I Refuse to Believe That The XBOX ONE Weak

no they use the 720p optimization path.

@stereointegrity: you just jumped to the conclusion without leading the comment right?

The point is tiled ressources. I am not talking abort hidden ressources like 3D die, because it is not nesseary. TR Will do all the difference as this is what the 32mb esram is for. Right now developers are trying to squezze all the fuld textures Thorup thathers and it does not work and is Was not designes for that. Xbox one is designes for TR, ps4 is not. It is simple raw power as always with Sony. They dont hav the brains to do something forward looking.

the xbox one was not designed for tiled resources...where the hell did you come up with this shit from...

tiled resources has not even been shown in a single game...only in a demo showing off mars....seriously where does everyone get this xbone was designed for tiled resources and lets wait for dx11.2 bullshit...

sigh....

the esram was a band aid for the lack of bandwidth. it was not put on there just for the sake tiled resources. dx11.2 was not designed because of es ram on the xbone...and data move engines are for freeing up cpu not tiled resources alone....

i really wonder where u are getting ur info from

@stereointegrity: right you just belive what you want. It just do not make sense that MS would choose a much more complex setup that could hace been achived by just sticking with the standard components sony did. Sony asked the developers hence got a system thst is easy to develop for but not forward looking. Ms did it to utilise tr and the cloud and it will be huge . Just takes time to implement. Sony developed for the next 3 ywars MS for the bext decade.

microsoft did not forward look in their design...they couldnt get their hands on enough gddr5 and sony did thats what it comes down too...they didnt design the xbox one for tiled resources...dude are u really repeating the same shit misterxmedia says now or what seriously

they didnt design anything for a decade they got out the system thats it...its not gonna be harnessed in the next 5 years and be future proof past the next 2

i would like to stand up behind this explanation.

from an article in the print version of gameinformer i read:

microsoft assumed gddr5 would not be viable so focussed on these move engines and what not in order to compensate for ddr3. much of their design is based around this.

sony originally planned to launch with 4gb of gddr5, however their predictions were wrong ( in their favor), because the price of gddr5 memory modules decreased such that an 8gb gddr5 machine became economically viable, so when they announced PS4 at the last minute they decided to go with 8 gb gddr5.

^that's my support.

i feel the greater question is - what is the true magnitude of difference between the two machines? and for this i have no answer, but clear as day it appears the advantage goes to ps4.

@stereointegrity: you are just plain wrong.

The design from MS was focussed on TR and optimuzation with focus on software combined with hardware. Sony just took the easiest route. They talked with developers and build what they wanted. Problem is people don't know what they want if you want to revolutionise something. People think the cloud is hilarious but MS is years in front they have used billions in Ressearch and building data centres. They will be able to scale the experuence for yesrs to come. Loik up DayZ developers last statement sfter visiting MS. Swet times are comming and Sony don't even know what will hit them. It will be a tsunami.

It wasn't because of the price. It was because RAM manufacturers (I think SONY is using Samsung) designed newer GDDR5 memory modules that can each store 256 MB compared to the 128 MB limitation in the prior design. This is why 2014 high-end GPUs now have 6-8 GB of GDDR5 VRAM instead of the 3-4 GB GDDR5 from last year's models.

Dumb comparison

The xbone is also much more powerful then a PS2...that doesnt make the xbone impressive

For todays time, the xbone is under-powered.....especially will be in a couple years....but whats awful about that is that Microsoft still had the audacity to charge $500 for it

Also, there is no one standard PC console

Some PCs can be very weak

A PC is only as powerful as the amount of money you are willing to put into it

Hell, the amount of power the PS4 has for only 400$ is remarkable

you would NEVER EVER be able to find a 400$ PC that has the same amount of power the PS4 has

Price for power the PS4 cant be touched and thats what makes the PS4 so special

Price for power the xbone IS A PATHETIC joke and thats what makes the xbone an under powered piece of shit regardless of the fact its more powerful then a xbox 360

I don't know where you were taught science, technology and math, but professionals in those fields ALWAYS prefer simplicity combined with the right answer to over-complicated methods that yield the wrong answers.

Your posts reminded me of my last problem set in my computer science class. My code was simple and elegant and yielded the right output. This b*tch in my class (Girls suck at math/logic) programmed some nasty 1000+ line POS that took minutes to completely run. And even then, the output was completely wrong. She's fortunate that she's a girl and that I was looking to get laid, else I wouldn't have bothered spending 7 f*cking hours debugging her shitty code.

While I agree that SONY's design is far simpler than Microsoft's, it is also more elegant, more sophisticated, more forward-thinking, more advanced and more powerful than Microsoft's over-complicated, expensive, bottlenecked design.

