You are missing the point. If the XSS with it's RDNA2 based GPU is faster than the X1X, why is it limited to running X1S titles, just faster? Why does it not run X1 games at X1X settings and resolution? Maybe because they actually cannot guarantee that it would be a good experience? Because the XSS is actually not as powerful as you all make it to be, despite the feature set? id developers are already taking jabs at XSS smaller and more importantly slower RAM on Twitter, saying that dropping resolution is not enough.
The scalability and evolution of game engines *spawn*
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
You are missing the point. If the XSS with it's RDNA2 based GPU is faster than the X1X, why is it limited to running X1S titles, just faster? Why does it not run X1 games at X1X settings and resolution? Maybe because they actually cannot guarantee that it would be a good experience? Because the XSS is actually not as powerful as you all make it to be, despite the feature set? id developers are already taking jabs at XSS smaller and more importantly slower RAM on Twitter, saying that dropping resolution is not enough.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Dude, you know the rules. A slower Sony CPU is better than a Microsoft CPU. It's just the way it is. Because... reasons
Dude, you know the rules. A slower Sony CPU is better than a Microsoft CPU. It's just the way it is. Because... reasons
TheXbox Series S CPU is not faster 3.4 Ghz with SMT. This is what the dev will use for next generation title or what the Dirt 5 dev use but this is nitpicking because the guy hates the Xbox Series S. The CPU will not be a problem on Xbox Series S, PS5 or Xbox Series X,
He basically wish Microsoft to fail next generation maybe like this they can have less effort to do on Xbox Series S,
Last edited:
For the developer, the memory pool on xss shouldn't be split, as the OS takes ~2.5 GB of memory. So the 7.5 GB are only in the fast pool.
cheapchips
Veteran
Yeah, this was my point earlier- after a couple years upgrade to the XSX even at around 300 or less depending on price/XSS value etc.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
Having developers from high profile dev companies complaining so publicly about your budget console strategy is not ideal.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
1 negative comments has always more impact than 10 positive ones. It's not fair but it is the way our mind works.
But the thing is, I'm used to read devs always being excited about next gen consoles and how they are going to improve the "exsspirienceeee", they usually don't criticize hw in public with some exceptions like Gabe "PS3 is a piece of sh*t" Newell or Randy "Wii 2x Gamecubes duck tape together" Pitchford.
This is not the reaction you want from (some) 3rd party guys.
Yeah but irrespective of that I would still suggest you post the positives so we can have a proper discussion. This is supposed to be a technical site and a lot of posters/contributors here have at least a basic/competent understanding of these matters. It doesn't help if we are to concentrate on one point of view and ignore the other.
Depends on what platform is being discussed
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
That technical producer from remedy clarified his "I see trouble" comment:
In the meanwhile, two different devs from Id have also shared their thoughts on the console:
In the meanwhile, two different devs from Id have also shared their thoughts on the console:
cheapchips
Veteran
You can really lump Axel and Billy together, since they're both Id engine developers. Whatever Id's chosen path for next gen, the S is presumably interfering with it.
Yes they are echoing what I think, the lack of memory is gonna hinder all xbox games much more than the 4TF
Like I said to cut costs they should of just included a smaller SSD (256GB) but the same amount of memory (sure you could prolly only have one game on your SSD at once
)
this is gonna be a huge millstone around all Xbox series X games holding them back
Like I said to cut costs they should of just included a smaller SSD (256GB) but the same amount of memory (sure you could prolly only have one game on your SSD at once
)this is gonna be a huge millstone around all Xbox series X games holding them back
Rurouni
Veteran
I think people that keep using PC as an example to scale down is missing an important bits. Unlike the typical scaling down on PC, XsX -> XsS was promised to mostly about scaling down the resolution since both have feature parity. PC makes it simple because you can turn off stuff, picking different assets quality (ultra textures, etc), and devs can simply states that the minimum spec is A or B. With XsS, they need to validate that their game can actually run in it at around same quality as XsX with mainly lower res.
Also the RAM issue is probably the easiest bottleneck that we can identify by just looking at the specs. XsS basically only get around 2GB of extra RAM compared to current gen system. If we compare XsX to Xone, you have a lot better GPU, CPU, storage, pretty much all that needed for it to be next gen except for... RAM size. Look at it this way, if I said next gen would have 10GB of RAM what would be the respond?
Also the RAM issue is probably the easiest bottleneck that we can identify by just looking at the specs. XsS basically only get around 2GB of extra RAM compared to current gen system. If we compare XsX to Xone, you have a lot better GPU, CPU, storage, pretty much all that needed for it to be next gen except for... RAM size. Look at it this way, if I said next gen would have 10GB of RAM what would be the respond?
Well, maybe just because x-patches than have to be rewritten because of the lower memory size. The size wouldn't be a problem if the game was optimized for the SSD but those a backcompat games, so developers will likely not put another enhancement patch out.
With enhanced xb360 BC titles I would predict that MS could "just" rework the "emulator" and it should work. But the question is, if they would really do it for the budget machine.
Also ist shouldn't be a problem for MS to use other things for xb1 games like AF and maybe AA. But games with dynamic res should profit day one from the better hardware.
But you totally ignore that when assets get created, they are always created in different quality steps, so objects that are far away from the camera have a lower quality. You can just use those assets instead of the highest res ones and save much memory.
btw, in relation to the xsx the xss has much higher bandwidth (because of lower asset quality -> smaller sizes) to the ssd, so it may use a smaller overall buffer. And than their SFS on top of that ... well if it realy works out.
Last edited:
So much this! Very excited to see what more RAM + significantly more CPU does for it
Similar threads
