• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

JareBear
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:08 AM)
JareBear's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

More like MS contradicting themselves.

So? What's your point? You seem to have an agenda of some sort.
Maintenance
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:08 AM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by Musky_Cheese

Can someone tell me which statement is true before I stick my head back in the sand

It's Microsoft.

Both and neither are true.
ViciousDS
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:10 AM)
ViciousDS's Avatar

Originally Posted by JareBear

So? What's your point? You seem to have an agenda of some sort.

and so do you lol, everyone here does. To comment on whats at hand.


But it looks like we have contradicting microsoft again......one where they say one thing and completely swing again the other way.


Now what happens this E3 if they say FPS is parity for multiplayer.....you going to be upset that they swung yet again?
bourgeois
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:10 AM)
bourgeois's Avatar

Originally Posted by JareBear

I love my Pro but man MS is kicking Sony's ass with their handling of Scorpio vs Sony's handling of Pro.

Sony have underplayed the Pro for a reason - they want the focus to remain on the bread and butter PS4 until it's perceived as being past it. This limits vanilla owners from disengaging from their systems, and ensures the base model isn't seen as yesterday's hero. MS on the other hand are trying to reboot the brand with the Scorpio. Very different tactics despite similar design philosophy.
Last edited by bourgeois; 05-20-2017 at 01:12 AM.
Boke1879
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:11 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by JareBear

So? What's your point? You seem to have an agenda of some sort.

I have no agenda. But MS has done this before. His new statement is just saying they are giving devs the freedom to do what they want. That does contradict what they've said before.

That said people are having some unrealistic expectations of these boxes. I think people hoping to God for 60fps should temper expectations.
Darryl M R
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:13 AM)
Darryl M R's Avatar
So we are just now passing the point where 4k/30fps is achievable and expected. I wonder if the next generation/refresh will launch us closer to 4k/60fps. Bummed that Scorpio and PS4 Pro are still held back by their CPUs.

Originally Posted by JareBear

So? What's your point? You seem to have an agenda of some sort.

Last edited by Darryl M R; 05-20-2017 at 01:15 AM.
GinoFelino
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:15 AM)
GinoFelino's Avatar

Originally Posted by JareBear

So? What's your point? You seem to have an agenda of some sort.

Posts about agendas apropos of nothing. Just wonderful.

What world do these people inhabit and when is Louis Theroux making a documentary about them
Boke1879
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:19 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar
I'm also just shocked this thread and this topic is such a hot topic. Because at the end of it all. It just doesn't matter.

If FPS was truly that important to you. You should have been built a PC.
Turbo Killer
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:22 AM)
Turbo Killer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

I'm also just shocked this thread and this topic is such a hot topic. Because at the end of it all. It just doesn't matter.

If FPS was truly that important to you. You should have been built a PC.

Exactly, most people will play where their friends or the community is bigger, frame rates mean jack.
GinoFelino
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:22 AM)
GinoFelino's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

I'm also just shocked this thread and this topic is such a hot topic. Because at the end of it all. It just doesn't matter.

If FPS was truly that important to you. You should have been built a PC.

All I know is Destiny 1 still feels fantastic to play, and is easily as responsive as, say, Battlefield 1 with its higher framerate.
specdot
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:24 AM)

Originally Posted by GinoFelino

All I know is Destiny 1 still feels fantastic to play, and is easily as responsive as, say, Battlefield 1 with its higher framerate.

This is all that really needs to be said. The game plays so well.
Boke1879
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:28 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by GinoFelino

All I know is Destiny 1 still feels fantastic to play, and is easily as responsive as, say, Battlefield 1 with its higher framerate.

It feels great to play and is fun to play.

I just feel people are jumping back to the start of the gen when people kept citing resolution and frames just to fuel petty fanboy wars. Because at the end of the day millions of people just won't care.

It's not going to change the game or make it any more fun to play. Again. Should have been built a PC is this issue is a priority.
bourgeois
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:29 AM)
bourgeois's Avatar

Originally Posted by GinoFelino

All I know is Destiny 1 still feels fantastic to play, and is easily as responsive as, say, Battlefield 1 with its higher framerate.

