That's why I said One X in my post.
We don't know the resource hit on Series X
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Xbox Series X UI runs At 1080p
- Thread starter cantbebothered
- Start date
- Status
That's why I said One X in my post.
We don't know the resource hit on Series X
I would take a 24 hour ban bet that it wouldn't reach 5 pages at all. :)
People have been correctly complaining about that for a long time.
It's also a compromise for RAM I believe
I mean I don't like it but it's blazing fast and very simple, so I don't mind.
That's weird. I mean, it's good that it allows devs to use more RAM, but is the difference between 1080p and 4K really a whole Gig?
As someone with a base PS4 and a 4K TV, I can honestly say the 1080p interface is absolutely fine. Don't see much of a difference, to be honest.
Last edited:
half of this thread is people Complaining that people are complaining.
I corrected my post. Also we know that the Series X also has 3gb of ram dedicated to the OS, just like the xbox one x.
The initial fud thread about the Series X overheating made about 900 posts here before it was locked.
The threads on the extensive testing to show that it is fud and the Series X actually runs cooler and quieter than the One X had a fraction total posts and quickly disappeared from the main page.
Console warrior shit is so tiring, I dream of a world where everyone is allowed to be excited lol
This sounds insane. How could going from 1080p to 4K in a freaking UI need up to 1gig of ram? Can someone explain this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be thankful that MS is finally coming to the present. Like it is what I naturally assumed. I have a PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4k and soon Ps5. To have them in 4k in the present time whilst one x and even worse for series x to still think it ok to look ugly in comparison on my TV is just sad.
It's just disappointing when I load up my apple tv 4k and PS4 Pro and things have great clarity and then you go to one x and wonder why you have to deal with blurryness and sharp edges just sucks. Thought there'd be no issues this time for series x so I'm hoping the launch consoles do have a 4k dash.
I don't saw how they're going to fix this in a patch (as folks keep saying) if they've already made the resources available for developers to use.
As far as 4k in a dashboard being a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. If you've purchased a 4k tv, then it's simply nice to have everything looking crisp on that display. Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
Also the argument that aesthetics on non-gameplay elements don't matter feels a little narrow minded. Perhaps you personally don't consciously care about those smaller details, but aesthetics do matter. I remember when I was studying psychology at university, one of the phenomena we were studying was pre-cognitive neurological indicators of aesthetic appeal. People notice when something looks visually appealing and those appealing features are viewed favourably. There are lots of interesting experiments in this space too, for instance appeal is often shown to affect task performance.
The question isn't whether aesthetics matter, it's how much do they matter, and whether they're worth the cost.
But, the problem with Microsoft's decision here, is that in order to answer that question they've consulted a stakeholder with only one possible conclusion. More ram gives the developer more to play with. Even if a developer does not need it, they will tell you that they want it because there's literally no disadvantage in doing so. If they don't need the additional ram, then the won't use it, if they do, they'll be glad it was made available. It's win win for the developer because they never need to consider this from the users perspective.
I think that Microsoft took the wrong approach here. You need to identify what user experience you want to provide at the system level, and then deliver that without compromises. Then you can allocate development resources as additional, to that. If Microsoft needed 1gb of extra ram to get the UI running at 4k, then the system should have been built with more ram at the hardware level.
If the game developer had their way, the system would boot right into their game, after all. It's not the developers job to understand the users needs from the system level experience, that's Microsoft and I really do think they're failing consumers here. Everyone is looking at next gen platforms as 4K, HDR experiences, and even the system level UI should be delivering on that.
As far as 4k in a dashboard being a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. If you've purchased a 4k tv, then it's simply nice to have everything looking crisp on that display. Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
Also the argument that aesthetics on non-gameplay elements don't matter feels a little narrow minded. Perhaps you personally don't consciously care about those smaller details, but aesthetics do matter. I remember when I was studying psychology at university, one of the phenomena we were studying was pre-cognitive neurological indicators of aesthetic appeal. People notice when something looks visually appealing and those appealing features are viewed favourably. There are lots of interesting experiments in this space too, for instance appeal is often shown to affect task performance.
The question isn't whether aesthetics matter, it's how much do they matter, and whether they're worth the cost.
