They tailored the rendering architecture to the XB1 memory hierarchy. Light pre-pass takes up less buffer space and is a better fit for XB1's ESRAM than all out deferred (ie. look at COD or BF on XB1 vs PS4).
I expect developers to take better advantage of the ESRAM as rendering techniques evolve. The roles seems to be reversed from last gen. with MS's console being the more difficult to fully utilize this time round.
Cheers
While it does decrease bandwidth vs deferred shading, the cost of rendering with light pre-pass is the geometry pass must completed twice, and it also increases cpu demand, so its definitely not all roses.
I am looking forward to 3rd and beyond gen games to make more use of X1's unique architecture.
I'm just curious on what you consider unique about XB1?
Personally, IMHO, the PS4 and XB1 are not unique... mostly mid-spec PC variants, tailored for the gaming console space. Granted the XB1 has ESRAM and PS4 has GDDR5, but this isn't that unique in my opinion, just a more forward design of marrying (union) the game console space with the PC space.
Unique would have been the return of a more beefier Cell or even the Emotion Engine / GSX combo...
When I look at other consoles or PC systems out there, none of them has quite the architecture of X1. ESRAM, shape and DME makes it unique to me. It doesn't mean that it is the best h/w out there of course.
When I look at other consoles or PC systems out there, none of them has quite the architecture of X1. ESRAM, shape and DME makes it unique to me. It doesn't mean that it is the best h/w out there of course.
True in an individual basis, although we had never seen all of those things together in a single system. I think that's what rokkerkory was trying to get at.Most PC's have something akin to SHAPE, or at least a sound processor on board somewhere (maybe not now days, but i certainly remember always having a sound blaster). The eSRAM and DME's don't really look that unique to me the eSRAM is just a large scratchpads (there are other consoles out there with large scratchpads) and the DME's are just juiced up DMA controllers (which PC's have a plenty).
No, no PCs have had anything akin to SHAPE. Many PCs have a DSP, if they have a newish soundblaster. (SB16 doesn't cut it. that's just a DAC and FM synthesis chip - most motherboard default "sound cards" are equivalent to that, usually without the FM synthesis), but the concept of a large fixed-function block is pretty new. About the closest you get is the SRC implementation in the latest soundblasters, but that's not the same.Most PC's have something akin to SHAPE, or at least a sound processor on board somewhere (maybe not now days, but i certainly remember always having a sound blaster). The eSRAM and DME's don't really look that unique to me the eSRAM is just a large scratchpads (there are other consoles out there with large scratchpads) and the DME's are just juiced up DMA controllers (which PC's have a plenty).
Sorry but, holy crap!!SB16 doesn't cut it. that's just a DAC and FM synthesis chip - most motherboard default "sound cards" are equivalent to that, usually without the FM synthesis
No kidding, I have a few laptops, some older than others and I wonder what the Conexant Smartaudio chip is, it if exists, it seems to me that it is the CPU doing all the work.Sorry but, holy crap!!
Tensilica cores are not the same thing. SHAPE is a set of fixed function units, running at a higher clock than most DSPs, and optimised to give maximum throughput for minimum power. A tensilica core is a general purpose CPU with DSP extensions, it has no fixed function units, and a single tensilica core would not be able to equal the throughput of the fixed function block. That's why even the latest soundblasters break out the SRC into a fixed function block, it's a waste of DSP power. It is, however, a _lot_ more flexible. TrueAudio can, for instance, do Reverb and HRTF, something SHAPE cannot. (Although one of the Tensilica cores in the audio block could, if needed.)Dont forget bilikan some pc's now have similar tensilica cores aka truaudio not that anything has used them yet
Holy crap what? Is my statement incorrect?Sorry but, holy crap!!
Holy crap what? Is my statement incorrect?
Um, windows 8 supports hardware accelerated audio. There are WASAPI calls specifically for offloading audio workloads. You're referring to the deprecation of directsound and how it no longer supports hardware I assume. That should only affect older games. Games using OpenAL or any of the other sound solutions still use hardware directly. And default audio hardware (most consumers never buy an add on sound card) is no better than the SB16. At least it's better than the SBPro, since the DACs are usually 16 bit, and sometimes it even supports 6 channels. Technology wise, the soundcards in use by the majority of PC owners today are no better than the soundcards in use in 1995, 18 years ago. Heck, I built my own in 1993 that was almost as good, although it did require four printer ports.It has moved forward, but it was broken in half when Windows Vista/7 (dunno remember which) disallowed hardware accelerated audio from within the OS... makes me wonder why Creative didn't go under because of it.
Funny enough, I've had little trouble enabling AC3 5.1 audio via SPDIF on Linux in games etc (not bitstreaming a DVD, but actually encoding audio to AC3), yet Windows... no dice.