Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

[Scott_Arm]

Over statement, we're just talking about an additional 4 gbs of memory.

So what's the point in making the Xbox 1 a devkit if in order to take advantage of it you need to buy an other one? that's basically superseding the purpose of Microsoft assuring all indies.

The purpose is that I can make games at home with probably a free SDK and a $500 console, where there is no way in hell I could afford a full devkit which is traditionally very expensive. It just opens the doors to a lot more people, with varying degrees of disposable income, to start making games. Big companies or large indies will get the full devkit or use a combination of both. Small indies, or just random people that want to get into it can use the retail console.

That's all assuming there is an actual difference in terms of memory between the devkit and the retail unit.

 

[expletive]

The purpose is that I can make games at home with probably a free SDK and a $500 console, where there is no way in hell I could afford a full devkit which is traditionally very expensive. It just opens the doors to a lot more people, with varying degrees of disposable income, to start making games. Big companies or large indies will get the full devkit or use a combination of both. Small indies, or just random people that want to get into it can use the retail console.

That's all assuming there is an actual difference in terms of memory between the devkit and the retail unit.

Marc Whitten made it clear there won't be a difference between what a retail-turned-devkit vs a full devkit can access or create:

GB: Post-Xbox One launch and when this system is available, is there a reason for people to have proper Xbox One development kits? Is there a significant difference between what the developers get access to in terms of building their games?

Whitten: Our goal is for you to be able to have full access of the system and the services on Xbox Live. Also, this is a dev kit. This is the way that we will think about dev kits for people on my team that are working on Xbox One. There’s no “this is a second class sort of experience” type of thing. Right now, obviously, in the build-up to a platform launch, there’s lots of special builds and lots of special kits and all that kind of stuff, but that’s more time and place.

GB: But this isn’t a situation where, if you just pick up an Xbox One at Target, you’re only going to be able to access certain parts of the memory, certain parts of the graphics processor? This is going to allow you, at least eventually, once it’s all put into place, to be able to do everything that someone like Respawn is doing?

Whitten: That’s right.

This is really no different than what Apple does with its hardware and allowing people to provision them as dev units as long as they are subscribed to the $99/year licensing agreement.

 

[temesgen]

Maybe I'm missing something but how much memory should an indie need access to create a game? Much of what is sold on Live and PSN is under 300MB, so how much space is actually needed to create a casual/indie game?

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

The purpose is that I can make games at home with probably a free SDK and a $500 console, where there is no way in hell I could afford a full devkit which is traditionally very expensive.

I see what you're saying, that it's still better than nothing, which i agree. On the other hand though, this is the same as what the indie community had already. The only things separating indie developers in the past from developers was the extra memory for tools, and maybe the tools them selves.

Microsoft long ago granted indie developers the use of their xbox 360's for running and deploying their games. so basically according to circulating logic what Microsoft has assured is that indies get the same privileges as before and if they want to go pro they would still need to get a real devkit, unless things have now changed.

 

[expletive]

Microsoft long ago granted indie developers the use of their xbox 360's for running and deploying their games. so basically according to circulating logic what Microsoft has assured is that indies get the same privileges as before and if they want to go pro they would still need to get a real devkit, unless things have now changed.

Things have apparently changed, read the link I posted above.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I see what you're saying, that it's still better than nothing, which i agree. On the other hand though, this is the same as what the indie community had already. The only things separating indie developers in the past from developers was the extra memory for tools, and maybe the tools them selves.

Microsoft long ago granted indie developers the use of their xbox 360's for running and deploying their games. so basically according to circulating logic what Microsoft has assured is that indies get the same privileges as before and if they want to go pro they would still need to get a real devkit, unless things have now changed.

Before they were stuck with xna and limited xbox live integration. Now they're supposed to have access to the same sdk, features.

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

Things have apparently changed, read the link I posted above.

I see, that's exactly what i was thinking. In order for indies to have better than what they already had out of the box; they would need the console to have equal status.

Before they were stuck with xna and limited xbox live integration. Now they're supposed to have access to the same sdk, features.

unlimited I'm guessing, as Microsoft stated.

Edit - I just read XNA's site, their tools have always had full access to the hardware, they provide basic starter programs for indies as well as allow skilled users to work at their own level and support their own programs, like Unity, Maya, and Zbrush . From the looks of it Games can take advantage of the hardware but it still factors on skill level, numbers of users and interests. There's not a single piece of information that states any limits on them to any part of the console to begin with. Microsoft even promotes the free usage of 4xAA for developing games.