But, the problem with Microsoft's decision here, is that in order to answer that question they've consulted a stakeholder with only one possible conclusion. More ram gives the developer more to play with. Even if a developer does not need it, they will tell you that they want it because there's literally no disadvantage in doing so. If they don't need the additional ram, then the won't use it, if they do, they'll be glad it was made available. It's win win for the developer because they never need to consider this from the users perspective.
I think that Microsoft took the wrong approach here. You need to identify what user experience you want to provide at the system level, and then deliver that without compromises. Then you can allocate development resources as additional, to that. If Microsoft needed 1gb of extra ram to get the UI running at 4k, then the system should have been built with more ram at the hardware level.
If the game developer had their way, the system would boot right into their game, after all. It's not the developers job to understand the users needs from the system level experience, that's Microsoft and I really do think they're failing consumers here. Everyone is looking at next gen platforms as 4K, HDR experiences, and even the system level UI should be delivering on that.
Thing is that is just for the one x and not series x. I don't think it should have been included as its just confusing people and I thought MS should have finally figured out how to get the UI in 4k like Sony has done for ps4 Pro and PS5 (and other devices like apple tv 4k, etc).
Not gonna lie I came into the thread expecting people to applaud this decision. VERY surprised.
They are freeing up the room for the games you will be playing, not the UI you are navigating through to said games.
Guess I'm in the minority here but something like this can be taken care of by your tv's upscaler. These are static images (minus the dynamic themes, as I know someone will try to "gotcha" me on that) not fast moving gameplay. Plus the 60/120hz will be way more apparent.
I have a 75" Sony sitting on the wall to deal with this kinda thing, so I rather the horsepower be given to the games.
I swear, this site is at it's worst lately...as a fence sitter on all platforms I can't wait for these machines to be in my hands so 1) I can play them, and 2) all this shit can fade away. Makes me wonder how this would have went had it been Sony announcing this as it'd be for the games. Surely not 11 pages deep lol.
They are freeing up the room for the games you will be playing, not the UI you are navigating through to said games.
Guess I'm in the minority here but something like this can be taken care of by your tv's upscaler. These are static images (minus the dynamic themes, as I know someone will try to "gotcha" me on that) not fast moving gameplay. Plus the 60/120hz will be way more apparent.
I have a 75" Sony sitting on the wall to deal with this kinda thing, so I rather the horsepower be given to the games.
I swear, this site is at it's worst lately...as a fence sitter on all platforms I can't wait for these machines to be in my hands so 1) I can play them, and 2) all this shit can fade away. Makes me wonder how this would have went had it been Sony announcing this as it'd be for the games. Surely not 11 pages deep lol.
No idea how a 4K UI would need even close to 1GB of RAM compared to a 1080p one. Most of the UI elements should be vector-based anyway, what would they put on it that would eat up so much memory?
They have 2.5GB of OS memory. That's not impossible to get a 4k ui in - certainly many devices have done so before. I don't know what the memory footprint of all of their OS features are, none of us do really. It's not impossible they could find a way to somehow do what they want to do while also upgrading the UI resolution. It's not guaranteed either, of course. But there's enough fuzz where we can't rule that out just because at launch it isn't.
It isn't though. I have an LG oled c6 65 inch and PS4 Pro and Apple TV 4k look really clear. Load up xbox one x and it's blurry and sharp edges everywhere in comparison. I had assumed MS had finally figured out the secret as to how other companies manage it, and could finally bring us to the present with the series x.
This is a wild take.
I 100% guarantee that Xbox OS is not using all of the reserved resources. The system is also not constrained around a 1080p OS. It absolutely could change in the future. And they definitely got feedback from more than just developers.
I hope this is a joke that I'm just missing.
What I'm more interested in is if navigating the UI doesn't randomly feel like navigating slow website with a bad internet connection anymore. I admit though that I haven't been using my Xbox One much lately to notice, so it's possible that this isn't an issue anymore.
Yeah certainly. If they can use some technique to get it into the space they've already reserved, then that makes sense. But if the decision was made in the way that's suggested in the OP, then it's likely to be more difficult.
