The scalability and evolution of game engines *spawn*

[cheapchips]

He is not a developer but he knows what the teams are thinking and this is not the first time we hear this. Digitalfoundry Richard Leadbetter told in a video devs don't like Xbox Series S and he said this is the polite version of what they said to him.

I'm sure I heard a comment (wasn't DF, maybe Brad Sams) that developers were unhappy with the PS4Pro level specs Lockhart presented. The S is obviously much more powerful in practice. Did DF's comments come from the spec sharing or after develops had their hands on the Lockhart devkit profile?

 

[TeamGhobad]

To put more flame onto the fire, early on there were rumors that the biggest complaint from devs was the lack of memory in lockhart, you essentially now have to make 2 ports of the same game because of it. This does not help the ease of development for devs. Honestly i think they will just make games with the 10gb (7.5) and call it a day, EA UBI is not going to waste dev time optimizing for both consoles. And this is just on the RAM, the GPU well we all know this throws GPGPU out the window as well. I honestly prefer the PS5 approach here, and something MS should have gone with, one console 9-10tflops done.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Point was 1440p 30fps will get scaled down to something in the range of 720p 30fps, instead of 1080p.
1440p scaling down to 1080p only decreases the resolution by a factor of 1.77 and by current knowledge isn't doable with 1/3 of the same FLOPS on the same architecture.

And as I pointed out. Resolution isn't the only thing that scales. It's possible to run a game that barely hits 60 FPS at 1440p on a RTX 2080 Ti and run the exact same game at 1440p/60 on a Radeon 5500 XT. Resolution isn't the only thing that can scale. There are plenty of other things that can scale that affect the rendering performance in a game.

Everything I run on my 1070 is at 1440p or 1600p at 60 FPS. I just don't run them at the same ultra settings that most sites use to benchmark a 2080 which can struggle to hit 60 FPS in those same games at benchmarked settings. It's pretty trivial to scale settings down. Or for some people they choose to keep higher settings and instead scale resolution down.

If straight resolution scaling doesn't give a developer the performance they want, simple *.ini config tweaks can likely get them the performance they want. After all a 200 mhz difference in CPU speed is unlikely to require much adjustments. As that is the max CPU speed on the PS5, multiplat developers might just choose to target that CPU speed and thus it isn't a problem. The rest of it, memory deficit, speed and GPU rendering power are all graphics scaling options. Something any multi-platform developer will have plenty of experience adjusting. And in most cases it'll be as simple as *.ini config tweaks to get the performance desired at the resolution desired.

Memory usage scales with resolution in addition to texture and general asset quality. While SFS allows for efficient streaming of 4k quality assets, there's no need to even include 4k quality assets for a game targeting 1080p. MS has smart delivery in order to have a console only download what is required for the console it will be used on. This means smaller drive requirements as well as a smaller memory footprint.

What happens when XBSX and PS5 struggle to hit 1080p on an unknown future game?

Well for one, I'd be shocked if any XBSX or PS5 game struggles to hit 1080p.

The PS5 is likely to struggle in multiplatform games more than the XBSX. So, it's certainly less of a problem for XBSS to hit target resolution and framerate if the PS5 is struggling than if the XBSX is struggling.

If the PS5 is the lead platform for next gen, it'll certainly be easier to scale the game to both XBSX and XBSS. If the XBSX ends up being the lead platform for next gen and it struggles, then a developer would have to chose between dropping below 1080p on XBSS with same graphics quality or lower some graphics IQ settings and keep 1080p.

Regards,
SB

 

[Strange]

And as I pointed out. Resolution isn't the only thing that scales. It's possible to run a game that barely hits 60 FPS at 1440p on a RTX 2080 Ti and run the exact same game at 1440p/60 on a Radeon 5500 XT. Resolution isn't the only thing that can scale. There are plenty of other things that can scale that affect the rendering performance in a game.

Everything I run on my 1070 is at 1440p or 1600p at 60 FPS. I just don't run them at the same ultra settings that most sites use to benchmark a 2080 which can struggle to hit 60 FPS in those same games at benchmarked settings. It's pretty trivial to scale settings down. Or for some people they choose to keep higher settings and instead scale resolution down.

If straight resolution scaling doesn't give a developer the performance they want, simple *.ini config tweaks can likely get them the performance they want. After all a 200 mhz difference in CPU speed is unlikely to require much adjustments. As that is the max CPU speed on the PS5, multiplat developers might just choose to target that CPU speed and thus it isn't a problem. The rest of it, memory deficit, speed and GPU rendering power are all graphics scaling options. Something any multi-platform developer will have plenty of experience adjusting. And in most cases it'll be as simple as *.ini config tweaks to get the performance desired at the resolution desired.

