-
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.
Phil Spencer about next Xbox: The "next thing" is framerate, CPU/GPU balance is out of whack
- Thread starter Gemüsepizza
- Start date
It's not just about frame rate, but about the overall complexity of game worlds - physics, AI, etc. Digital Foundry did a video on this a few months ago.
The current Jaguar CPUs in the PS4/Xbox One are a complete joke, and the types of games that developers have been able to build using these chips are amazing. So just imagine what devs could do if they're working with modern Ryzen chips.
The current Jaguar CPUs in the PS4/Xbox One are a complete joke, and the types of games that developers have been able to build using these chips are amazing. So just imagine what devs could do if they're working with modern Ryzen chips.
Yup up the PSU, up the cpu, even ryzen 3g 2200g is a decent 3.5ghz quad core and only $99 retail.
The PS4 was the best possible console that could've been released in 2013. It was $100 cheaper and 50% more powerful than its nearest competitor.
I'm not an Xbox player but man Phil seems like such a good pick to run that operation. I know manufacturers have been talking CPUs lately (I remember Miyamoto bringing it up, for example) so this isn't some revelation he's making, but almost every time I read or see something from him he sounds like he has a good vision for Xbox and genuinely cares about its core audience.
I didn't buy an Xbox until the X but was base PS4 really 50% more powerful than base Xbox One? I remember a lot of games were 900p instead of 1080p but 50% sound incredibly significant to the point where multiplats would have had a hard time coming out on both.
The $100 is hard to justify from a marketing standpoint, games would have looked similar in trailers. But the weak CPU had an effect on the games, with so many of them being 30fps.
Last edited:
I think I read that thread, the consensus was that the X doesn't beat the 1060 because if you emulated the lowered and lack of settings and how it does 4k (checkerboard not native?).
Forza is 60. Halo is 60. Gears is 60.
Cod, titanfall, bf, fifa etc are all 60 too.
Point is, even in unbalanced environments there are ways to meet your goals.
That being said, I'm 100% certain that the next xbox is going to be bonkers, a return to top form.
Scorpio is a proof of concept for that.
Cod, titanfall, bf, fifa etc are all 60 too.
Point is, even in unbalanced environments there are ways to meet your goals.
That being said, I'm 100% certain that the next xbox is going to be bonkers, a return to top form.
Scorpio is a proof of concept for that.
Uh, both consoles use the same CPU because there wasn't anything else available.
It came at a price, though. The One X is a better box than the PS4 Pro but for $100 more you'd expect that it would. Would MS be willing to start a new generation at a $100 disadvantage again?
You just answered your own question. The Xbox One was weaker and $100 more. The next Xbox will at least be at parity with PS5 likely superior in power thus justifying the price. The Xbox One price issues came down to more than just power.
Core market says "yes please"
Casual "luxury"-type market will also pay the premium price for premium quality h\w. I can hear my ps4 even when I'm watching Netflix in bedroom. In comparison it has become a nuisance.
But I don't think that ms will leave a price handicap of 100 to Sony. Not unless there is a very significant power advantage day1 next gen.
Yeah they both wanted to get the price down.
No one questioned it at the time, because it was next gen and cheaper than previous gen launch.
Also disagree with there being no cpus being available at the time, it would just have costed more.
That's the same thing. If a component is too costly then it's not going to be used. That's why Xbox One X still uses Jaguar.
No offense, but I hope no console manufacturer EVER listens to you. EVER.
"Power of the cloud 2.0"? then mandate a locked 60fps mode (1080/1440p)
It's a bit of both really. Yes devs push the graphics to make games look great at 30fps or cut back on graphics to hit 60fps because the CPU / GPU are not balanced (GPU much stronger than the slow Jaguar CPU)
Ryzen is vastly faster and more efficient than Jaguar and will bring the CPU much more in line with the GPU power, so developers can push the graphics but still deliver 60fps, just like they can on PC.
