Konami Fox Engine and its Games.
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
shredenvain
Regular
Ok your theory about XB One not being powerful enough to handle 60 fps at resolutions higher than 720p is flawed. There are several titles running at 60 fps at 900p and above
Trials Fusion, Garden Warfare, Metro Redux are all 900p 60 fps. Then you have titles running at 1080p 60 like Fifa, Madden, Forza 5, Skylanders, NBA2K14 and Wolfenstein. There are probably a few more. Most of these titles seem to be much more graphically demanding than PES and some use a defered setup. The titles running at 720p 60 on the X1 are launch window titles that had limited time with finalized hardware. If MGS5 doesnt hit 900p 60 on the X1 then it is probably more do to with crossgen development than gpu alu or esram.
People keep saying the fox engine was designed with Pc and ps4 in mind, but fron everything I have read Kojima has said it was designed with the PS360 in mind.
Complete rubbish.
To hit 1080p alot of games require placing some of the frame buffer in ddr3. However in open world games there is added bandwidth strain on ddr3. Additionally in 60fps games there is additional ddr3 bandwidth strain. Additionally the more bandwidth the cpu requires given to the fact its an open world game will reduce true ddr3 memory bandwidth below 68GB/s (possibly < 60GB/s). The two of those strains combined plus memory contention issues, may not leave enough memory bandwidth available in ddr3 to easily run part of the gbuffer off ddr3 main memory.
Possibly, open world + 60fps + scene image quality of mgs5 = the gbuffer may have to reside entirely within esram.
Possibly, open world + 60fps + scene image quality of mgs5 = the gbuffer may have to reside entirely within esram.
Esram is a factor but if it's just about fitting it with no other complications 900p is doable.
I have a feeling that this engine in particular makes for heavy usage of ROPS; eg the linear space lighting takes slightly longer to calculate through the pipeline, in particular the texture part of it. The fact that Xbox 360 and X1 (MGS5) look nearly identical except for resolution tells me that they are likely sharing code in this regard, so it is unlikely compute shaders are being leveraged here for X1. That being said in this scenario I don't see MS engineers being able to do much, lighting and shadows are going to hammer the weakest part of Xbox one hardware.
I have a feeling that this engine in particular makes for heavy usage of ROPS; eg the linear space lighting takes slightly longer to calculate through the pipeline, in particular the texture part of it. The fact that Xbox 360 and X1 (MGS5) look nearly identical except for resolution tells me that they are likely sharing code in this regard, so it is unlikely compute shaders are being leveraged here for X1. That being said in this scenario I don't see MS engineers being able to do much, lighting and shadows are going to hammer the weakest part of Xbox one hardware.
Betanumerical
Veteran
Apparently GPU in X1 is a break from old GPU's. This may explain why old engines have issues running well.
Also appears its easy to port to X1 but takes work to really make your game look good.
everything said there applies to the ps4 as well, he is talking about how its GCN now anything specific to the XB1.
The PS4 has really fast caches on die? I didn't know that? Hmm, never mind.
Betanumerical
Veteran
I dare say that PS4 has the exact same caches as the XB1 GPU wise.
The XB1 has a additional scratch pad, which isn't a cache. But I would hope that anyone working on it would know that.
Also saying 'The esram' is the reason the XB1 isn't running well because its 'different' ignores the fact that nearly every generation of console has had a console with small scratch memories that is quick to access.
Depends on the competition. Last gen you had a choice of PS3 or X360 for core consoles development, 360 between the two was simpler.
This time despite arguably being 360-like (in a broad overview) in memory topology, the competitor now uses a even simpler model. X1 is now the more complex option, and we see many of the same thing playing out as we did with PS3 last gen. Quick and ugly ports wont get good results. A good deal of sweat equity or resources will get at least, better results (should be a minimum of 900P imo and looking at the pantheon of titles out there).
This time despite arguably being 360-like (in a broad overview) in memory topology, the competitor now uses a even simpler model. X1 is now the more complex option, and we see many of the same thing playing out as we did with PS3 last gen. Quick and ugly ports wont get good results. A good deal of sweat equity or resources will get at least, better results (should be a minimum of 900P imo and looking at the pantheon of titles out there).
The XB1 and PS4 versions are more identical than the XB1 and 360 version and no, its not just the resolution the difference. There is an even huger difference in the texture resolution aliasing and framerate (and if I recall normal maps and shadows too)
I said a combination of the elements of which XB1's not having enough raw power was one (since engine issues can be overcome with raw power when it comes to games, which the XB1 doesn't have a lot of in comparison)...I didn't say it was the only reason or even one of the prime reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
also didn't know the PS4 has embedded ram and integrated processors to do some of the memory move operations.
sry for sarcasm, but still, PS4 and xbox one are different platforms. if you don't optimize for them, the xbox one looses even more because of its special system architecture. the PS4 does not loose so much (when simply porting from a pc) because the architecture is almost the same (much simpler).
Yes, for a soccer game with not that good graphics konami could do more. But we don't know were the bottleneck is. I don't think it is about the knowledge sharing from MS because konami was involved in xbox one development, years ago.
I just think they just don't optimize to much for current gen, because games still sell on last gen, so they still optimize for that. Just a business decision.
And that not more than 720p 60fps is possible on xbox one is also not right. there are already titles (even a launch title that has the only solid 60fps on current gen so far) out there in 1080p @60fps.
Betanumerical
Veteran
Im sorry but none of what you mentioned was mentioned in the pictures presented here at all, so its irrelevant to my comment. I also had this comment people seem to latching onto which is 'hur dur there are other 1080P 60FPS games therefore this should be too!", we have no idea where the bottleneck for the engine lies and how much work konami has to get the game upto where it is now which makes these comments kinda silly.
Every modern GPU does...
That argument is for Fox Engine, not all games. And for Fox Engine in its present build. As described in other discussions, any console can hit 1080p60. You just have to target that res and build for it, reducing other quality factors to hit it. The question is whether FE can take a game running at 1080p60 on PS4 and also run it at high res and framerate, or whether res has to be reduced to accommodate bottlenecks in the engine/hardware.
Having watched the DF Xbox 360 versus Xbox one video comparison, my guess is that the game is just ported straight of the 360 game to the XB1. They look very similar although there's no doubts the XB1 has higher resolution textures and a better frame rate. I can't see Konami putting much effort to mess with an engine they have running well on the PC and PS4 just to maximize XB1 potential, especially considering XB1 is no.2 in all markets and the demo has already had a been seen to be 720p and sold very poorly.
Again, the development of the engine began long before XB1 released and anyone knew how well or badly it could sell. I don't think XB1's sales are a factor, at least not for FE's underlying architecture. That is, they didn't say three years ago, "XB1 isn't going to sell very well, so let's disregard its RAM topology in our design." Instead, to me the logical explanation is they picked a rendering architecture that fitted with their choices and know-how, went with deferred and/or whatever else they're doing, and then were presented with XB1's split RAM BW. Perhaps they looked at a more complex engine refactoring and then decided against the economies of it for now based on sales, but the architectural incompatibilities between Fox Engine and XB1 can't have its roots in any sales theories.
It seems like you base that statement on absolutely nothing.
why do you say that? Are you implying that 900p backbuffers can't fit into 32mb?
You don't know the format of the buffers. Deferred rendering can have huge buffers. 32MBs is plenty enough for a simple 1080p buffer. Technically its enough for 16 bytes per pixel of data at 1920x1080.