I'm positive Brown Intruder was being facetious. MilesQ on the other hand, I'm no so sure.
-
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.
DigitalFoundry: Hitman on Xbox One X: The Complete Tech Analysis
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
The hard part of the whole FP16 stuff is that nobody is really using it and by the time people latch onto the benefits, we are already into a next Gen. Do we have any titles that prove FP16 is worth it?
Also, Hitman is certainly CPU constrained, so a theoretical 8.4Tf is not really going to sort out that issues.
Similar to base ps4 vs ps4 pro. Im really struggling to see the difference visually with these games. Besides zooming on textures.
Framerate is a different story, big gap, im a big fan of higher framerates. Not sure why ppl are acting surprised tho. X should win these. Its not like DFs in the past (ps3 vs 360 or sometimes ps4 vs xbox) where it could go either way.
Framerate is a different story, big gap, im a big fan of higher framerates. Not sure why ppl are acting surprised tho. X should win these. Its not like DFs in the past (ps3 vs 360 or sometimes ps4 vs xbox) where it could go either way.
Because it's more close to an RX 480 specs than an RX 580 in more than an aspect. Especially considered the sleek dimension of the APU on X. An 'older' gpu it's more easy to decrease in size than a new one released. By the way I'm not sure why it seems almost outraging claim the X has an RX 480 with some rearrangement on it. I don't think to have said something of shocking. If I'm not wrong the same DF hypothesised about it but some of the final specs are a bit vague (the gpu name, for example, probably for marketing reasons.)
Last edited:
Funny that you mention that, I was just thinking if those strange artifacts in AC Origins might be a result of FP16.
Half precision floats are a very old technique on PC. They're best thought of as a micro-optimization. (More on this in a moment.) You sacrifice precision in exchange for better performance, but this has limited uses. Far Cry and Half-Life 2 both supported FP16 on FX series GPUs.
Basically, FP16 allows you to trade quality for performance on certain tasks where the quality loss is deemed acceptable. When people talk about 30% performance increases, they're talking about doing a single task 30% faster. Suppose you are a photographer who takes a lot of pictures. You spend 10 seconds photoshopping and then you save with JPG. (IIRC, JPG compression can be done with half precision floats.) This means you can save the file in... let's say 0.6 seconds instead of 1 second. On paper, you just got a "40% performance improvement!" In reality, it still takes 10.6 seconds to accomplish the task instead of 11 seconds. You haven't reduced the time to complete this entire task from 11 seconds to 5 seconds. You've simply sped up a small part in exchange for a quality hit. That's the basic conceptual problem here. Float precision is kind of important. You can't just run around making a game's graphics worse trying to claw better performance.
The good thing about the PS4 Pro taking such a thorough drubbing on DF just lately is that Sony might actually start putting some effort in the Pro now. System is a designed to run 1080p games at 2160c and yet most fall well short of that because there's been so little push behind the console since it launched.
It's a 2K machine by design, but by design that is supposed to converted in 4K via checkboarding. What's sad is how few games have actually bothered to do that. Even bloody ND couldn't be bothered.
It's a 2K machine by design, but by design that is supposed to converted in 4K via checkboarding. What's sad is how few games have actually bothered to do that. Even bloody ND couldn't be bothered.
Yeah, that's Sony's problem here, devs aren't using checkerboarding like Sony said they would - instead, the power is been used 'as is' which is what we're seeing over and over.
I'm not sure how much work Sony have put in to help developers use the technique, but it's clearly too expensive, or time consuming to put into use by third parties. First parties will use it fine, but I can't see what they can do to convince third parties it's worth doing other than throw money and help at the problem - and Sony don't seem too interested in doing that. I expect they're putting the resources into gearing up for next gen, and the Pro is going to continue to be underutilised.
Both the RX 480 and 580 only have 36 CUs as well as lower bandwidth compared to the X1X GPU. The X1X has 40 active CUs (it actually has 44 but 4 are disabled for yields on the retail units) but the 1X GPU is clocked lower than stock 480/580, so if anything, its GPU would be equivalent to an underclocked RX 490/590 if that existed rather than 480/580.
What you said not has much sense. CUs number are not tied to the gpu origin. Neither the bandwidth.
In these dark times of internet, trolling could still an art. Hat's off to you sir.