BF1 got lumped with look acceleration/retardation at launch. If set to zero, you'll find it a whole lot more responsive than Destiny.

Wheatly
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:32 AM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Somnia

https://twitter.com/XboxQwik/status/865714152118992896

He just confirmed no FPS parity requirement in multiplayer also to make it clear.

If true, will Xbox1 and Xbox Scorpio multiplayer servers be separated? It would be pretty unfair otherwise.
Darryl M R
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:36 AM)
Darryl M R's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wheatly

If true, will Xbox1 and Xbox Scorpio multiplayer servers be separated? It would be pretty unfair otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a PC gamer but isn't it unfair for people that play on PC?

If so, maybe console developers and gamers should stop worrying about this topic if we want generation refreshes to be worthwhile.
Wheatly
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:37 AM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a PC gamer but isn't it unfair for people that play on PC?

If so, maybe console developers and gamers should stop worrying about this topic if we want generation refreshes to be worthwhile.

Not really

You have the option of tweaking resolution and graphical settings to optimize performance if you so choose. It's just been a given with PC gaming.
Darryl M R
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:40 AM)
Darryl M R's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wheatly

Not really

You have the option of tweaking resolution and graphical settings to optimize performance if you so choose. It's just been a given with PC gaming.

I'm confused how you can respond "Not really" to my post especially with your follow up sentence.

Couldn't there be a person that can only run 45fps regardless of their tweaking and there is someone that can run 120fps with everything on ultra?

It's a given with PC, but that doesn't mean consoles should not be willing to deal with the same situation if we want there to be meaningful differences between console refreshes.
bourgeois
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:45 AM)
bourgeois's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

but that doesn't mean consoles should not be willing to deal with the same situation if we want there to be meaningful differences between console refreshes.

Think of the "meaningful difference" between the PS3 and the PS4 and there's your answer on how Bungie feel about this particular issue. If ever there was a chance to go 60fps it was when Destiny was still bound to an ancient platform.
MrBenchmark
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:48 AM)
MrBenchmark's Avatar
What xboxqwik said was right in about them not limiting anything it's up to the developers.

And what Bungie is saying about limiting to 30 because of CPU may not even be because of the pro or Scorpio it might just be them setting this because of OG PS4 and Xbox one. We don't know for sure and Bungie isn't going to tell us for sure especially if it has anything to do with the Sony deal they aren't gonna piss on that.

Either way I may play on PS4 Pro but I'm definitely playing on Scorpio no question as even if there is a forced parity it will still perform better in some shape or form based on how even Destiny 1 performs on my Pro vs Xbox one S and that just with basic hardware superiority and no software tweaks from Bungie.
hanspampel
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:51 AM)
hanspampel's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wheatly

If true, will Xbox1 and Xbox Scorpio multiplayer servers be separated? It would be pretty unfair otherwise.

No they won't and bn it will not be unfair.
Or is it unfair that ps4 has a higher resolution and more details?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:54 AM)
CassidyIzABeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wheatly

If true, will Xbox1 and Xbox Scorpio multiplayer servers be separated? It would be pretty unfair otherwise.

Internet connection determines more than a framerate difference ever will.
Darryl M R
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:56 AM)
Darryl M R's Avatar

Originally Posted by bourgeois

Think of the "meaningful difference" between the PS3 and the PS4 and there's your answer on how Bungie feel about this particular issue. If ever there was a chance to go 60fps it was when Destiny was still bound to an ancient platform.

I agree with you that if you look back that writing was on the wall with Bungie.

But that doesn't really argue that it is unfair to have differences in framerates for different console refreshes. I would hope that once a big enough game takes the plunge it can be industry standard. This isn't to say I care a lot about framerates because I know the hot take response to that is to get a PC. But I believe when possible consoles should be pushed to their limits if we are going to embrace mid cycle refreshes.
thelastword
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:56 AM)
thelastword's Avatar

Originally Posted by Somnia

https://twitter.com/XboxQwik/status/865714152118992896

He just confirmed no FPS parity requirement in multiplayer also to make it clear.

Queue back the discussion and interviews where Phil Spencer said that XB1 owners would not be left behind......