We have already seen the start of this with the Pro and X, as the CPU improvements allowed some games, like the fantastic looking God of War, to have a 60fps mode. It's not perfect because the old Jaguar is being really pushed but it's close and Ryzen should be able to do it much better.
I could easily see games running Native 4k/30fps and Checkerboard 1600p-1800p/60fps or something like that anyway.
Last edited:
I fully understand your POV and unfortunately I have to agree unless we go back to the basics of Japanese development: first the engine, then decorations
I remember gaming on the OG Xbox: there wasn't a single western game with a smooth framerate. Too busy putting bump mapping and post processing effects everywhere
That said who knows? Modern gamers are less sensitive to special-fx nowadays and maybe framerate will truly be a priority soon
The GPU was 50% more powerful. They both had 8GB of memory (though PS5 had GDDR5 vs Xbox's 8GB DDR3 with a small amount of ESRAM) and similar CPUs (I believe the Xbox actually had a slight clockspeed advantage here). They could run the same games at roughly the same performance taking into account a resolution detriment on the Xbox due to the weaker GPU.
If I remember correctly it is around 40% difference around the same between the pro and the X but in favour of the X this time.
Well, how the CPU is used is not up to the console manufacturer. Unless they issue a requirement for a certain framerate beyond 30hz, which I hope they don't do.
Devs will use the hardware in whatever way they see fit for their game and what they believe the audience wants. Some devs like Insomniac did quite a bit of market research around framerate vs other things, and what players prioritise. At the time it led them to target 30hz. Maybe that will change, maybe market demand is leading and will lead to more 60fps targets. But devs should have that flexibility.
If Sony and MS launch around the same time, at similar margins, they should be similarly powerful. In multiplats, probably some would do better on one system, some on the other.
I don't think a similarly powerful competing system would stop MS from trying to take that line ("the worlds most powerful console") in their marketing material. They tried to do it even when they had a pretty significant performance deficit in the past.
If both systems are 'up there' next to each other, probably both will lay claim in their marketing materials with their own tag lines and their own justifications.
Last edited:
Well Gears 4 is kinda 60 in SP on X, but it seems that Gears 5 is going in the somewhat open world direction, so with 6 i would imagine they would want to expand on that, so better CPU In Scarlet will let them go nuts without cutting corners for 60, more enemies on screen, better Ai etc. Just hitting 60 now requires a lot of compromising, as you kinda said.
Yes all games need to have 60fps, 60fps means better controls and better gameplay.
Probably yes.. I also feel like the MS engineering team is a bit better, so they can probably squeeze out a bit more.
That being said... a difference of 10-20% isn't significant, nobody is really going to notice that (except some extreme DF videos). If one party really wants a more powerful console, they will have to aim for a 40-50% power difference IMHO (just like PS4 -> X1 and X1X -> Pro). This won't be easy, a serious financial hit might be necessary. MS has the money, but will they allow Phil to spend it?
Regarding Insomniac specifically, they have said here on ResetEra (Q&ERA) how we shouldn't hold them to that statement today (10 years later): https://www.resetera.com/threads/q-...-overdrive-spyro-and-more.33176/#post-6202285
I don't know why people are arguing about framerate vs simulation complexity. A Ryzen CPU will be powerful enough to do both even at console clocks. They have plenty of headroom above 60fps when benchmarking games on PC without a GPU bottleneck.
They could release 2 consoles. One as cheap as possible for the masses and one more expensive to have the most powerful console.
Yeah, and I'm glad they have the flexibility to fit their product to market if trends shift. Obviously a platform holder should have some minimum standards...but beyond 30hz (for example), as a technical requirement, would be a bit invasive I think.
I know most people aren't advocating for a hard requirement though.
I think that's Nintendo machines. Pretty sure they 360 was sold out a loss
Yes but that's hardly an engineering miracle but Sony got lucky with the dram market.
If Xbox is able to produce a console that runs smoother compared to PlayStation, I would change back over instantly. Framerate is so important to me and 30fps isn't cutting it anymore.