Ahh so you are being facetious then, you almost got us for a moment earlier :)
I really doubt Sony care that the X is winning all the comparison's on Digital Foundry. It is of absolutely no significance to them. They've lost it as a checkmark bragging rights thing but not exactly terminal.
MS learned their lesson from the XB1 and made the X in consultation with devs, so I suspect have won more favour when it comes to putting in effort on upgrades. It also appears an easier system to work with then the Pro as again MS have learned from their XB1 debacle.
If it's possible, the best solution would be a a system level implementation. So that any game outputting at 1080p (which is better than 95% of them), is automatically re-rendered at 1920x2160 and checkerboarded out to 4K. I suspect however, that it's not quite as simple as that and doing so could see some pretty ugly results... that said, if it had at least decent result in the majority of cases (with the occasional car crash), I'd think - like boost mode - it'd be worth doing.
This is amazing.
That frame rate :O
Oh and that Hitman thing is pretty alright too, I guess. =P
If IOI can do it, everyone else could do it too. Hitman's world simulation is rather complex and it's rather funny seeing it running at 60+ fps on a Jaguar while others struggle to reach 30 in titles with way less world simulation and people somehow just assume that it's due to CPU being weak. Hitman's results between Pro and X running unlocked with Pro being roughly 30% behind X is also interesting since this is rather close to what you'd expect to see in a purely GPU limited scenario.
How do you arrive to 8.4tflops providing 30 percent performance gains?
There's no way it's getting that kind of leap in framerate from the small bump in specs the X CPU has over the Pro. The game was probably always GPU limited and with an extra 40% power you see the massive framerate jump.
Overall this is a great patch!
This is the main issue with Pro games. The GPU can run games at 1440p which is then supposed to be Checker Board Rendered up to 2160p (DF themselves say this is very close to native 4k from normal viewing distances). Most developers even Sony first parties are completely ignoring it so you end up with 1440p native games then upscaled to 4k and on giant HDTV's you can see upscaling artifacting on certain games like Battlefront 2's explosions which look blocky and pixilated.
Sorry for dp.
I think IOI's crowd system has a weakness that is disguised by the nature of the game. And that weakness is the fact most NPCs don't have full fledged AI. If you wanted every NPC in the game to be capable of attacking Agent 47 at the same time, the system would fall apart. Their crowd tech is designed to present a convincing flock of NPCs that react convincingly to the environment. The AI is very "dumb" in a sense. Intentionally so, because when a bald man with a gun walks in, people just run in a random direction and scream, and this is way less computationally expensive than trying to get 30+ NPCs to fight the player. This is where stuff like Dead Rising 3's immense crowds of zombies that are an actual threat to the player and chase the player are... problematic.
On one hand, their solution is fantastic and TBH it puts Ubisoft to shame. Ubisoft have taken the wrong approach to generic crowd simulation for their urban games. A brute force approach. Although it's not deeply technical, I found this interesting reading. https://www.pcauthority.com.au/feature/hitman-absolution-crowd-technology-exposed-311452
Is there any game that uses it so we could see how it performs?
Honest question, I have no idea. I'm not even sure what FP16 is
Edit: looks like I fell for it haha. My question still stands though
I hope that next gen we can have cities with as many NPC's as AC Unity did without the pop in but with that same fidelity of real time, dynamic lighting all at native 4k. There are many open World games this gen but most of them (especially the ones set in cities) feel very empty NPC wise compared to Unity - Infamous Second Son, Batman: Arkham Knight, Watch Dogs 1 & 2 and AC Syndicate all spring to mind for example.
Your comment makes no sense since my last paragraph is actually in regards to the ps3 situation and answers your question :). Not to mention ps3 offered way more than Xbox at the time, blue ray technology being super expensive at the time. Not to mention latest in surround sound, full 3d capability, etc and ohhhhh first party games literally passed the graphics benchmark mantle to eachother on ps3 from God of war, to killzone2, to uncharted, to last of us, nothing on Xbox was touching ps3 exclusives in terms of graphics. The tech sites were all reinforcing this. So yes ps3 came a year after, didn't suffer from massive rrod, had blue ray Nd bunch of advanced features Xbox didn't have and was more powerful.
I Like how you respond but don't put effort into it or mention the fact that the only thing Xbox 360 had over ps3 was more online features and some better performing multiplats but only because devs didn't know how to optimize for the cell.
I'll probably double dip once the game's on sale. I liked what I played on PS4.
Some secret sauce the Pro is supposed to have.