I don't know if it really is bloated, but it is Windows, known for it's bloat that 20 minute "Windows 10 1803 OPTIMIZATION Guide For GAMERS & POWER USERS! - YouTube" videos can't really get all of the bloat and "services" out. I had this one bookmarked since Windows 10 updates usually reset things, reactivates stuff, or add more stuff that would be best to deactivate. One of the many reasons I wish Linux gaming really takes off as the main platform for PC gaming. Darnit Google, you failed.
Microsoft with Windows and their consoles have been strangely resistant to supporting higher resolutions for the UI/GUI
With Windows it's been allow windows to shrink the existing or enlarge existing graphics so they look like shit. Total blind spot of having higher resolution versions of reasonable sized icons etc.
Xbox 360 720p UI PS3 1080p in 2006
XBX 1080p PS4 Pro 2160p
XSX 1080p so far.
I suspect it won't remain 1080p for this premium spec console but ultimately it's about the games.
I'd still prefer a nice front door on my stately home in keeping with the rest.
With Windows it's been allow windows to shrink the existing or enlarge existing graphics so they look like shit. Total blind spot of having higher resolution versions of reasonable sized icons etc.
Xbox 360 720p UI PS3 1080p in 2006
XBX 1080p PS4 Pro 2160p
XSX 1080p so far.
I suspect it won't remain 1080p for this premium spec console but ultimately it's about the games.
I'd still prefer a nice front door on my stately home in keeping with the rest.
Last edited:
Come to think of it, I don't think it even had a UI (yes, you are of course joking and I realize that). Not even if you'd turn on the console without a cartridge - I think it just showed a black screen. But it's been so long since I've played on an N64 I could be misremembering.
This thread man...blows my mind. I do wonder how many people who really "care" actually have an xbox or are planning on getting one. This doesn't matter. If UI resolution really mattered, the Switch would be a failure or no one would buy anything but the lite. People like the Switch because it has damn good games. 4k, all of a sudden, is a huge issue. The Switch doesn't even do 4k. The Gameboy killed all other portables and it was in monochrome and had a tiny screen. I went with the PS4 because it had better games not because of the UI (which I hate) or its resolution.
"I want the UI to look crisp! My games are ok blurry though."
Or the complaints of the xbox 1 not focusing on games but on services and tv. Huge deal. MS now makes a decision (in a string of many consumer friendly decisions) that will help developers and the games, and people cry foul an lament the pretty UI elements. Not surprising that bad news threads are the biggest and worst here. Where were these cries of 1080p UI before this news broke? How many even knew? We get a ton of good news about xbox, no one cares about those threads. 1080p UI though, over a 1k posts. Wild.
So many people should be ashamed of themselves. "I go with Sony because they have the bestgames UI". Indeed.
"I want the UI to look crisp! My games are ok blurry though."
Or the complaints of the xbox 1 not focusing on games but on services and tv. Huge deal. MS now makes a decision (in a string of many consumer friendly decisions) that will help developers and the games, and people cry foul an lament the pretty UI elements. Not surprising that bad news threads are the biggest and worst here. Where were these cries of 1080p UI before this news broke? How many even knew? We get a ton of good news about xbox, no one cares about those threads. 1080p UI though, over a 1k posts. Wild.
So many people should be ashamed of themselves. "I go with Sony because they have the best
Geeze, 22 pages. Read a bit during my break at work but that's about it.
Now then. Is it possible that static pictures/themes will be 4k and only the animated wallpaper & themes will be 1080p and upscaled to 4k? This makes much more sense to me than all the UI downgraded to 1080p and static pictures/themes take a hell of a lot less RAM than animated wallpaper & themes. Don't forget, animated themes are using CPU/GPU cycles, which generate heat (not much I would imagine) and, of course, more RAM.
If it is indeed all 1080p, then it tells me that they want it universal between all consoles, which includes users that are staying on Xbox One consoles. Of course, giving an extra 1GB ram to developers to use is a smart idea.
In my honest opinion however, it looks good on my screen right now and it'll still look good when I get my Series X in November.
