Could X1X et al run this/that game/effect? *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

Curious position considering your arguments against DC being able to run GTA included far smaller concerns, such as speed of DC's optical IO versus PS2's, in contrast to speed of HDD versus SDD. The Matrix demo may well run off an HDD but streaming games like SM and R&C have horrific stutters. It needs a better reference for proof. Do any of your videos show the demo working with all those limitations in place? Because you can compensate in some areas such as HDD speed with more RAM and more caching, but low amounts of both would accumulate the difficulties.

And your argument for Scorpio not being able to run AC Shadows is beyond weak. Tell me, what versio of DX API does PS5 use?

He means feature-set. If devs are leveraging DX12.1 features, accessed via whatever API the hardware is using, those would need to be written around on lower tier GPUs, presumably adding more runtime overhead.

 

[davis.anthony]

Curious position considering your arguments against DC being able to run GTA included far smaller concerns, such as speed of DC's optical IO versus PS2's, in contrast to speed of HDD versus SDD.

My theory about that being an issue has been proven to be correct with the amount of cutbacks required on the DC version to get it run at a respectable level within DC' RAM and streaming constraints.

The cutbacks to the audio quality alone are likely more than Rockstar would have been happy to release game with.

But unlike PS2 Vs DC in GTA3, to which we have no like for like performance data obtained from a repeatable benchmark, we have that for The Matrix demo in regard to SSD Vs HDD.

The Matrix demo may well run off an HDD but streaming games like SM and R&C have horrific stutters.

I seem to remember them being somewhat half decent on an HDD, maybe some tweaking to player speed would help and some tweaks here and there.

But they don't run in UE5.

It needs a better reference for proof. Do any of your videos show the demo working with all those limitations in place?

I would certainly be up to adding them later on this evening.

Because you can compensate in some areas such as HDD speed with more RAM and more caching, but low amounts of both would accumulate the difficulties.

This is true, but personally played the Matrix Demo with Cap Frame X on I know that the streaming speed for the demo itself is actually and surprisingly low.

The lower quality assets that would likely be required for a One X port would also reduce that steaming requirement further.

He means feature-set. If devs are leveraging DX12.1 features, accessed via whatever API the hardware is using, those would need to be written around on lower tier GPUs, presumably adding more runtime overhead.

From checking around on Google it would appear that not even XSX is DX12.1 tier, and yet the game runs just fine, so that's an starter as an argument for it not working on One X.

Its not as if we don't have countless historic examples of 'X' hardware not having support for 'X' feature but yet still receiving a port.

Porting hasn't really been an issue since consoles moved to x86 and started to use PC GPU's (Albeit slightly modified)

 

[chris1515]

My theory about that being an issue has been proven to be correct with the amount of cutbacks required on the DC version to get it run at a respectable level within DC' RAM and streaming constraints.

The cutbacks to the audio quality alone are likely more than Rockstar would have been happy to release game with.

But unlike PS2 Vs DC in GTA3, to which we have no like for like performance data obtained from a repeatable benchmark, we have that for The Matrix demo in regard to SSD Vs HDD.



I seem to remember them being somewhat half decent on an HDD, maybe some tweaking to player speed would help and some tweaks here and there.

But they don't run in UE5.



I would certainly be up to adding them later on this evening.



This is true, but personally played the Matrix Demo with Cap Frame X on I know that the streaming speed for the demo itself is actually and surprisingly low.

The lower quality assets that would likely be required for a One X port would also reduce that steaming requirement further.



From checking around on Google it would appear that not even XSX is DX12.1 tier, and yet the game runs just fine, so that's an starter as an argument for it not working on One X.

Its not as if we don't have countless historic examples of 'X' hardware not having support for 'X' feature but yet still receiving a port.

Porting hasn't really been an issue since consoles moved to x86 and started to use PC GPU's (Albeit slightly modified)

The Matrix demo use hardware raytacing. The demo can work on XBX without raytracing at all and downgraded assets,less traffic and NPC but at the end this would not the same demo.

Same for AC shadows, downgraded lightning, downgraded assets, downgraded physics, shitty loading time. This will not be the same game from a technical point of view. Anything is possible there is a version of The Witcher 3 on switch.

And this comes from someone thinking the current generation would have been better from a technical point of view without Series S.

 

[Charlietus]

You can make any game that has come out in this gen work on PS4 with enough resources. Use last gen graphical techniques, put in more loading screens, reduce crowd or enemy density.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Are we doing the whole 'what's a port?' conversation again? Surely this discussion is about a piece of hardware running a technology at the same standard as the reference? Because, of course, any game can be ported to any platform with enough changes.