You claim Microsoft was "forward-thinking" with their design, yet it is the PS4 that has hUMA and it was the Xbone, not the PS4, that was mocked by an AMD employee because it was designed so poorly. You're probably wondering how Microsoft spent $12 billion in APU R&D while SONY only spent $30 million if the Xbone is so much weaker than the PS4. It must be because Microsoft invested in "secret sauce", right? That could be true, but I think the truth is more along the idea that Microsoft made a poor decision when choosing to design the Xbone.

If you've ever programmed/engineered something or written a mathematical proof, you'd know that the beginning approach to solving a problem could be the difference between elegant, simple answers vs complicated crap that's completely wrong.

Take Topology, for example. Suppose in R-squared, we want to prove that the closed ball is a closed set in the standard topology. Some people begin the proof that considering the case that the closed ball is open in the standard topology. Then, the closed ball is either a union of open balls or is an element of the basis. Obviously, the closed ball is not a basis element, so it must be that it is a union of open balls.

This seems like a good approach at first, but as you go along the proof, you soon realize that it's damn near impossible to get a rigorous mathematical expression showing a contradiction. In fact, the proof is incredibly messy and it might even be impossible to show that the closed ball is closed. Analogously, this is what Microsoft did. Their engineering looks more "impressive", but it's still a messy design.

Now, consider approach #2.

Consider the complement of the closed ball and an arbitrary element in its complement. There exist a point in the closed ball such that its distance to the point in the complement is less than the distance from any other point in the closed ball to the point in its complement. Then, since R is dense, we can find some epsilon < that distance such that we have an open ball that encloses the point without intersecting the closed ball. Thus, since the complement of the closed ball is open, the closed ball is closed. BAM. Just 1 paragraph. Not even a page. The proof using the prior approach took upwards of 6 pages and you still couldn't get the right answer. This approach is nice, simple, easy and it gives you the correct answer. This is SONY's approach. Nice, simple and superior to Microsoft's over-complicated approach.

Now, you're probably going to say, "BUT THAT'S MATH, NOT ENGINEERING!!!" because I know you have no experience with advanced math and technology, but it's the same concept.

Like how some students started using proof by contradiction in order to get a messy proof, Microsoft started with DDR3 RAM. Then, because of bandwidth limitations, they spent billions designing an APU to seal the bottleneck as much as they could. Then, they realized they needed move engines to transfer data between the 2 memory pools. Then, they realized they wasted too much space on the die just trying to fix their memory problem, so they had to shrink their GPU. Do you see where I'm going with this? Like how the math proof with the 1st approach kept generating new problems after 1 problem has been fixed, so too did Microsoft's design. They started with DDR3, they had problems, they fixed those problems, but then a new problem came up. It's because of these problems that their R&D bill shot up to the billions.

SONY's decision to use GDDR5 had none of the downsides of DDR3 RAM while preserving all of its benefits. It has fast bandwidth, but no split-pool, so there was no need for move engines, meaning they didn't need to waste money on designing an APU that handled moving memory around. Also, no space consumed by embedded memory meant a bigger GPU.

In short: Cerny is smarter than the entire Xbox engineering team. Deal with it.

Also,

Since the PS4 is destroying the xbone in sales

Microsoft cant force parity with multi-plats. They carry NO leverage

ALL multi-plats should continue to always be MUCH better on PS4....and the gap should only increase over time...

On the rare occasion there is a multi-plat on the xbone that is equal to the PS4 version, then YOU WILL know it was either a botched effort / there was some kind of backhanded deal that went on

Any developer who goes for forced parity when the PS4 is much more powerful, easier to develop for, and has much more sales, will be exposing themselfes and there will be a lot of controversy

pricing & availability of the bigger gddr5 modules, yes.

1. Emphasis on 'could' for PC. They 'could' be weaker if the PC isn't upgraded. Maybe I should have explained a bit more.

2. It matters what you are measuring it up to. A weak PC could look terrible, similar to how a PS2 looks bad compared to the X1 like you said. You aren't saying anything of weight I haven't said amigo. Honestly though what I said is common knowledge.

Overall your fanboy is reaching out a bit. :P

Microsoft tried to emulate Nintendo's success with the Wii, by refocusing their console on a larger demographic. It didn't work, and they ended up putting out a $499 console with nice multimedia features but inferior hardware to its $399 competitor.

That right there, is a load of crap. You need to finish your degree there, college boy. And before you even think it: yes, I have my degree - from Purdue in Computer Technology (CPT).

FYI:

MS used DDR3 because of the media integration. It is a better "overall" chip set, whereas GDDR5 is designed for GPU usage in mind. Also, the XBox One has it's own tiling architecture; it does not need hUMA.

