS4 has over the xbox true HSA design an Huma are probably making the difference more than 150mhz more or even 50% of another core.

Did you just show a i3 2100 beating a FX6300.? But wasn't your argument more cores in PC mean better performance because that is the excuse you gave me 4 actual core are better than 2 core with 4 threads on the i3 vs i5,but here you see the FX6300 which is 6 cores not beating even a lower i3 2100.

You are even more idiot,vistas release on 2007,but like any OS from MS tests star years before it,or will you claim now that Windows 10 wasn't running on PC before its market release you fool.? All you need it was to sign with MS and you got a copy,the same happen with Vista and DX10,the tools were there since 2005 on SDK,so that developer could start writing for it,it is always like that fool,is like saying the PS4 didn't have any SDK until the console launch,yeah then how the fu** teh games get to be make.?

Same shit happening with DX12 which is out on xbox one in complete form for a long time,and only fools like you believe is not you actually think the thing release on xbox one in October this year...lol

You are an idiot i am talking about draws per frame and you show me a chart showing draws per SECOND...hahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

This is like the ultimate proof that you don't know shit of what your talking about...

On consoles, you can draw maybe 10,000 or 20,000 chunks of geometry in a frame, and you can do that at 30-60fps. On a PC, you can't typically draw more than 2-3,000 without getting into trouble with performance, and that's quite surprising - the PC can actually show you only a tenth of the performance if you need a separate batch for each draw call.

Your chart clearly say millions/second Which mean millions of draws per second not per frame,lets test it...

20,000 x 60 = 1,200,000 draws per second

What does your chart say in single threaded.? Hahahahaaa a close look how is slightly over half,yeah 1.2 million draws..hahahahaa you are officially a dumb lemming.

The PS4 CPU can handle 30k per frame at 60FPS would be 1,800,000 which is close to DX11 with multithreading,so officially the draw calls the PS4 can issue is close to DX11 MT which Project Cars does support by the way,so it should not have such incredible issues with draws as you want to pretend it does,unless again the API comes in the way for DX11.

But still that doesn't change the fact that if draws is what is holding the i3 back,that mean it is a CPU bottleneck dude,if you mean is not properly coded because it doesn't use DX12 drop it 99.99999999% of the games on PC are not DX12 and not properly coded and still CPU bound scenarios have been describe as so for years.

Yeah that is the reason why Tomb Raider is using it now and is the first async game on xbox one...lol

DX12 november release is symbolic,DX12 is already out on PC,how the fu** it would not be on xbox one when it started there first and has being more complete there to for more than a year,the whole DX12 is not here is a joke is a symbolic act of MS to try and trick suckers like you people,funny how DX12 will hit on NOVEMBER the holiday season and not like windows 10 on summer..lol

@tormentos: This is where you prove (again) you don't know a think about how technology really works, and therefore cannot see "outside the box".

Onlinve and Gaikai are both cloud-based, streamed games. Do they look as nice as a PS4 title? No they do not (they don't even look as nice as a PS3/360 title from what I have seen). However, the entire game is streamed from the cloud. If online access was guaranteed, a console could push everything that didn't require real time processing to the cloud which would greatly improve performance. For instance, everything except rendering could be passed to the cloud. It's called distributed computing, and it's been around for quite some time.

While you have a point that the cloud, given bandwidth limitations, could not act as a GPU supplement; if all other tasks are sent to the cloud, the GPU and CPU could be freed to dedicate more resources to rendering, so your argument is invalid.

The sad thing is: even if that's true the console is still under-powered, and still has no games, and is still a closed-off, useless piece of hardware (just like all consoles though).

The last time gaming was left to just PCs, the industry almost ended. Just sayin'.

instead of arguing, why can't we actually wait if DX12 comes?