Someone needs to establish what precisely the argument is.

 

[iroboto]

That would allow X1X to stretch it's legs in areas where it has always traditionally beaten XSS (resolution, textures..etc..

So your position here is that X1X will outperform XSS at the same settings if there was a rendering path for it. This is what I’ve been going off.

From checking around on Google it would appear that not even XSX is DX12.1 tier, and yet the game runs just fine, so that's a starter as an argument for it not working on One X.

I need to see the receipts. DX12U GPUs are all DX12_2. I don’t have to guess the feature set of XBO and X1X, I had a chance at build2015 to speak with the head of DirectX and find out what hardware features they contained. They do not have anything beyond 12.0.

I would certainly be up to adding them later on this evening.

Leveraging PC as a proxy for console will never work. You have 2 pools of memory and data passes between them over a high speed bus. This is why SSDs are paramount of importance on consoles and not really have similar impact on PC. As long as there is sufficient time to continually load data into system RAM the GPU will not be bottlenecked by the slow HDD. That just isn’t reality on consoles. There is no extra room on consoles, both CPU and GPU are fighting for both bandwidth and space and further lose more memory to the OS.

Someone needs to establish what precisely the argument is.

The argument has always been whether X1X can run the same setting as XSS. If the argument is suddenly being changed to can I reduce everything so low that we scale to mobile devices then this is a pointless discussion.

If the position is, we don’t need mesh shaders, yea you don’t if reduce the geometry enough.

Why don’t we just reduce lighting to baked only so that we don’t need RT hardware.

Why not reduce the number of lights so now we don’t need as much compute.

Let’s reduce the texture quality and AF so we no longer need as much texture space or bandwidth.

What is point of this line of discussion. UE5 is designed to run on mobile phones. The claim that X1X would melt running the Matrix Demo of course would have to run similar settings at which it was presented with.

 

[davis.anthony]

No, the argument has always been someone saying it's not possible on One X due to missing certain features.

And after being proven wrong the argument spiralled in to silliness.

Porting games to 'x' hardware hasn't been an issue for well over a decade and there's no reason why there would suddenly be an issue with One X running 'X' game.

People need to stop using the word 'impossible' and 'not possible' when making comments with no proof, and ignoring some of the little bits of proof that do exist that suggest it might be possible.

A One X port of AC:Shadows would likely have more visible LOD pop-in than the XSS version, but also likely have better textures and run at a higher resolution. Both would have advantages ove the other and it wouldn't be a clean sweep in favour of XSS.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, the argument has always been someone saying it's not possible on One X due to missing certain features.

The statement was X1X could not run AC:Shadows, proving the value of modern rendering techniques and how those techniques are only enabled in modern hardware.

Porting games to 'x' hardware hasn't been an issue for well over a decade and there's no reason why there would suddenly be an issue with One X running 'X' game.

It was clearly about obtaining the same results as XSX. XSX can attain its performance in Shadows through use of modern techniques. More powerful hardware with older technology would fail to achieve those results. That's the argument, very clearly when traced back to its roots. No-one said a port was impossible. The assertion was X1X being able to run this title, as running on XSX, not a variation of the title.

It's no different to the argument you presented in the DC GTA3 discussion, whether the game could be run to the same settings as PS2. A port of some form would always be attainable.

 

[davis.anthony]

The statement was X1X could not run AC:Shadows.

Which it could.

It was clearly about obtaining the same results as XSX.

Not at the start it wasn't, it only got twisted to that after I pushed back in the comment.

XSX can attain its performance in Shadows through use of modern techniques. More powerful hardware with older technology would fail to achieve those results.

But may offer advances in other areas themselves.

A 1080ti would have advantages over and RTX 2060 despite the RTX 2060 being able to leverage new techniques.

That's the argument, very clearly when traced back to its roots. No-one said a port was impossible. The assertion was X1X being able to run this title, as running on XSX, not a variation of the title.

That was never the original argument.

 

[iroboto]

the argument has always been someone saying it's not possible on One X due to missing certain features.

If this is your argument, we can nip this in the bud.

People need to stop using the word 'impossible' and 'not possible' when making comments with no proof, and ignoring some of the little bits of proof that do exist that suggest it might be possible.