In short: Sony designed a machine geared towards gaming only; where as MS designed a machine that is a media hub and a gaming console. That the real difference between the two.

Microsoft used DDR3 because their engineers weren't as smart as Cerny. It's really that simple.

There was no "uber secret sauce plan". DDR3 just seemed like the best choice, just like how inexperienced math majors think that a proof by contradiction was the best way to approach the proof I gave.

And funny how you think the Xbone is a better media hub when professional critics say the Xbone fails at everything from gaming to media features.

if u had a degree in computer tech u wouldnt fuckin be saying these stupid things.....tilling HAS ZERO TO DO WITH hUMA or hsa.....wtfail are u saying

tilling is gonna be done on dx11.2 WHICH IS NOT A HUMA STANDARD OR HUMA RELATED....

sigh bro....

@StormyJoe: In what way is DDR3 better for "media integration" whatever the hell that means. I know there the latency vs throughput argument but I'm not sure it makes all that much of a difference as you have to factor in the GDDR5 is clocked higher.

Anyway this is the only information I was able to find and copy / paste here...

Sony is using Hynix GDDR5-5500 RAM Modules which has a latency of CL15 and a base clock of 1375MHz, so to work out the latency performance you use this sum:

1 / 1,375,000,000 = 0.000000000727

0.727ns x 15 = 10.905ns Latency

The Xbox One on the other hand is using Micron DDR3-2133 RAM Modules which have a standard latency of score of CL14, however you can get some Micron DDR3-2133 modules that have a best-case latency score of CL11, and I'm not sure which is in the Xbox One. However, we do know that whichever modules they are using they have a base clock of speed of 1066MHz, so:

1 / 1,066,000,000 = 0.000000000938

0.938ns x 14 = 13.132ns (Worst Case Latency)

0.938ns x 11 = 10.318ns (Best Case Latency)

Obviously this is wrong as Sony uses Samsung not Hynix but i think it's still clocked the same CL15, and Microsoft uses Hynix not Micron, and I doubt the CL is higher than 11. So this can't be too far off. Be nice if someone actually posted what ram was in both instead of guessing.

all joking aside, i think both consoles arent doing to good with that 1080p/60fps bit but both can do it...it just take a lot more work for the xbox1 than it does for the ps4, i think the devs just dont want to put the work in.

but lets just get this straight, ps4 has the better hardware, no amount of drivers is going to push the system to all of a sudden be more powerful than the ps4 unlike some lemmings delusions around here.

So,Witcher 3 running 720p eh?

I didn't say they weren't smart. They just weren't as smart as Cerny.

The Xbone design is proof of that.

@stereointegrity:

Your POV is correct since

1. Microsoft's DirectX 11.2's tiled resource tier1/tier 2 doesn't need hUMA.

2. OpenGL's AMD Sparse Textures extension runs fine on Radeon HD 7970's original drivers.

It isn't weak, it's a powerful console, it's just peoples messed up logic on this board, apparently if a console isn't as powerful as another console it's considered 'weak' by that logic both the Ps1 and Ps2 where 'weak' consoles.

Half of the people on this board should be ashamed to call themselves gamers because it's not about how powerful the hardware is it's about how good the games are, i would rather play a really good game with rubbish graphics (minecraft) than a really pretty tech demo (kilzzone SF, Ryse,etc)

they dont get that tho ron....

these guys are acting like MS put the Esram in the bone for the sole purpose of tiling and dx11.2. or to help with latency in the cloud.....

u of all people know what the es ram is used for and these guys just dont get it

DX11.2's Tiled Resource works fine on smaller/fast GDDR5 Radeon HD GCN PC cards e.g. 2 GB on Radeon HD R9-270X(rename 7870 GE/8870-OEM) or 1GB on certain Radeon HD 7850 SKUs. MS's TR demo was on GeForce GTX 770 (limited to 16 MB VRAM).

The 2 most important aspects of a console are its software library and its power.

The PS1 and PS2 WERE weak. Even the most adamant cows admit that. However, both consoles more than made up for its weakness by having the strongest libraries of their respective generations. In this generation, the argument about software libraries is moot since:

A) Only SONY has a AAA studio in its arsenal. Microsoft best 1st party studio is a B-tier dev.

and

B) The most important games of this generation will be multiplat.

Because overall software libraries will be mostly the same, the software library argument doesn't hold in the e-world and in the real world. Just look at how PS4 is demolishing the Xbone in sales.

The only argument left is power, and the PS4 easily wins this category.

but certain blind followers thinks it was made just for esram and the demo wasnt even done on xbone hardware

To be fair, Geforce GTX 770 supports Tier 1 Tiled Resource (DX hardware feature level 11_0).

