yea doom had this as well, symptom of VT/Megatexture system perhaps?I'm guessing that they ran out of memory on 4Pro in terms of raising the maximum render resolution (not enough to go up to 1620p, 1800p etc. for instance) even if it could.
There's a shadow bug on the woman's arms @5:10 on the OneX.
The texture comparison in the preceding footage (BJ's forearm) could just be due to memory streaming priority. Doom can exhibit similar issues on PC with low GPU memory.
yea totally forgot about the RPM implementations here.a chance the game use DR FP16 or the difference would have been even bigger
I would accept bigger drops in resolution for a rock solid 60fps that doesn't noticeably dip, even in the spots where it's only 2 fps.
Dynamic res should only work when it's a GPU issue, and I can't imagine them not dropping to hit 60fps if that were the case, so it must be something on the CPU side.
yea doom had this as well, symptom of VT/Megatexture system perhaps?
Response in the Prediction thread.Yah, I was just editing my post to complain about the cpu.
They run at different resolutions. Maybe the difference is enough to push deferred over the edge.
Dynamic res should only work when it's a GPU issue, and I can't imagine them not dropping to hit 60fps if that were the case, so it must be something on the CPU side.
Again, it is crazy to insist that what would mitigate the X1's most significant bottleneck would be an automatic win for a system without that bottleneck.
There are bottlenecks on all hardware, just not at the same degree. A particular optimization is not reproductible when a hardware has a specific feature. It's not the case on XB1. Esram has nothing particular.
If you can save some ressources on XB1 with a particular rendering choice, then it's good for all systems. Checkerboard rendering is good when there is limited GPU power, but it will improve performances on any system. Even for a GTX1080ti...
All XB1 exclusives work particularly well on XBX and prove that what works on XB1 works really well on XBX. If i follow your reasoning, then games designed around Esram from the ground up should not run well on XBX.
Let's see what happens : "In terms of pure compute power, Xbox One X has a 4.6x advantage over the launch version of the older system and you get all of that scalability transferred into raw pixel count in Halo 5 - and more. In fact, in like-for-like scenarios we've seen anything up to five or even six times the resolution on Xbox One X."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-xbox-one-x-is-the-way-its-meant-to-be-played
If every optimisation worked the same on all console hardware, W2 wouldn't have opted for deferred rendering on X1 and forward (as on all none critically BW constrained systems) on X1X.
I don't think if you are memory bound this would help. Checkerboarding is very much an ALU saver. But it still needs to be fed. And the rest of the pipeline still needs to work with a 4K frame buffer.for all systems. Checkerboard rendering is good when there is limited GPU power, but it will improve performances on any system. Even for a GTX1080ti...
And you'd hit a wall on ROPs too. Bandwitdth + Rops making it a reinforced concrete unbreakable wall.I don't think if you are memory bound this would help. Checkerboarding is very much an ALU saver. But it still needs to be fed. And the rest of the pipeline still needs to work with a 4K frame buffer.
Luckily they pair the right memory with the amount of ALU. So that actually isn't a problem. The GeForce 1080TI is designed for 4K. If you asked it to checkerboard up to 16K frame buffer I think you will hit a hard wall on bandwidth.