GC -"Microsoft may offer more breathing room for developers making games for the Xbox One, according to industry insider Pete Dodd who has proven to be extremely reliable before."
At least it should bump these games to 1080p....
Well we can't say that for sure. We'll have to wait and see how crafty developers can get with an extra 8%.
No the 10% power reserve has been explained by Microsoft to be portion of the GPU reserved for Kinect. Thats about another 104.8 GFlops (@8% savings) that can now be used by games. It isn't a GPU boost it basically taking those resources back from Kinect. Microsoft had expected Developers to use Kinect more so I guess that why they reserved 10% of resources for it. Also, it will make a difference, but now much. It may be able to do an etra frame or two at most. It wont turn 720p into 1080p. So Xbox Goes from 1.18 TFlop to 1.28 TFlops PS4 remains at 1.84 TFlops. Actually when you look at straight numbers, the deficit goes from 56% to 43% so I'm sure developers can appreciate this. The defict is still big, but any bit helps.
great that it gives more power/ resources for devs. but what ms needs to concentrate on is making better dev tools to make xbone run more efficient. clearly the xbone is alot more powerful than what we are seeing and if devs can have better tools then we probably see that sooner.
while this is nice 8% is not enough to make games that have trouble on the XB1 reach 1080p, not even close 1080p has double the pixels on 720p so the power-up would need to be 50%
@hkgamer I agree. This will be the third such "power boost" in as many months but I think Microsoft should work with developers to make sure they have the proper tools to utilize the power they have now. @NewMonday 1080p has QUADRUPLE the pixels as 720p. People don't understand that COD running at 720p on XONE is an actual tragedy. The PS4 could generate 4x the pixels. Something obviously went wrong because the PS4 can't possibly be that much more powerful.
8% on top of the Cloud will be phenomenal. Just you wait.
@Chug: You can wait forever, the Cloud isn't going to ever boost the Xbox One's performance. That's a pipedream and propaganda that has never had real practical results without significant hardware help to the tune of additional GPUs and other resources. Not only that, but the infrastructure isn't there for it. Have fun waiting for something that's never going to happen.
I'm sorry, did I forget to add /s? I thought it was obvious enough without it.
Wait let ne get this straight, the make people pay an extra $100 for the kinect, then they realise no one wants to develop for it, so now they taking away uts allocated GPU memory? And do the people who payed that extra money for that now useless piece of hardware get their money back?
While I am not going to defend the XB1 whatsoever, I do need to correct some of the incorrect numbers revolving around 720p vs 1080p. 1080p most certainly does NOT have quadruple the pixels of 720p, saying it has double is more accurate, but it actually has 2.25 times the pixels of 720p. 1080p = 2,073,600 pixels 720p = 921,600 pixels However 4k resolution actually does have exactly quadruple the pixels of 1080p. Which is maybe what EonJay was thinking about. 1080p vs 720p is still huge, but not quadruple huge.
Just a thought. If MS can optimize the box to.reallocate resources, couldn't Sony do the same? I am sure Sony could reduce the OS bandwidth and.allocate more towards tjr gpu. This is all apart of the development cycle. Creating an optimized product thay keeps it relevant for some time to come. On topic, good news for x1 owners, they may get 1080p with low res textures or 725p with better textures. Bad news is all those people who bought an x1 only to see a 100 dollars of.their.money wasted.
@ITPYthon Yes, thats exactly what I was thinking about. Thanks for the correction. Still, the PS4 can't be 2x the power of the Xbox so something must have gone wrong.
Hmmmm it appears either there is an xbone fanboy with lots of accounts or there is a mad xbone fanboy mod on this site lol.
@Eonjay Quote : "Actually when you look at straight numbers, the deficit goes from 56% to 43% so I'm sure developers can appreciate this. The defict is still big, but any bit helps..." Deficit still remain 50%. With these 8% you can't change number of ROP's, CU's, stream processors...etc. Developer only get allowed to reach that 8% in total of 1.34 TFs which is reserved for Kinect. Specs before was compared in fully : Xbone's 1.34 TF vs. PS4's 1,84 TF ( ROP's, CU's... ). And that's a around 50% difference.