Now then. Is it possible that static pictures/themes will be 4k and only the animated wallpaper & themes will be 1080p and upscaled to 4k? This makes much more sense to me than all the UI downgraded to 1080p and static pictures/themes take a hell of a lot less RAM than animated wallpaper & themes. Don't forget, animated themes are using CPU/GPU cycles, which generate heat (not much I would imagine) and, of course, more RAM.
If it is indeed all 1080p, then it tells me that they want it universal between all consoles, which includes users that are staying on Xbox One consoles. Of course, giving an extra 1GB ram to developers to use is a smart idea.
In my honest opinion however, it looks good on my screen right now and it'll still look good when I get my Series X in November.
The one thing everyone complaining in this thread have in common lol
It's hard to read your book here. If games look better to sacrifice UI I'm all for it...this much energy into explaining why MS wants to make games look better seems pretty silly to me.
I don't understand it.
I can see, say, 256MiB. That makes some sense, but not 1GiB.
A 4K uncompressed 32bpp render target (enough for 10bit RGB - 10/10/10/2) will be ~ 32MiB. That'll be the biggest memory hog I'd expect, and that's assuming they are rendering the UI to it's own buffer for later composition during scan-out...They maybe double buffer this - which would be ~ 64MiB, but I kinda doubt it. So best case, like 24MiB more than 1080p for the final render, ignoring assets.
I can't imagine the assets being displayed would cumulatively be that much larger than the display resolution, so maybe being charitable you could say an additional 50MiB for higher res thumbnails etc?. That's a lot of pixels, especially if you assume they are properly compressed (BC1 being 8x compression - 4bpp). Maybe they would need a bigger image cache for downloaded images? But surely that'd be all PNG / JPEG data, again, maybe 50MiB?...
Maybe they are doing some extremely complex UI composition, where they allow for multiple layers of UI to be rendered and composited - and bumping the resolution of those by 4x required a huge increase in memory - but this doesn't really look to be the case in their current UI. Maybe one or two extra layers? So another 48MiB extra?. Anything more feels like it'd be quite absurd.
Most console games have quite well optimized render target memory use - aggressively reusing memory etc. I would guess most would use 500MiB to 800MiB of render targets for native 4K rendering. And that's with ultra expensive GBuffers, shadow maps, accumulation buffers, temporal buffers, their own UIs, etc etc. To have a system UI need more than that total just to go from 1080p->4k...
Super bizarre reasoning.
It's probably not that bloated actually, the PS4 Pro did require an extra GB of DDR ram which helped free up some ram for the games and also allowed them to run the ps4 PRO UI at native 4k. So the ram limitations are real but still surprising that this couldn't be partially offloaded in the Series X with it's much faster storage. Surely they could use a small portion of the drive as a virtual memory for the OS to help free up the main memory.
It's not a massive issue but it would be nice to have 4K on your primarily 4K console.
Has MS said anything on this at all?
Has MS said anything on this at all?
clear, crisp UI to look at
I mean don't people buy new shiny consoles to look at UI
It's mostly likely 1080p because the same UI runs on the Xbox One and One X, where as on other platforms there is a clear distinction between their dashboards. Microsoft may eventually get the Series X to 4k and maybe the Series to 1440p but the way they have done it makes it more difficult as the same dashboard needs to support legacy systems.
Unfortunately any next-gen thread about the 'other side' is full of people with no intention of ever buying a PS5/XSX making sure their concerns are heard.
While I have noticed this in games (for example switch FH4 between 4k/1080p), on the dashboard I don't notice anything similar with the text and UI elements there.
I mean, it still does do it. Just a matter of how picky one may be, I suppose. To be honest I haven't noticed an appreciable between any of my devices that have UIs at different resolutions. Playing media, yes, that's a different story. Maybe a little to in the weeds, but Sony's upscaling tech in their TVs is widely known to be the best in the business, so maybe that's helping me?
But I think you're missing the point of my original post. It wasn't about whether or not there is a noticeable difference between a FHD and 4K UI, it was about the best placement of resources.
If you, in a vacuum of knowledge, were offered a 4K UI or an extra 1GB for games, you're saying you would take the UI? To me it sounds crazy, but different strokes and all that, and that's perfectly fine.
I'd rather they push the games, not the UI. Who knows, maybe this was needed to hit those 120hz targets?
- Status