Memory usage scales with resolution in addition to texture and general asset quality. While SFS allows for efficient streaming of 4k quality assets, there's no need to even include 4k quality assets for a game targeting 1080p. MS has smart delivery in order to have a console only download what is required for the console it will be used on. This means smaller drive requirements as well as a smaller memory footprint.



Well for one, I'd be shocked if any XBSX or PS5 game struggles to hit 1080p.

The PS5 is likely to struggle in multiplatform games more than the XBSX. So, it's certainly less of a problem for XBSS to hit target resolution and framerate if the PS5 is struggling than if the XBSX is struggling.

If the PS5 is the lead platform for next gen, it'll certainly be easier to scale the game to both XBSX and XBSS. If the XBSX ends up being the lead platform for next gen and it struggles, then a developer would have to chose between dropping below 1080p on XBSS with same graphics quality or lower some graphics IQ settings and keep 1080p.

Regards,
SB

So you're countering my argument by changing stuff that's not resolution.
Isn't that what Microsoft explicitly saying they're NOT doing?

I quote them as saying "the same great next gen experience, at 1440p".

One minute the argument is that you only have to scale down resolution. maybe add in 2k textures. We gave you that. Now it's moving sliders around to change quality.

Just changing the target resolution and also moving other sliders around are mutually exclusive, so you'll have to make up your mind.

 

[BRiT]

Depends on how "next gen experience" is defined.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Depends on how "next gen experience" is defined.

It's when you look in your wallet and it's now empty.

NEXTGEN FTW!

 

[iroboto]

I quote them as saying "the same great next gen experience, at 1440p".

One minute the argument is that you only have to scale down resolution. maybe add in 2k textures. We gave you that. Now it's moving sliders around to change quality.

Just changing the target resolution and also moving other sliders around are mutually exclusive, so you'll have to make up your mind.

I think its reasonable to expect resolution and some differences like we do between the base and midgen refreshes today. I suppose it's up to whatever they think will have a better overall presentation

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Then most of those hardcore pc gamers already have that since 2018.

Only if you have a singular view of performance.

 

[iroboto]

To put more flame onto the fire, early on there were rumors that the biggest complaint from devs was the lack of memory in lockhart, you essentially now have to make 2 ports of the same game because of it. This does not help the ease of development for devs. Honestly i think they will just make games with the 10gb (7.5) and call it a day, EA UBI is not going to waste dev time optimizing for both consoles. And this is just on the RAM, the GPU well we all know this throws GPGPU out the window as well. I honestly prefer the PS5 approach here, and something MS should have gone with, one console 9-10tflops done.

I'm a bit confused where this fire is you're putting flame on. It's a 299 system. No one is expecting it to perform like a 399 or 499 system. Even then, I'm still shocked it's 299. It's not particularly easy to make 8 core, Zen 2, 20 CU, 10 GB DDR6, 512 NVME drive for so cheap. I just gotta lay it out. Yes, it's been compromised, and most value hardware has it's compromises, but those compromises are to support a smaller workload.

It's not hard to understand,they've laid it out to bare. It's not like they're hiding it's performance and their going to sell you a product that doesn't work at all: it's 299! A Geforce 1660 TI is 279!
You're getting a nvme 512GB and a Zen 2 8 core, more memory, case, PSU and controller for 20 bucks more!

 

[TeamGhobad]

I'm a bit confused where this fire is you're putting flame on. It's a 299 system. No one is expecting it to perform like a 399 or 499 system. Even then, I'm still shocked it's 299. It's not particularly easy to make 8 core, Zen 2, 20 CU, 10 GB DDR6, 512 NVME drive for so cheap. I just gotta lay it out. Yes, it's been compromised, and most value hardware has it's compromises, but those compromises are to support a smaller workload.

It's not hard to understand,they've laid it out to bare. It's not like they're hiding it's performance and their going to sell you a product that doesn't work at all: it's 299! A Geforce 1660 TI is 279!
You're getting a nvme 512GB and a Zen 2 8 core, more memory, case, PSU and controller for 20 bucks more!

you completely missed the point of my post.

 

[iroboto]

you completely missed the point of my post.

They will invest the effort to do both. They go where their customers go. If the customers are on a weaker system, that's where they will go.