About the COD tragedy... Keep in mind the other differences that (1) the Xbox One is also splitting some resources between three OSes and it has already been shown the more crap left open in the background has negative effects on app switching and (2) there is still a BIG speed difference between DDR3 and GDDR5 memory in terms of speed, latency and bandwidth and (3) no matter how well utilized, the ESRAM will NEVER make up for the total speed difference between the two RAM types, more that it'll just make DDR3 a little less worse than it could have been without ESRAM. I'm not saying any one of these reasons (including any previously mentioned) could be the culprit or that all of them are, but they each do contribute some way. Hell, maybe they (Infinity Ward) just didn't give a damn about the Xbox One version of COD and just "rushed it to the presses". Who knows all the reasons why? All that is known is that there is a great difference in the final product and COD is only one of many multi-platform games thus far that have had "differences".
Awww! I wanted MS to keep the power for Kinect so as not to reduce Kinect potential. Why bother with an 8% bump in graphics when it is barely noticeabel. Won't make the games better, and won't change my experience much, if at all. Kinect can significantly change the way I interact with my entertainment if more broadly supported. Not happy about this choice. If I wanted graphics on the cheap, I would have bought a graphics card for less than half the cost of a PS4 that would have outdone anything on consoles easily by a significant gap!
@nukeitall they aren't taking away from kinect as such. They're just offering more flexibility so the developer can choose how to allocate that resource. They could also just be making kinect functionality more efficient, getting more of the work done on the dedicated chips inside the thing.
No matter how hard I try to look at it, It just seems that microsoft designed this system for entertainment, not gaming. This system is designed so poorly to do next gen gaming it's a tragedy. That 8 percent will not be enough to make a significant difference for the developers for the simple fact that there are way too many more design setbacks in the xbox one. ESRAM, DDR3, multiple operating systems, lower spec GPU, all of these have doomed that system to mediocrity and have made it nothing more than an upgraded 360 in terms of gaming. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, what were they thinking.
Yet another thing that suggests that a Kinect-less bundle is incoming.
i expect at 2% though the system will not be as smooth in other operations? it should let you disable stuff u dont want to use
Wow, so many people hating the Xbox and everyone that has the Xbox One or tha owns both: Xbox One and PS4, are happy with it! my friends and I are very happy with the Xbox, but we are very tired of this angry tone. I love my ps4 and I think the Xbox is cool, you can Jedi mind trick some with your Xbox bashing but not everyone will fall for it. All I know is that ever since the Xbox came out there are more Americans and European developers out there and that's a good thing, I like all types of games. From Japanese role play to European adventure to American multyplayer shooters. I like them all. Peace all.
basically, that wont do much in the grand scheme of things. it wont do shit
I'd rather have 900p or 720p with a bit of AA running at 60fps over 1080p running at 30fps.
The PS4 GPU is still 50% more efficient than the Xbox One. The fact that 10% was being taken just for the kinect made the PS4 66% more efficient. PS4 has 18 Compute Unit Xbox One has 12 Compute Unit Therefore the PS4 is 50% better. But since kinect used 10% of the power: 12-1.2=10.8 It made the PS4 66% more efficient. Microsoft obviously is trying to damage control the numbers. They say it has 35% more power, but that's when you divide it the other way. 18 12 12/18= 66% Therefore the total power of the Xbox One is 66% of the Total Power of the PS4 and the missing 35% in Power. It's all the same, but they want to make the gap look smaller.
I don't think it's enough of a boost to bump games to 1080p but we'll see.
Well devs can achieve 1080p on X1. But I don't think the 8% will make it any easier to achieve it.
@angelic well it'll make it at least 8% easier ;-)
I thought it wasn't the GPU but the memory bottleneck from using such a small amount of ESRam. Making it fundamentally harder to code for. But I could be wrong... To bad that this 8% doesn't do anything in closing the 30+% power difference between consoles.
It's both of those problems. Xbone currently uses a very low tier GPU.A low tier GPU that is 10% gimped and developers are forced to deal with that,and, a zany architecture with a ridiculous ram setup.
The main bottleneck is the ram because I believe that xbox one actually could run all games at 1080p but the frame rate would suffer a lot because there are more pixels on screen and higher resolution textures that need to be streamed to the objects and the game world. If the ram is not fast enough to keep up with all those things, it will slow down the game drastically. That's why they run most of their games at a lower resolution because it's easier for the ram to stream lower resolution textures because they require less data to be read and streamed.
i thought it was the ESram that was the main issue also, tbh there is so much bad stuff coming out regarding xbone i forget.
cannon8800 - Of course the Xbox One can run ALL the games in native 1080P. So can the Xbox 360. The only reason it doesn't is because the frame rate would be too low in many games or the games would look too simple, so the developers make a trade for performance and/or better post-processing. There is nothing that's physically preventing it from doing so. Hell, they could run BF4 at 4K on the xbox if they wanted to....at 2fps.
