• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is the resolution issue a hardware or developer issue?

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
So, it's 2013, and not all Xbox One and PS4 titles will be locked at 1080p. What the fuck? Really?

What is the problem? Is the hardware just not good enough to handle 1080p eloquently? How can that be? I understand that console boxes are cheaper compared to your typical desktop gaming rig, but a $400-$500 system can't handle 1080p? What the fuck?

Or is it just developers being retarded, running at a lower resolution so they can throw in more particle and lighting effects?
 
aPfdOaBqaZtumblr_liunt5jlth1qdxb1io1_500.jpg
 
Yeh I do not know the overall reason myself, Granted I understand it for the XB1 from a hardware spec level as it would be easier on the cpu to run higher res BUT there is a limited gpu to push the res as well, whereas the ps4 being ~7850 level or so of performance with the same cpu but more/faster ram for both cpu and gpu, well there is not much excuse really.

Hell I have a 7870 and Phenom 955, I can clock the 7870 down to 525 core 600 memory and my 955 at 2.2 on all 4 cores and it can play BF4 50 player high/ultra no AA just fine, I don't care about FPS, I care about smooth, and it does that just fine at 1080p so yeh, not sure why the fuck as you put it :p

Graphical wise XB1 is anything but impressive from what I have seen so far, I am quite sure when the exclusives get tuned the ps4 will blow it out of the water and be just a hair behind the results that many get with an "average" gaming grade system.
 
CPU is clocked low af on PS4/XBOX1 (1.6-1.8 I heard) compared to desktop @ 3.3+GHz stock on avg current desktop CPU. That with most* game engines un-optimized for 6 cores is why imho.
 
In the defense of the consoles, these are first generation games. Look at the first generation games of the 360 and ps3 and compare them to the games that come out today.
 
trick0502 said:
In the defense of the consoles, these are first generation games. Look at the first generation games of the 360 and ps3 and compare them to the games that come out today.
Click to expand...

Yeah it will* get better, but only when dev's move their cute little booty's.
 
teletran8 said:
CPU is clocked low af on PS4/XBOX1 (1.6-1.8 I heard) compared to desktop @ 3.3+GHz stock on avg current desktop CPU. That with most* game engines un-optimized for 6 cores is why imho.
Click to expand...

I never really got the point of this as you need cpu power for poly setup and etc....
 
Megalith said:
What is the problem? Is the hardware just not good enough to handle 1080p eloquently? How can that be? I understand that console boxes are cheaper compared to your typical desktop gaming rig, but a $400-$500 system can't handle 1080p? What the fuck?
Click to expand...
The answer is both.

A 32-bit color 1080p frame can fit within 32MB of eSRAM (barely) but that doesn't leave much room for anything else.

I think 720p and 1080p 30 FPS games on the One and PS4 are going to look similar. 1080p 60FPS games are going to look better on PS4.
 
Last edited:
trick0502 said:
In the defense of the consoles, these are first generation games. Look at the first generation games of the 360 and ps3 and compare them to the games that come out today.
Click to expand...

However the new gen is a very familiar x86, more or less a glorified pc. There is not that much learn nor hidden potential to unlock like Cell of Ps3 had.
 
there is also the power consumption to take into account while these may not be very powerful PS4 certainly has the advantage, they are doing it with not much required power for given performance somewhere in the 150-185w range tops (so I have heard) take a desktop system say a Haswell chip and a Radeon 7750 or GTX650 and run 1080p at good settings, it will have an edge of course but it will not have a massive advantage.

Like AMD APU are they wicked powerful, no, are they very good performance for the power they are using and the results given, hell yes. You cannot compare this generation of console with current generation of computers that GAMERS use, the average system vs these, they are more powerful not less and for the price they are actually decent spec wise.

Power supply
GPU
CPU
RAM
Motherboard
OS
Case etc it adds up be nearly the same price but with a gain in flexibility.