I've said this too. Won't stop them though...

lel, at least it's fun to watch

At first but then it starts getting out of hand.

they keep making the same points over and over again..which is why it's funny!

tormentos: *project cars XBO vs PS4*

ronvalencia: *async compute*

Yeah that's what gets out of hand. It's just clutter at some point.

lol no. Consolite myth #341

Why is this thread still ongoing when we established that OP's content was fake?

DX12 LMAO

Bullshit as always.

PSN Now doesn't look like PS4 games not because the tech can't do that but because what the service offers is PS3 games,but if the server running the game had 2 Titan in SLI and streamed a next gen game it would look great,all you need is the bandwidth to handle the video stream,in PSN now case is 720p which doesn't require as much as 1080p and 1440p but on You tube i have seen 1440p videos,you just need a faster connection and since PSN now is basically a movie being stream to you with low latency for controls you can run pretty much anything as long as you have fast enough speed for your video stream.

Which lead me to point number 2 MS on its latest cloud patent talk about merging frames using h264 stream to produce a final visual output,so yeah it is like PSN now as long as i see the h264 codec being mention.

Distribute compute has being for quite some time bandwidth speed are not even close to what is require and is not just rendering AA process effects that requires fast bandwidth and constant refresh can't be on the cloud,for example MSAA has a big bandwidth consumption online connections don't have it.

Is limited what it can be done,and physics and destruction has been done before without a cloud.

DX12 is already here.lol

1982 & 1983 say "Hello". It is most definitely true.

You know, I see you quote all these numbers and stats, and it can't help but strengthen my opinion of you. You really don't know a goddamn thing about what you post - not really, anyway. You just cut-and-paste information from other sites and present it as your own. It's not bullshit - distributed computing is a real thing, has been since the 90s. And, if implemented like I said, it would improve any gaming device's performance - PS4 and PC included.

You really just don't know what you are talking about. Who cares about anti-aliasing or rendering? I said both of those could stay local. If you actually understood technology like you claim to, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself right now.

And this is the problem with you,you can't read for shit,where i have say distribute compute doesn't work or exits..? My argument is about what can be compute and done not that doesn't exist or work.

Is not only AA and is not only rendering pretty much anything that require constant refresh can't be done that include a horde of process even CPU ones.

I can read just fine, thank you very much. You are the one who half-reads. As I said, non-rendering tasks can be pushed to the cloud if an always-on scenario exists. This happens today with online multiplayer, which is one of the reasons dedicated server online play is so much better than peer-to-peer. That would allow the device (console or PC) to dedicate more resources to rendering than it normally could.

You mean the north american console crash? When home PC's thrived and Europe (specifically the UK) saw a boom in gaming?

Yeah, except most gaming companies went under because a majority of the disposable income for things like video games was in the good ol' USA. Computer video games weren't anything special in the 80s. And, home computer sales did not "thrive" because of the video game crash, they "thrived" because PCs went from being $10K+ to $2K. What "saved" most gaming companies that did survive from going under was not the PC, it was arcade machines.

There's a reason there is a term called "The Video Game Crash of 1983".

He most mean that one because i don't see any other scenario.

Which still is wrong because well PC gaming wasn't what it is today back then and PC were not even close to be as widespread as they are today,a 2k machine on 1982 83 were mostly owned by people who really had money it wasn't something most people got even less for gaming,his comment either way doesn't make sense.

@StormyJoe: @tormentos: Have you guys heard of the Commodore 64? Sinclair Spectrum? BBC? IBM? Apple?

Just because the console market crapped the bed didn't mean the home PC market did.

lol@2K I'll show my age, but I was there.

We hear about this magical DX12 performance increase for over a year now and still nothing's done. instead of seeing improvements, we see games with ugly graphics like Forza 6 and Halo 5.

@blue_hazy_basic: did I not already address this? The PC market got momentum because computers dropped in price so drastically, not because of games. Plus, most PCs weren't even able to play quality games other than the Commosore 64.

Arcade machines and the NES saved gaming, not PCs. And even then, most game developers we tour of business.