But isn't the esram an improved edram which all devs loved because of how easy it was to dev for? How can it change so drastically and become the way of the ps3 type hard? I get that the ps4 is more powerful, what I don't get is how the xb1 can't do 1080 60fps out side of racing... It's still a very powerful console def. more so than the wiiu . It's far from mediocre in power IMO and still offers more on top of it. I'm currently playing forza 5 and ac4, they both look great and can only get better over the yrs..
nope the problem is the GPU and i have x box 1. The PS4 GPU ouputs at 1.8 teraflops you need that amount to run games at 1080p and 60 frames. Microsoft is well aware they will never get 1080p and 60 frames with most graphically intensive games. Its impossible. Reason the GPU in the XB1 is only 1.3 teraflops. So Microsoft and developers will have to compromise on frame rate or resolution.
why does Forza run 1080p and 60fps? serious question, not breaking balls.
@Mikeboccher because they cut alot of corners to get that 1080 60.
@mikeboccher - Because Forza is not graphically intensive. Its a shiny car driving on a road. I think you knew the answer to this question.
oddworld - You guys must be braindead if you think that a game like Forza is not intensive on the resources. 16 photorealistic cars are driving around a photorealistic track, and there are a LOT of physics/reflections/etc being processed many times a second. mikeboccher - Forza runs at 1080P/60FPS because it was heavily optimized. Yes, some sacrifices were made, but the PS4 makes sacrifices on all their games to reach 1080/60 too, just to a lesser extent. Unless you think that all the ps4 games are perfect and the developers NEVER leave out or tone down any details on them and nothing more could ever be done... BF4 - couldn't run at 1080P on the ps4. Killzone couldn't run at 60fps in single player. Etc etc.
Just build a gaming PC if you really care about specs because both consoles specs are laughable and not to mention outdated.
Is that why Witcher 3 devs have been telling PC gamers to upgrade for their game, while it's perfectly fine on the PS4?
Funny how many xbox fans suddenly become PC gamers when the talk turns to subjects where the XB1 is hopelessly behind... like specs of both games and software. Frankly, this isn't likely to bridge the gap by much of anything, but I'm sure devs will be happy for the increase in resources, regardless.
You can't really compare specs between PC and consoles. Consoles are a closed system and have no variation in hardware , allowing the optimization and efficiency to be A LOT better than PC. Can you physically compare them? Sure, but there really isn't much of a point. Your not going to get a $400 PC running games like a PS4. Your not going to get a PC with the same specs as a 360 to run much at all. Will a console beat a high end PC? Probably not, but it is quite the bargain. There are just way to many differences to compare PC and console specs straight across.
@hicken I'm a fan of my xb1 but Iets be real. In a year or two both the xbox 1 and the ps4 will be old hardware.
Or just enjoy games on a console that's comparable to high end PC without having to invest hundreds of dollars on PC every few years just to keep up with game specs needs.
@BX81 'In a year or two both the xbox 1 and the ps4 will be old hardware.' ...The PS4 and Xbox One are already old hardware, before they even came off the assembly line. Around every 6 months technology is significantly refined, and that's across all lines, inc. PC technologies. It's not about old, it's about consumer affordability & economics. If the average consumer was prepared to pay £1,000 for consoles, we wouldn't be having this discussion about power, and the PC comparisons would be slight. I think we can ALL agree on any platform, an 8% gain is better than a 10% loss.
Come on now, we all know you can pick a single number for direct comparisons between consoles but if PCs are mentioned you have to look at the bigger picture and take off the unquantifiable differences. My PC pushes close to 10 teraflops, but you have to move the decimal point because... I dunno, maybe I left Office running or something.
Pc elite troll much?
i have a gaming pc and im having alot more fun on my ps4 which looks stunning on my 47" TV and surround system.
The Witcher 3 devs told PC gamers to upgrade because you can turn up the graphics on the PC, which means the PC version will look better, not to mention the improved AA and AS along with multi monitor setups. LoL omg, PS4 owners are delusional, they didn't tell PS4 owners to upgrade because you can't. Also, to the guy who said you can't build a PC for around the same price as the PS4, well, news flash for you buddy...I can build a faster PC for $450 right now, and that isn't even looking for deals. I currently have an HTPC compact "Steam Box" sitting in my entertainment center that blows the PS4 out of the water and looks absolutely fantastic on a 55" 3D 240hz TV with a 7.1 surround sound system while using my 360 controller. I'll be buying all my multiplatform games for PC like I always have and buy exclusives for the XB1 and PS4. The PS4 is a great little system and offers a lot of entertainment. I tip my hat to Sony for putting a faster GPU and faster ram in a cheap gaming system. But you are only fooling yourselves if you think beating the XB1 in multiplatform games makes your system the best thing in the world. Come back to me when your system can run higher than 1080p and faster than 60 fps on a variable refresh rate multi monitor setup.