So yes they could have done more, however, because it is x86/x64 type there are numerous tricks they can do to get more out of it then say PS3 could as it was very limited in many ways, these do not have near the same limitations, even if they are not stupid cutting edge, they don't need to be, alas I think XB1 focused far to much on media crap that most don't bother using instead of on the games which consoles were made for.
 
Developers. End of story. Launch titles are always on a strict deadline and rushed out.
 
With the XBoxOne, you are limited by the hardware so it will take a little time before the good developers get their act together on this system
 
It's both at the moment but it has a bottle neck where it is impossible to do 1080p/60 with differed rendering without running out of assets/memory. 32MB is simply not enough memory to handle that type of output.

That's the big problem right now, even after developers learn how to use it it's still limited at what it's capable of doing.

The XBone should still be able to pull off great looking games but it's just not going to live up to the same standards of the PS4 and what Naughty Dog or Sony Santa Monica will be delivering.
 
If a developer wants to use 30FPS, I think the Xbox One can look similar to PS4. They can use the DDR3 for a much larger frame buffer with all the GPU bells and whistles.

You need GDDR5 or eSRAM to get 60FPS. 1080p in 32MB eSRAM means your probably not going to have a lot of graphic extras.
 
Last edited:
Megalith said:
So, it's 2013, and not all Xbox One and PS4 titles will be locked at 1080p. What the fuck? Really?

What is the problem? Is the hardware just not good enough to handle 1080p eloquently? How can that be? I understand that console boxes are cheaper compared to your typical desktop gaming rig, but a $400-$500 system can't handle 1080p? What the fuck?

Or is it just developers being retarded, running at a lower resolution so they can throw in more particle and lighting effects?
Click to expand...

The problem lies with most people creating these threads and not understanding a damn thing about development. :rolleyes:
 
this was already explained by the Nvidia developer who created FXAA. The problem is the esram and deferred lighting.

if you use older more obselete lighting technigues like forza you can achieve 1080P. however with more advance lighting technigues there is just not enough esram to mantain 1080P resolution.

it's purely a harware limitation., not a developer one.
 
A couple of things come into play:

1) How optimized is the development software and OS from Sony/Microsoft
2) Developer engine/game optimization
3) The hardware

Unfortunately launch games are primarily effected by 1 and 2. The better hardware on the PS4 is what's allowing for slightly better graphics on launch titles.
 
Last edited:
Megalith said:
So, it's 2013, and not all Xbox One and PS4 titles will be locked at 1080p. What the fuck? Really?

What is the problem? Is the hardware just not good enough to handle 1080p eloquently? How can that be? I understand that console boxes are cheaper compared to your typical desktop gaming rig, but a $400-$500 system can't handle 1080p? What the fuck?

Or is it just developers being retarded, running at a lower resolution so they can throw in more particle and lighting effects?
Click to expand...



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-5.html


So a 150 dollar video card can't get 60fps on low settings BF4 and NOT 1080p. Yet you expect a 400 dollar console to do it?


Please jam a pencil in your eye, kthx.
 
What kind of AA do games typically use, anyway? Could 1080p be easily done on the upcoming consoles if developers were to leave AA off?
 
Megalith said:
What kind of AA do games typically use, anyway? Could 1080p be easily done on the upcoming consoles if developers were to leave AA off?
Click to expand...

Even with no AA The One can't really achieve 1080p 60 with deferred rendering, having the frame buffer divided between the eSRAM and the DDR3 ram would slow it all to the lowest denominator, they will have to try some form of tiled rendering (different than tiled resources), and even then it doesn't seem to be working, otherwise you would have seen it somehow with CoD or KI, games that were developed with heavy and constant help from MS.

AA they should use SMAA, the best looking shader based AA for the performance hit (usually negligible).

Forza is the exception on The One because it seems to use forward rendering, an old rendering technique that is awesome if you do not use dynamic lights, which for a racer you may not need to. If you want to use dynamic lights then it is deferred rendering or bust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top