Hell, I'd love for the Scorpio version of Destiny 2 to be 60fps, just to hear what the Jaguar slayers will say then....? Will it be that special DX12 hardware sauce or the refinements Leadbetter spoke about on the unveil?
MrBenchmark
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:58 AM)
MrBenchmark's Avatar

Originally Posted by thelastword

Queue back the discussion and interviews where Phil Spencer said that XB1 owners would not be left behind......

Hell, I'd love for the Scorpio version of Destiny 2 to be 60fps, just to hear what the Jaguar slayers will say then....? Will it be that special DX12 hardware sauce or the refinements Leadbetter spoke about on the unveil?

If the game still plays on your Xbox you haven't been left behind. Parity isn't required for that to be true.
tapantaola
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:58 AM)

Originally Posted by THE:MILKMAN

How confident can we be that the PS5/Xbox Next won't suffer a similar problem with the CPU?

Sure I don't think it will be quite as bad as Jaguar by default but I'm fairly sure they will get 8 core (or more) Ryzen Mobile cores and combined with a 10-15TF GPU will see similar issues?

I've posted my thoughts here:

http://neogaf.site/forum/showpost...&postcount=552

If people expect Zen Mobile (with a 10W power envelope <-- tablet/laptop-esque TDP) to be a powerhouse in 2020+, they're in for a rude awakening. :)

Granted, it will be a better uArch than the Jaguar (just like Jaguar's uArch is better than the outdated PPE cores found in PS3/XBOX 360), but that's it. It will be no match compared to the desktop variant.

Originally Posted by Costia

He is talking about GPGPU.
I think the implication is that if physics and AI running on CPU is the problem, and they have spare GPU power, they could port some of the heavy AI/physics code to the GPU/
But this isn't a trivial task, and you cant do that on xbone. So you will have 2 different versions of the game. One with CPU physics/AI and one with a GPU implementation.

Not true. XBOX ONE is GPGPU-capable. And no, you don't need 2 versions. Deck 13 is a smaller studio and they managed to pull this off:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...surge-face-off

Pretty huge jump compared to Lords of the Fallen (a CPU-centric game that could only reach 60 fps on PCs).

Originally Posted by THE:MILKMAN

The point I'm trying to make here is that even if the CPU gets boosted by say 3X the GPU will be boosted by 6-8X (over PS4) leading to similar CPU limited issues.

Consoles have been GPU-centric for a long time, since the GameCube era at least. Hardware designers allocate more transistors to the GPU than the CPU for a reason.

Originally Posted by THE:MILKMAN

Maybe the answer could be a return to special dedicated chips to get around APU limitations!?

The APU paradigm is here to stay for consoles. We're not going back to discrete chips.

Originally Posted by SapientWolf

That paradigm doesn't work well for branch heavy code, which is going to be the vast majority of the logic in a game. It's mostly used for things like particles and physics.

Particles, physics and AI pathfinding don't require branchy code AFAIK. We're talking about parallel/SIMD algorithms.

FYI, PS3/XBOX 360 CPUs were crap at executing branchy code. Yes, they were crappier than Jaguar. Too bad many people confuse that with flops.

Originally Posted by Risk Breaker

I mean, BF1 runs at 55-60 on PS4P with 64 players and just as many physics, not to mention dynamic destruction. Wut.

They offload physics/destruction calculations to the GPU, that's why. And they do it on both consoles (PS4/XB1).

Regarding Bungie, it's understandable if the deadline/stock situation is that bad, but I would expect something better in a sequel that isn't hamstrung by last-gen consoles like Destiny 1 did. Destiny 2 is going to sell a lot, so maybe they could offer a patch down the way.

Last but not least, don't forget that Nintendo has a lot of 60 fps games with much weaker hardware than the OG PS4/XB1. It's all a matter of priorities at the end of the day.
SillyNonsense
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:02 AM)
SillyNonsense's Avatar

Originally Posted by Piggus

Originally Posted by SillyNonsense

I see other games pulling off more impressive results at higher framerates even in large areas with a lot of players and AI, so I'm not all that thrilled about this reply. Especially considering that even 4v4 multiplayer in limited arenas is locked to 30. I'm thinking they're still using a lot of old code from D1.