It probably won't help much because they are reserving stream processors for the os and the kinect I believe. Ram is what's important for raising the resolution and since they are using slower ram they are gonna have to rely on that esram that they have to crank up the ram speed and then it might be possible to see more games running at a higher resolution. If they can make their games run at 1080p, they will be faced with other problems like framerate because it's a slower gpu in general compared to the main competitor. Also the xbox one has a total of 768 stream processors with currently 76-77 stream processors being used for the os and kinect. after the two percend it will be only about 15-16 reserved for os and kinect. so that means that they will probably have around 752-753 stream processors to play with, but that's still a lot less if you compare it to the 1152 that are available for the ps4. This only means one thing. Future games are going to rely a lot on compute units(stream processors) for physics, fast approximate anti aliasing, soft body physics, rigid body physics, particle simulation (like nvidia turbulence) and other gpu heavy instructions. The ps4 is going to have an easier time because it has over 384 extra stream processors for anything they want to use it for, and the vram is already running at its fastest available speed.
Don't bring stuff up like that, they don't understand.. Anyway now that the Kinect/os lost 8% of its resources, does that mean the system will be come less snappy or that the Kinect will take longer to respond? I know they can optimize the the resources it needs but 8% downgrade seem alot knowing that the kinect needs to calculate alot of movement..?
Please do not bring logic and sense to a console war, thank you.
What ever makes the council better
These 8% isn't enough for 1080p and for jump in fps from 30 to 60. It will help for stabilizing fps in many games. If Ryse start developing today, this game will not have fps dips below 25 like now
Wouldn't hold ya breath on that one, X1 is lacking in other area's that are just bad hardware deesign. The Gap will just get wider, PS4 will always have the advantage, as Sony are tweaking that too. 4>1 always will be.
there are games running in 1080p on XO some 60 fps. Stop trolling.
Name them. Oh...wait.
@kenshiro100 Forza 1080p 60 fps NBA 2k14 1080p 60 fps FIFA 14 1080p 60 fps NFS Rivals 1080p 60 fps NBA Live 14 1080p 60 fps Fighter Within 1080p 60 fps Zoo Tycoon 1080p 30 fps Lego marvel 1080p 30 fps (higher texture resolution than ps4, check out digital foundry comparison) Tomb Raider 1080p FPS not confirmed yet. Rumored to be 45+ Project Spark 1080p Ryse 900p but looking better than other 1080p games due to it's new AA and upscalers. Was mentioned in reviews. http://www.implayin.co.uk/w... does this look bad? Also, not only resolution make the game but mainly lighting, animations, physics and so on. That's why Ryse beats everything else so far graphically. Please play it and then say again xbox one is underpowered. Amazing how fast you are to decide without trying it out yourself. Also those are only games that are out now, or coming out this month. More games confirmed 1080p 60 fps that will launch this year. You fanboys are so ignorant, seeing only what you want to see.
I hope this is true, id rather buy AAA games for my xbox because i have more friends on it. 1080p is good enough for me. the fps is irrelevant after 24fps anyway.
No it wont, it's not enough.
Even if they could go to 1080p FPS would be 30
I doubt it. That isn't much of a bump. It takes a lot to get a game playable at 1080p. They'd probably need faster RAM to really do it.
8% more power wont be able to make the differnce from 720 to 1080p sorry. The reason for the gap isn't that 10% held back for Kienct. You xbox owners can keep telling yourself that but its just silly to think that looking at just how powerful one console is compared to the other when looking at hardware and what it can output. MS will always say its more powerful but they will NEVER admit there not..
I have a feeling they were holding it back and try to make it a big deal as a selling point next year that " hey we are giving your XB1 10% more power." But realized it wasn't a big deal so just decided to get it over with.
It's definitely gonna help, but it won't get games to 1080p, sorry. It will allow sightly higher details probably, but that's it.
Soooooooooo where does that leave the Kinect?
I'm wondering what the cost is myself. Maybe it's kinect and maybe it isn't but it will be interesting to see how they squeeze this 8% out.
lets be real for a second and just accept kinect was dead from the start. it was dead even before they invented it.
my only concern is how the OS will operate with only 2% instead of 10%. As long as it doesn't affect the stability and performance of the OS then I'll be happy.