AMD GCNs supports Tier 2 Tiled Resource (DX hardware feature level 11_1).

@ronvalencia: Sparse_Texture extension is on the bug list.....

It isn’t even in the low level shading language if I’m correct ?

Also the private dev/Bug tracking forums are abandoned.

It’s not even a priority to fix in that list........

It’s not yet promoted as an extension.

It will probably be included in OpenGL 5 ?

It's on AMD's 7970 OpenGL + vendor specific extensions tech demo.

http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/samples-demos/gpu-demos/amd-radeon-hd-7900-series-graphics-real-time-demos/

"Partially resident textures (PRT), accessible through an OpenGL extension, also allow for simpler Ptex addressing methods by enabling variable-sized slices in texture arrays, an addressing method which would otherwise be far too costly in memory usage".

AMD's Sparse Texture calls are vendor specific extension may be rendered obsolete by ARB's defined APIs.

http://www.techpowerup.com/187584/khronos-releases-opengl-4-4-specification.html

Extensions released alongside the OpenGL 4.4 specification include:

• Bindless Texture Extension (GL_ARB_bindless_texture): Shaders can now access an effectively unlimited number of texture and image resources directly by virtual addresses. This bindless texture approach avoids the application overhead due to explicitly binding a small window of accessible textures. Ray tracing and global illumination algorithms are faster and simpler with unfettered access to a virtual world's entire texture set.
• Sparse Texture Extension (GL_ARB_sparse_texture): Enables handling of huge textures that are much larger than the GPUs physical memory by allowing an application to select which regions of the texture are resident for 'mega-texture' algorithms and very large data-set visualizations.

The old AMD's Sparse Texture calls from http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/AMD/sparse_texture.txt

AMD has stated OpenGL 4.4 is in the pipeline.

As for OpenGL and Mantle...

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-aims-to-give-opengl-a-big-boost-api-wont-be-the-bottleneck/

According to Graham Sellers, OpenGL guy at AMD, the red team will be supporting this open API with some high performance extensions that will offer almost similar performance to AMD’s upcoming API, Mantle.

As Sellers claimed, AMD aims to expose all of the hardware of their GPUs with these upcoming high performance extensions of OpenGL, and gamers will be able to get close to theoretical peak and performance. Not only that, but Sellers claimed that games using the modern versions of OpenGL won’t be bottlenecked by the API anymore, meaning that gamers will hit HW limits first.

@ronvalencia: I know.

It's practically limited to single vendor. AMD.

Why would it become useful when it can't make it into the ARB extensions list.

There is a chance that it might be promoted like other extensions... I guess.

But last time I checked it was buggy and were only used in tech demo's

Well, OpenGL has to follow Direct3D's GPU vendor neutral Tiled Resource API.

@ronvalencia: OPENGL 5 it is then ?

Perhaps, if NVIDIA and AMD has a common lightweight OpenGL goals i.e. similar to MS's incoming (i.e. Windows 9 LOL ) DirectX 11.X (from X1) to PC port.

lol why is this topic still here? The Xbone is weak-ass dogshit. Deal with it.

I wouldn't say the XBOX ONE is weak. That would be a blanket statement. It is far superior to the XBOX 360 in every way. It has a lot of nice media capabilities and while the Kinect 2.0 integration is nice, it isn't in any way necessary for the X1 to be a success. I also think that MS needs to build the XBOX ONE games library beyond Halo, Forza and Gears of War. Their new I.P.'s like Sunset Overdrive Quantum Break, Ryse and others must shine going forward as potential franchises. I think MS needs to distance themselves from the perception that they are forcing Kinect on its consumer! A new, Kinect-less, $399 SKU is a must in my opinion and sooner than later would be best.

Not going to happen. MS made an entertainment system....not a gaming console.

MS like always was more ambitious with their console and wanted to provide more features for the console. Sony on the hand had to dial it back and need to be more focused on their console.

But make no bones about it if MS wanted to provide you with a game console primarily made for graphic, they would have.

MS engineers were given a vision of what the console should be and they went about completing that task with in an affordable package.

None of the consoles seem as technologically-advanced as the last gen did when they came out. Granted, TV resolutions have stagnated at 1080 for some period of time, but I was hoping for a minimum of 60 fps for all games. I am hoping to be surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

Microsoft will never remove Kinect from the SKU's for two reasons.

1- It would fragment their user base and essentially make the Kinect a paperweight.

2 - The Kinect is integral to the Xbox One's vision. The entire console was designed with it in mind. Dropping it would pretty much mean that the Xbox One is a mistake.