MS won't do what Sony is doing because MS isn't doing what Sony is doing. They don't have the same goals. They don't have the same ambitions. If PS5 walks out of this with the best looking games, I don't think MS will care. As long as their clients are satisfied with the offerings that's all that matters to MS. They have the most powerful console, that means it's going to be winning all the shootouts for multiplatform titles (mostly, not all). And for those that care for that, that console exists. For those that don't, something else exists and that something else is 299.

 

[BRiT]

It's not hard to understand,they've laid it out to bare. It's not like they're hiding it's performance and their going to sell you a product that doesn't work at all: it's 299! A Geforce 1660 TI is 279!
You're getting a nvme 512GB and a Zen 2 8 core, more memory, case, PSU and controller for 20 bucks more!

It will even play music, like the memes show it. You'll have to supply the speakers/heaphones and music, but it'll play it!

 

[BRiT]

They will invest the effort to do both. They go where their customers go. If the customers are on a weaker system, that's where they will go.

Exactly. That is exemplified by all the extra effort made to port games to the Nintendo Switch.

 

[TeamGhobad]

They will invest the effort to do both. They go where their customers go. If the customers are on a weaker system, that's where they will go.

MS won't do what Sony is doing because MS isn't doing what Sony is doing. They don't have the same goals. They don't have the same ambitions.

no incentive for them to do that. i dont see a happy story here.

 

[PSman1700]

Only if you have a singular view of performance.

Nah, a 2018 RTX GPU is close to 15TF, has ray tracing comparable to console RT, mesh shaders, powerfull upscaling tech (DLSS), and performs extremely well in normal rasterization. It also is going to support RTX I/O as per NV.
3700x has the same amount of cores but clocks much higher. Yes, 2018 hardcore pc gamers can just tag along fine and probably have the best versions of any multiplat game.

 

[iroboto]

no incentive for them to do that. i dont see a happy story here.

They've been doing it forever. Handling PC is much harder than 1 more SKU on console. And the devkits are likely to be 2 in 1 just like Scorpio devkits are. They'll do some extra work, but at the same time next generation features will allow them to do less work because so many challenges have been lifted.

Until we're late into this gen, you're just guessing about how hard it is to scale. No one is saying here it's going to be easy as clicking a checkbox toggle. But the target is fixed, it doesn't move. After their first run at it, the next iterations will be easier with each subsequent pass at releasing titles for it.

I mean, if you want to get real, maximizing Series S is lame, but it's achievable. If you make an optimization that takes more power but runs stuff faster, hey, you win. If you make an optimization that uses less power but runs stuff faster, hey you win.

Certainly going to be more straight forward than trying to maximize PS5 - you make an optimization that takes more power is supposed to give you a win but you lose clock rate, suddenly it's not so clear if your getting a win over using the code that uses less power and holds a higher clock rate.

Try wrapping that around your head for challenging. Under your line of thinking, there is no incentive to maximize PS5.

 

[chris1515]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1303391432183435264

A designer from COD.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1303391432183435264

A designer from COD.

I wonder if he also felt that RTX 2060 bottlenecked adoption of RT since it was so much slower than RTX2080 and later RTX 2080 Ti?

Whereas the reality is that a more affordable version of the card accelerated adoption of next generation features by getting more people on the platform which in turn incentivizes developers and publishers to invest more in the next gen features.

Of course, there's always a chance that noone buys the XBSS and thus it doesn't accelerate the growth of next gen capable consoles, but IMO, XBSS is the best thing that could happen for next gen gaming if it sells out and sells in large numbers.

At the size of the XBSS chip, they can in theory make 2-3x more XBSS SOCs per wafer for every 1 XBSX SOC. This means that with the same wafer allocation, they can dramatically increase how many next gen capable systems hit the market.

Regards,
SB

 

[TeamGhobad]

Ya im not buying the XSS wont hold back the XSX, maybe even the entire generation. Devs will build for the lowest spec console and then scale up cause that is the easiest way to do it.

What we've learned:

lower bandwidth and less Ram
lower clocks on the CPU
Fewer CU on the GPU and lower clocks

all these things add up.

 

[iroboto]

Ya im not buying the XSS wont hold back the XSX, maybe even the entire generation. Devs will build for the lowest spec console and then scale up cause that is the easiest way to do it.

What we've learned:

lower bandwidth and less Ram
lower clocks on the CPU
Fewer CU on the GPU and lower clocks

all these things add up.

They've already indicated the main spec is Series X and then scale down.
Considering that both PS5 and XSX is closer together, that should be the lead spec.