I'd like it if the game had a 4k/30 or 1080/60 option for Pro users in 'campaign.' Multi should just be 60 for all regardless. A small 4v4 should not be that demanding unless they're simply not using the provided power efficiently. Drop whatever effects necessary to get there for MP.

Once again, resolution is irrelevant for games that are limited by the CPU. Running the game at 1080p rather than 4k just shifts the bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU.

Originally Posted by Forsaken82

This isn't how game development works... You can't just drop the resolution and magically get 60 FPS. Drop whatever effects necessary to get there for MP.

And yet options like that are not even uncommon, as that's exactly the kind of option provided on PS4Pro by games like The Last of Us Remastered, The Surge, Final Fantasy 15, Rise of the Tomb Raider, MLB17, Dynasty Warriors 9...blah blah blah. Somehow those teams managed to plan their development to allow for such an option by lowering multiple strains like resolution, particle effects, shadow quality, textures, whatever needed to happen to get it done. Who said anything about magic? Just priorities. Even a 45fps mode would be welcome.

You better get started on the angry letters to those devs to tell them they did it wrong. Or you can just let me dream. I think that's easier.
Last edited by SillyNonsense; 05-20-2017 at 02:10 AM.
thelastword
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:05 AM)
thelastword's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrBenchmark

If the game still plays on your Xbox you haven't been left behind. Parity isn't required for that to be true.

If Scorpio owners are playing at 60 whilst I play at 30fps on the XB1 with the very same live subscription, then I've been left behind...
Kayant
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:06 AM)
Kayant's Avatar

Originally Posted by Night.Ninja

But you know that's not true

I never understand why people come on to neogaf and lie to them selves and each other for a console war

Well that's because it is true... Nothing MS has revealed suggests big changes to the ISA or CPU design to make a big impact to games outside of the upclock.

http://neogaf.site/forum/showpost...&postcount=142
MrBenchmark
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:08 AM)
MrBenchmark's Avatar

Originally Posted by thelastword

If Scorpio owners are playing at 60 whilst I play at 30fps on the XB1 with the very same live subscription, then I've been left behind...

PS4 Pro plays games at 60 that don't on regular PS4 and we pay for ps+ too I don't feel left behind.

Your still getting the games your view of this seems kind of narrow.
K.Jack
Knowledge is power, guard it well
(05-20-2017, 02:09 AM)
K.Jack's Avatar

Originally Posted by JareBear

Bungie said they can't talk about the Scorpio version yet.

The tweet means there is no ridiculous forced parity that Sony imposes on the Pro. That's huge news.

Got it?

I personally don't think framerate parity, in online gaming, is ridiculous.
Wheatly
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:10 AM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

I'm confused how you can respond "Not really" to my post especially with your follow up sentence.

Couldn't there be a person that can only run 45fps regardless of their tweaking and there is someone that can run 120fps with everything on ultra?

It's a given with PC, but that doesn't mean consoles should not be willing to deal with the same situation if we want there to be meaningful differences between console refreshes.

With PC - there are a near infinite number of combinations in regards how you customize a computer. The given is that it is essentially common knowledge that everyone's computer will run the game a little (or a lot) differently. Because of this, there just has never been any complaints of unfairness from a guy who buys a computer that can run a game at 45 fps vs higher.

The second part of your argument is more a question of how far should people who bought the OG console be left behind? In my opinion, the consoles are still relatively new - and I think people who bought the console just 1-3 years ago didn't really expect to be left in the dust. Because of this (for competitive multiplayer at minimum) - I believe there should be parity in aspects that will influence results


Originally Posted by hanspampel

No they won't and bn it will not be unfair.
Or is it unfair that ps4 has a higher resolution and more details?

Not for competitive multiplayer
Costia
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:11 AM)
Costia's Avatar

Originally Posted by tapantaola

Not true. XBOX ONE is GPGPU-capable. And no, you don't need 2 versions. Deck 13 is a smaller studio and they managed to pull this off:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...surge-face-off

Read what i was replying to...
You can't do that, not because the API is not there, but because you won't have the free GPU time. I am sure they are using GPGPU in the XBONE version of destiny 2 as well.
The suggestion was to port some things that run on the CPU on XBONE/PS4 to the GPU on the PRO/scorpio to help with the CPU bottleneck.
And as i said, this isn't a trivial task.