So they have made more changes I'm guessing to how indies can deploy their games on the new hardware.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Xna is a managed runtime as far as I know, which is not the same environment or performance as the pro devs get. On Xbox One It sounds like the same tools and apis.

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

XNA is a basic open source API but it's projects can be deployed to more sophisticated tools, which increases the scale of it's community. having said that, it's possible to make an AAA title with dazzling visuals though without any skill or efforts is nearly impossible. XNA's downside is that it's hindered by quick cash grabbers and small groups.

Most definitely you'll see small indie groups turn to Project Spark; a program built off of XNA for basic indies.

 

[DrJay24]

How was XNA open source?

 

[(((interference)))]

But the Alpha kits had Sandybridges in them because the Jaguar wouldn't have been available at that time. So at full clock speed you're talking around 400 GFLOPs there. I know there's a lot of fixed function stuff in there for the kinect audio side of things so we're not exactly talking about an 8 core SB worth of in game audio but still....

I wasn't sure on this, but I have now got confirmation that the alpha kits had AMD processors clocked at 1.6 Ghz - and not Intel ones as widely speculated.

EDIT: Oh look bkilian also said they didn't have Intel CPUs.

 

[grndzro]

I don't get it. Indies are going to be mad that they didn't have to pay $10K for a dev kit and were able to use the $500 console they bought because they have less memory to work with? The bigger indies will buy regular dev kits anyway. The smaller indies that can only afford a $500 console are unlikely to fully tap the hardware anyway. This really seems like a non-issue, if they full dev kits even have more memory.

As more and more dev kits sell and more games come out there will soon be a surplus of dev kits. And 1 dev kit can be used for multiple projects simultaneusly.

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

How was XNA open source?

I meant to say the source is open for everyone to use, I was in a hurry. I'm not a member of the community (anymore) but they do allow users to create custom programs using the .XNA Framework to work in conjunction with XNA. one of thoes custom programs i use for displaying video game models. (XNA.XPS)

 

[Scott_Arm]

XNA is a basic open source API but it's projects can be deployed to more sophisticated tools, which increases the scale of it's community. having said that, it's possible to make an AAA title with dazzling visuals though without any skill or efforts is nearly impossible. XNA's downside is that it's hindered by quick cash grabbers and small groups.

Most definitely you'll see small indie groups turn to Project Spark; a program built off of XNA for basic indies.

Hmmm, in the end XNA is really nothing like "native" development for the xbox 360. It's basically .NET managed runtime.

Xbox One should bring the indie environment pretty close to the pro environment.

 

[arijoytunir]

Microsoft has upped the GPU speed by 53 MHz since E3. Additionally, the design team has rebuilt the graphics driver to optimize performance.

so the gpu is upclocked by 53mhz!

 

[Betanumerical]

so the gpu is upclocked by 53mhz!

6.625% increase in clock speed. I honestly see that as a bit pointless.

 

[Rangers]

Well, hardly what we hoped for, but better than nothing, and certainly better than downclocks of 50-200mhz being speculated!

Kind of weird, I wonder if announcing this means no 12GB RAM?

This gives it ~80 more GFlops, which is also ~80% of another CU. If you want to round it's about like they added another CU, which is not bad.

Such a conservative upclock is likely due to "silent system that is always on for ten years", most likely.

6.625% increase in clock speed. I honestly see that as a bit pointless.

I'm sorry I've gotta roll eyes at all these responses. It was a big deal when it was a 50 mhz downclock rumored...

Like I said, look at the alternatives.

It's nothing big but every bit helps. Also, didn't a WHOLE bunch of people claim the hardware must have been absolutely locked down, upclocks were impossible, etc etc, over the last months?

It's like adding a CU. As I've argued with Shifty before, I dont think there's a magic line where performance increases become relevant (though I get what you're saying). If for example, the supposed 10% GPU OS reserve is true, well, you just negated most of that loss. And it goes on and on.

Again, I'm guessing 53mhz did basically zero to their yields or thermals, and that's why it was chosen. Smells like a very conservative upclock.

 

[McHuj]

Does this mean that the ESRAM bandwidth has been upped as well?

 

[Betanumerical]

Does this mean that the ESRAM bandwidth has been upped as well?

To 109GB/s. Yep.

 

[Cjail]

53Mhz is even less than we thought.

Such a conservative upclock is likely due to "silent system that is always on for ten years", most likely.

Or their cooling solution can't sustain a higher upclock.