Not really, it could be useful for so part of the render pipeline (post process effects, and many more). But it has been inflated by some people from "the old place", to extreme.
It's half-precision floating point format, it's advantage is that it requires half the storage/bandwidth as the "full" FP32. FP refers to Floating-point data type. In terms of the PS4 Pro, it could "bundle" two FP16 numbers into one FP32 "container", so it does not waste GPU cycles. Which could provide, in same areas, mainly bandwidth limited, an advantage. AMD calls it Rapid Packed Math and it's part of the Vega family of GPUs and PS4 Pro GPU. Maybe it's somewhere else, but I am not sure right now.
And FP16 is less precise than FP32, which could leads to an artifacts, color banding and stuff like that, many cellphone games uses it through and you can see those impreciseness in action.
Not according to Codemasters:
Full article: https://blog.eu.playstation.com/201...ro-f1-2017-agents-of-mayhem-and-sine-mora-ex/
Your points are not valid. PS3 was more expensive and didn't have more to offer, relative to gaming. The exclusives started to roll post 2008 (2 years after PS3 was on the market), the Multi-plats were much worse on PS3 and only late-gen did the multiplats balance out, and the PS3's firmware was barebones compared to the 360 for a long time.
So it's cool and all that PS3 had all these nice features under the hood, but if it had an insignificant impact on the gaming experience, it was just a box to tick for fanboys.
What I said would make sense if you actually knew what you were talking about. What do you think is the difference between a 570 and a 580? Hint: a 570 is basically a cut-down 580, meaning it has fewer CUs. Do you know what the difference between a 480 and a 580? Pretty much an updated 480 with nothing other than higher base clocks and a few tweaks to the boards. Both the 480 and 580 have the same number of CUs. The same goes for the 470/570.
In short, if AMD were to release a Polaris chip with 40 or 44 CUs it would most likely be called an RX 590. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about any of this. It doesn't really matter whether the X1X GPU is based on the 400 or 500 Polaris series as both are pretty much identical in terms of features.
lol I know what it is, champ. Just trying to be snarky and funny for the sake of it. I also know that it hasn't been put to good use, if Wolfenstein 2 is anything to go by.
We actually know the 1440p mode is not limited by the CPU (or at least not completely). In really CPU limited scenes, the game should perform almost exactly the same on both machines. This is the case of many gameplay scenes of games running on both machines: FF15 and Tomb Raider running at 1080p in the unlocked mode.
There is a major difference in the year later/$100 more argument when looking at the PS3/360...
The architecture was insanely different between the two consoles...AND the PS3 shipped with a Bluray drive...stand alone BD players were selling for over $900 when the PS3 launched!
And, while the PS3 lost out in multiplatform comparisons, I think it's safe to say that the overall better looking games came out on the PS3...I don't think any 360 games even matched Killzone, let alone Uncharted or TLoU...
The XboneX and PS4 Pro have strikingly similar architecture...same CPU family, same GPU family, same type of RAM, and in the same configurations...
The PS4 pro was a very conservative evolution of the existing PS4, that was very obviously designed to hit a certain pricepoint....MS made much more drastic changes, and is giving you a box for $100 more...
Do I as an enthusiast wish Sony went that route? I would have paid the extra money certainly, but they had different plans for the pro, than MS seems to have with the X...
PS5 vs Xbone2 will be very interesting considering potential time frames for release...Sony obviously doesn't want MS to have such a clear hardware advantage for too long...so when does the PS5 hit?...how long does MS wait to respond?...
I would think the chances of the PS5 and Xbone2 launching at the same time are slim at this point, unless MS doesn't care about the life span of the XboneX
I think the next Xbox and PS will hit at the same time. I'm not seeing no reason why they wouldn't.
Wow, well said. It is nice to see a well written post based on reality. Sony would be selling FP16 more themselves at this point with the release of the X if it was meaningful in the real world.
All depends on sales. If there's no appreciable dent made by x there's no reason for Sony to overreact as much as it "hurts" some PS4 owners that x is slapping them around in these comparisons now lol.
So you think X buyers would be cool with their console being obsolete in 2-3 years? I'm just throwing that out there...
I don't think the X will have any more of a sales inpact than the Pro did...which is not much...
My point exactly with your frivolous, sarcastic responses, with no merit :)
Enjoy your day bro, it's not tht serious. We all can't be right all the time;)