Edit:
Here is a very silly and very reductive caluclation to demonstrate the idea:
Lets say destiny 2 is 1080p30 on Xb1, and that it uses the HW to its limit.
XB1 has 8coresx1.75GHz and a 1.3TF
Assuming 100% perfect scaling 1080p60 would require 8coresx3.5ghz and a 2.6Tflops GPU
Scorpio has 8coresx2.1 (which isn't enough) + 6TF GPU (which is more than needed).
So the idea would be to use 3TF of the GPU to compensate for the "missing" cpu power by porting some parts that run on the CPU on the XB1 to GPU on the scorpio.
(and what i said in the post you quoted is that you cant run those parts on the GPU on the XB1 as well, since its already used for graphics)
*Don't take this "analisys" seriously, its just to demonstrate the general idea.
Last edited by Costia; 05-20-2017 at 02:30 AM.
Sub Boss
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:12 AM)
Sub Boss's Avatar

Originally Posted by bourgeois

Sony have underplayed the Pro for a reason - they want the focus to remain on the bread and butter PS4 until it's perceived as being past it. This limits vanilla owners from disengaging from their systems, and ensures the base model isn't seen as yesterday's hero. MS on the other hand are trying to reboot the brand with the Scorpio. Very different tactics despite similar design philosophy.

The difference is that PS4 was a success but Xbox ONE isn't :^)
Piggus
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:12 AM)
Piggus's Avatar

Originally Posted by SillyNonsense

And yet options like that are not even uncommon, as that's exactly the kind of option provided on PS4Pro by games like The Last of Us Remastered, The Surge, Final Fantasy 15, Rise of the Tomb Raider, MLB17, Dynasty Warriors 9...blah blah blah. Somehow those teams managed to plan their development to allow for such an option by lowering multiple strains like resolution, particle effects, shadow quality, textures, whatever needed to happen to get it done. Who said anything about magic? Just priorities.

You better get started on the angry letters to those devs to tell them they did it wrong. Or you can just let me dream. I think that's easier.

Please do some research about how bottlenecks in hardware works. The games you just mentioned allow that to happen because THEY HAVE CPU OVERHEAD available, meaning lowering the resolution results in increased framerate. If the framerate is limited by the CPU, which is literally what the Destiny 2 devs said, then lowering resolution has very little impact on performance. That's how it works. Anyone with any PC gaming experience can tell you this.

Dream all you want. Just don't be surprised when someone says "I told you so."
thelastword
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:16 AM)
thelastword's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrBenchmark

PS4 Pro plays games at 60 that don't on regular PS4 and we pay for ps+ too I don't feel left behind.

Your still getting the games your view of this seems kind of narrow.

Competitive multiplayer games? Which ones? perhaps I'm not aware...
hanspampel
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:18 AM)
hanspampel's Avatar
Is an elite or scuf controller unfair?
Is an xbox one s unfair?
Is a better internet connection unfair?
Is it unfair to play xb360 games on xbox one?
Is corssplatform play in rocket league (an actual competitive game, not a pve game like destiny) unfair?


I never read anything about different fps being unfair outside of this topic here.
Seems like the usual whining. Deal with it, or get the better conditions if you feel treated unfair.
Or cry about about it and deal with other people laughing at you rightfully so
Hugh Swank
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:19 AM)
Hugh Swank's Avatar

Originally Posted by thelastword

If Scorpio owners are playing at 60 whilst I play at 30fps on the XB1 with the very same live subscription, then I've been left behind...

I disagree, if you're willing to shell out the money for the latest hardware, then you deserve the best possible performance. If you can play the game on the old hardware then you're not being left behind, you're just not getting the best version.