Blah blah, console propaganda

(and you were talking about PC's being 2K?!?!?)

@blue_hazy_basic: umm, yes. I guesstimate from memory, and I wasn't far off : http://www.oldcomputers.net/ibm5150.html

It also turns your xbone into a mountain dew dispenser unit

@StormyJoe: and the C64 was under $600 ....

@blue_hazy_basic: So, you are saying the Commodore 64 saved gaming when the console market collapsed? At absolute blown up numbers, it only sold 30 million world wide; most likely, it sold less than half of that.

Hardly the sales figures needed for an industry saving device.

It was one of many similar devices that continued gaming while the console market crashed in North America. The ZX spectrum for example you could buy for 100 quid ($150ish), the BBC was another, the Amstrad line was launched in '84.

I'm not saying gaming revenues didn't decline. If you removed all the console from the market today you could say there was a crash, but it wouldn't mean gaming as a hobby was threatened, the PC market would just keep expanding like it did in the 80's, until the gap was filled again.

@blue_hazy_basic: Video game industry revenue fell from $3 billion to $100 million by the time the NES came out. That's a crash.

@StormyJoe: Tell him handsome. Yes, you are correct.

That is what i am saying..

This is the Pyramid you claimed last time gamings was left just to PC the industry almost ended like @blue_hazy_basic claim, that was a myth,first PC were not all that popular back then they were niche,and second it was a combination of to many consoles and crappy ass games that under perform the problem like ET,PC had nothing to do with the market crash of the beginning of the 80's atari and those companies were the ones to blame for it,there was not a real definition by some consoles that could even play cartrige from other console.

This thread smells like moldy cheese...

DX 12 does significantly improve cpu performance (draw calls) and though i'm not sure how it improves old gpu's not built with dx12 in mind, that part seems fishy.

@tormentos: once again, what you are saying is wrong. &3 billion to $100 million without consoles. Boom.

The North American video game console crash of 1983 was caused by a combination of factors. Although some were more important than others, all played a role in saturating and then imploding the video game industry.

Flooded console market[edit]

At the time of the North American crash, there were numerous consoles on the market, including the Atari 2600, the Atari 5200, the Bally Astrocade, the ColecoVision, the Coleco Gemini (a 2600 clone), the Emerson Arcadia 2001, the Fairchild Channel F System II, the Magnavox Odyssey 2, the MattelIntellivision (and its just-released update with several peripherals, the Intellivision II), the Sears Tele-Games systems (private-labeled versions made by Atari (2600) and Mattel (Intellivision)), the Tandyvision (an Intellivision clone for Radio Shack) and the Vectrex.

Each of these consoles had its own library of games produced by the console maker, and many had large libraries of games produced by third-party developers. Likewise, many of these same companies announced yet another generation of consoles for 1984, such as the Odyssey3, and Atari 7800.^[6]

Adding to the industry's woes was a glut of poor titles from hastily-financed startup companies. These games—combined with weak, high-profile Atari 2600 games such as Pac-Man and the video-game version of the 1982 hit movie E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial—seriously damaged the reputation of the industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983

The market was destroy almost not by PC but by over abundance of consoles and the over abundance of shitty ass games.

Get your facts rights.

@tormentos: who the hell said it was destroyed by the PC? I

@StormyJoe said:

The last time gaming was left to just PCs, the industry almost ended. Just sayin'.

...lol

@tormentos: You dumb asshat! Follow the goddamned posts! I was am talking about AFTER THE CRASH HAPPENED!!

The gaming industry almost ended without consoles.

Jesus, if you are going to jump into a conversation, at least understand what we are talking about.

No you are the asshat who make stupid claims and the spin everything you say trying to escape the ownage...lol reason why Blue call you one it and say it was a myth. Hahahahaa

@tormentos: no, stupid. You just jumped in to the middle of conversation that you were not included in and made assumptions about its topic that weren't true.

No i didn't assume shit what you say is there and so is other people reply to you ass.