All GCN1 through GCN4 do not contain the hardware features for DX12.1 or above. Missing out on several key features like Conservative Rasterization and Rastered Ordered Views. THe only cards that support these features while missing out on 12.2 are Vega, RDNA1, Maxwell and Pascal. As it is, it would be _impossible_ for X1X to be able to run AC: Shadows. One consideration missing in your argument is recognizing that Anvil primarily rendered without these hardware features. They could have kept that rendering path and also made AC Shadows available for XBO/PS4 era as well as a slew of video cards.

They did not.

We know that X1X cannot run this game because it is not GCN5, as evidenced by the RX580 failing to run the game entirely.

We do not have to imagine a scenario where they 'port' AC:Shadows to older hardware and guess how it would perform, when they instead 'ported away' from it. The engine was designed for older hardware, and it ran well on older hardware. The fact that they have a compatibility path for 12.1, but don't have one for 12.0 speaks volumes. So while, you are right that Mesh Shader hardware is not required to run the game, but most certainly CR and ROV are. Thus my original statement is true, and I didn't want to get to this point where I'm writing as if under oath in a court and having to use very 'specific' language. But this is the hill you want to stand on. You are wrong.

 

[davis.anthony]

Has PS5's lack of VRS and mesh shader hardware hurt it from running games?

No, because the developers have worked around it.

Just like they've worked around similar problems multiple times over the decades.

Your logic is still flawed.

X1X is old machine, they had to leave it (And PS4) behind at some point and chose to do it now.

If they felt it was worthwhile releasing on those consoles, there would be a version for them. But there's enough of an install base of PS5/XS consoles now that develops can't now drop PS4/XB1 support.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not at the start it wasn't, it only got twisted to that after I pushed back in the comment.

It absolutely was:

As the worlds get larger and larger, the space requirement to support more and more environments becomes untenable. They have night to day, on a massive open world, with several seasons, the lighting data I agree would be impossible. Combined with specular reflections. The geometry engine to support that, would also be so hard. The destructible terrain, all of this now being simulated created a very grounded world that we couldn't achieve in the past. So while these SSDs solve some issues, in particular they are useful for streaming in assets and pre-computing things, you still have size limitations. And this streaming of baked technologies can only go so far. This is a next generation title, there is no doubt of that, this would be impossible to achieve last gen. Even the Series S would outperform a X1X despite being weaker on power, this game requires a modern feature set like Mesh Shaders that would not allow X1X to be able to run this title.

Maybe you misunderstood the point, but to the rest of us, it's obvious the perspective Iroboto was providing and what the argument should be about. This comment, the one that spawned this conversation, is clearly not saying anything about last-gen titles being able to support versions of current gen games, but the tech (and results) of games developed for the current-generation without regard for cross-gen compatibility being unreproducible on last-gen hardware.

If that's not what you want to debate, this discussion can be dropped as no-one's disagreeing with anyone.

 

[davis.anthony]

No Shifty, this was the comment that spawned my comments.

"this game requires a modern feature set like Mesh Shaders that would not allow X1X to be able to run this title"

No where was it mentioned to......"run this title equal to XSS"....

It's clearly stated that X1X couldn't run it at all due to missing certain hardware.

 

[chris1515]

Has PS5's lack of VRS and mesh shader hardware hurt it from running games?

No, because the developers have worked around it.

Just like they've worked around similar problems multiple times over the decades.

Your logic is still flawed.

X1X is old machine, they had to leave it (And PS4) behind at some point and chose to do it now.

If they felt it was worthwhile releasing on those consoles, there would be a version for them. But there's enough of an install base of PS5/XS consoles now that develops can't now drop PS4/XB1 support.

PS5 use primitive shader for mesh shader like rendering like in Alan Wake 2 said by Remedy dev... They doesn't seem to use VRS...

The video with @Dictator

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No Shifty, this was the comment that spawned my comments.

Which I quoted above, only as the conclusion to the entire paragraph Iroboto wrote, instead of in isolation where you can misconstrue it.

No where was it mentioned to......"run this title equal to XSS"....

That's what the entire post is about. This is a reading comprehension fault on your part. I suggest you learn and move on.

 

[Nesh]

W

X1X would "melt" trying to run this

Why? Edit: oh just noticed you meant One not Series

 

[Karamazov]

it's an exaggeration, X1X could certainly run some highlt dowgraded version of this, just like Switch is running a serverly downgraded version of the Witcher 3.
But would it be worth it ? You'd loose all the standout features of UE5 just to say hey it runs !