Should auto makers never redesign and improve their cars for fear of customers who purchased the previous years model not getting the best performance?
LukasTaves
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:19 AM)
LukasTaves's Avatar

Originally Posted by thelastword

People are pretending there's no point of reference here. Even Destiny 1 was all about parity across XB1 and PS4. 1080p 30fps on both XB1 and PS4..? A console with a 40% better GPU can only muster 30fps at the same resolution as an XB1, with no improved visuals on the PS4 side...Yeah, these guys are all about parity you bet ya...

I don't think Sony wants to separate Vanilla against PRO players and neither will MS, where the gap between their console is even larger due to how weak the XB1 was...Yes, I'm not seeing anything in Destiny 2 that's going to wreck CPU's. This is all about the multiplayer clause not separating the PS Plus and Live paying userbase. Surely you can't give PRO and Scorpio players an advantage on a closed platform. For PC it makes sense since it's open and nobody controls the type of hardware you have, but for consoles I can see why it makes sense (even though I'd like my 60fps)....

Still, all those people finding this as ammo to beat up on jaguar and the consoles...I'll just have to SMH...

There was no forced parity on Destiny 1. The game used to run at 900p on xbone and got in the last minute updated to 1080p.

The game was just not very demanding visually and the sequel still doesn't like it is.
Piggus
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:20 AM)
Piggus's Avatar
Will people stop with the "they could make it 60 fps if it were 1080p/720p"?

That's not how games work when they're limited by the CPU. Christ, this gets explained in every thread about CPU-bound games. You'll save yourself a lot of disappointment if you try to understand how resolution impacts performance.
Renekton
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:21 AM)
Renekton's Avatar

Originally Posted by Risk Breaker

I mean, BF1 runs at 55-60 on PS4P with 64 players and just as many physics, not to mention dynamic destruction. Wut.

Doesn't it drop to the 40s?

DICE are wizards, but then take a look at another Frostbite title: Mass Effect Andromeda. Lots of dips from 30.
Hugh Swank
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:23 AM)
Hugh Swank's Avatar

Originally Posted by hanspampel

Is an elite or scuf controller unfair?
Is an xbox one s unfair?
Is a better internet connection unfair?
Is it unfair to play xb360 games on xbox one?
Is corssplatform play in rocket league (an actual competitive game, not a pve game like destiny) unfair?


I never read anything about different fps being unfair outside of this topic here.
Seems like the usual whining. Deal with it, or get the better conditions if you feel treated unfair.
Or cry about about it and deal with other people laughing at you rightfully so

Well said.
MrBenchmark
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:23 AM)
MrBenchmark's Avatar

Originally Posted by thelastword

Competitive multiplayer games? Which ones? perhaps I'm not aware...

Man, Destiny's multiplayer is P2P it isn't even seriously competitive if they wanted that it would be on dedicated servers. You wanna talk about fair is it fair that I should lose in a crucible match with a wired gigabit network on a 300Mbps line against some kid on McDonald's wifi or a potato for a connection hell no so 30 vs 60 in Destiny PVP is the least of my concern.
bourgeois
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:24 AM)
bourgeois's Avatar

Originally Posted by Renekton

Doesn't it drop to the 40s?

No, BF1 on Pro adheres closely to 60. It's transformative compared to the base model.
SillyNonsense
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:25 AM)
SillyNonsense's Avatar

Originally Posted by Piggus

Please do some research about how bottlenecks in hardware works. The games you just mentioned allow that to happen because THEY HAVE CPU OVERHEAD available, meaning lowering the resolution results in increased framerate. If the framerate is limited by the CPU, which is literally what the Destiny 2 devs said, then lowering resolution has very little impact on performance. That's how it works. Anyone with any PC gaming experience can tell you this.

Dream all you want. Just don't be surprised when someone says "I told you so."

Key word that you glossed over: Priorities.
D2 didn't need to max out the CPU. It does because they created it to do so. Some games do not (some that manage to look more impressive than D2 looks). This was their choice because of where their priorities were in development.

I was just throwing out there that it would be nice if they planned their development to allow for such a thing, as already elaborated. Lean back in that armchair and relax. I'm not saying that they could take their current existing game as it is, drop only the resolution, and magic would happen. I understand that work takes work.
texhnolyze
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:26 AM)
texhnolyze's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

So we are just now passing the point where 4k/30fps is achievable and expected. I wonder if the next generation/refresh will launch us closer to 4k/60fps. Bummed that Scorpio and PS4 Pro are still held back by their CPUs.

Next gen it'll be native 4k and Pro checkerboard 8k at 30fps.

And the gen after that native 8k and Pro checkerboard 12k at 30fps.
EL CUCO
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:28 AM)
EL CUCO's Avatar

Originally Posted by mayl3

Help us Xbox one Scorpio you are our only hope.

Join us on PC breh.

We need to talk about who the Heat can grab with 14th pick.
bourgeois
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:29 AM)
bourgeois's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

But that doesn't really argue that it is unfair to have differences in framerates for different console refreshes. I would hope that once a big enough game takes the plunge it can be industry standard.

I'm not arguing about fairness or unfairness. :) Plenty of other devs (like DICE) push the respective platforms to their max. It's just not the way the Bungie does things. Anyone holding out hope for Destiny to be a game that showcases the technical potential of Scorpio is going to be sorely disappointed.
Renekton
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:33 AM)
Renekton's Avatar

Originally Posted by SillyNonsense

Key word that you glossed over: Priorities.
D2 didn't need to max out the CPU. It does because they created it to do so. Some games do not (some that manage to look more impressive than D2 looks). This was their choice because of where their priorities were in development.

I was just throwing out there that it would be nice if they planned their development to allow for such a thing, as already elaborated. Lean back in that armchair and relax. I'm not saying that they could take their current existing game as it is, drop only the resolution, and magic would happen. I understand that work takes work.

It is like you said: priorities. They'd have to prioritize dumber AI, less actors onscreen, less assets, restricted level design to free up CPU cycles.
tapantaola
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:36 AM)

Originally Posted by Costia

Read what i was replying to...
You can't do that, not because the API is not there, but because you won't have the free GPU time. I am sure they are using GPGPU in the XBONE version of destiny 2 as well.
The suggestion was to port some things that run on the CPU on XBONE/PS4 to the GPU on the PRO/scorpio to help with the CPU bottleneck.
And as i said, this isn't a trivial task.

Edit:
Here is a very silly and very reductive caluclation to demonstrate the idea:
Lets say destiny 2 is 1080p30 on Xb1, and that it uses the HW to its limit.
XB1 has 8coresx1.75GHz and a 1.3TF
Assuming 100% perfect scaling 1080p60 would require 8coresx3.5ghz and a 2.6Tflops GPU
Scorpio has 8coresx2.1 (which isn't enough) + 6TF GPU (which is more than needed).
So the idea would be to use 3TF of the GPU to compensate for the "missing" cpu power by porting some parts that run on the CPU on the XB1 to GPU on the scorpio.
*Don't take this "analisys" seriously, its just to demonstrate the general idea.

Having no spare GPU time suggests a GPU bottleneck, which is clearly not the case here according to Bungie devs. If that was the case, they'd just drop the resolution.

I'm not so sure if they use GPGPU or if they max out all CPU cores (like Doom does)... for all I know, Destiny 2 could be a single-threaded game that requires higher clocks/IPC.

ps: I never said GPGPU programming is a trivial task. Then again, SPU programming wasn't trivial either.
Costia
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:40 AM)
Costia's Avatar

Originally Posted by tapantaola

Having no spare GPU time suggests a GPU bottleneck, which is clearly not the case here according to Bungie devs. If that was the case, they'd just drop the resolution.
I'm not so sure if they use GPGPU or if they max out all CPU cores (like Doom does)... for all I know, Destiny 2 could be a single-threaded game that requires higher clocks/IPC.
ps: I never said GPGPU programming is a trivial task. Then again, SPU programming wasn't trivial either.

source? Was it confirmed to be 1080p (and not 900p/dynamic) on XB1?

Edit: looks like destiny (the first one) was originally 900p on XB1 and later patched to 1080p when MS removed the kinect GPU reservation.
So my guess would be that both CPU and GPU on the XB1 will be maxed during different scenes/maps.
Last edited by Costia; 05-20-2017 at 02:49 AM.

Thread Tools