Topic: General Xbox Series X|S Thread

Expand

I said before that MS will have its own method to offset the 'advantages' of overall throughput of data that Sony's PS5 have much like Sony can have its own method to offset any 'power' differential. Just because they haven't mentioned it is not an admission that they don't. As I keep saying, lets wait to see what transpires over the coming months. Neither has given us the 'full' breakdown of EVERYTHING these consoles can do.

What Sampler Feedback Streaming can also do is to stream in just 'part' of a texture. If an object is just using 256x256 of a 2048x2048 texture, they won't streaming in the full 2048x2048, just part of that texture that's actually needed. It 'samples' the texture and realises it doesn't need the 'full' texture and only streams in the part that is required - thus reduces the file size and amount of Data needed to stream in. Whether that all adds up enough to offset the advantage, time will tell. It could depend on the Developers, the way the game is made etc. We don't know for sure if Sony has their own version of that or whether they could add that via a Software update.

We know Sony's PS4 Pro has built in object tracking and why their own implementation of CB rendering methods have been superior to others. Some games may have some form of reconstruction built into the game engine but invariably, these have not been as 'clean' as Sony's own implementations. The Object tracking means that they can align frames much better to reconstruct a cleaner higher resolution image - as seen in H:ZD and God of War for example. They could be relying on something similar too to offset AI upscaling and VRS. It does seem that Sony have their own form of mesh shading too.

No doubt both MS and Sony have their own ideas about next generation. It seems that MS have opted to find solutions to get more 'efficiency' in streaming Data - ie Sampler Feedback Streaming where as Sony opted to bigger with its SSD and maybe have solutions to offset the GPU/CPU difference. It will depend on whether Devs utilise everything at their disposal or not. We don't know whether Sony's option for Audio will be an advantage or whether the money invested in Haptic feedback in its controller too will be a game changer. MS hasn't really changed the controller too much, brought in any 'new' game-play affecting additions.

As I said, we don't fully know yet what these consoles will be capable of delivering and what, if any, differences these make overall. Without considering the different methods each may have to offset raw specs, Sony's machine could load faster, have better audio and haptic feedback but a lower overall resolution with fewer rays compared to MS's slower loading, maybe some pop-in or lower quality LoDs (because it can't stream as much 'data'), but be higher resolution overall and/or better performance. However, until we get deep into the generation, when Devs are 'fully' utilising the hardware, taking advantage of whatever Sony and MS have designed into the APU, we may not know and/or care. If MS mitigate the SSD advantage completely and Sony's games look (doesn't mean they are the same under a microscope but look 'close' enough when running) and run the same despite having a weaker CPU/GPU, does it matter? Only to Fanboys...

Personally, I fully intend to pre-order the Series X and pick-up a PS5 sometime after at the moment. I know that I could play the vast majority of Xbox games on my XB1X and can't play the PS5 exclusives on my PS4 Pro, but I think that Xbox is more 'consumer' friendly and will offer the most at launch. The fact that the 'full' power will be available ALWAYS, even with XB1 and older games, means that I will have a 'bigger' library on day 1 with games that will run (if not look) better, a launch line up of new games I want to play and will work with my XB1 Elite controller with LOWER input Lag makes this the best choice for me on Day 1.

Whether the PS5 becomes just an 'exclusives' box for me or not, we will see. Audio and Haptic feedback could make it a difficult choice if the games look and run similarly enough but I don't think a second or two difference in loading times would make a difference to me at all. There will always be people that buy one or the other and ALWAYS stick with the same brand, defend that brand regardless and refuse to accept that certain aspects could be better. At the start of the last gen, PS4 had the 'power' and 'few' games and power mattered then to play AC, CoD, BF4 etc at higher Res and then it was Games that mattered when the X arrived - not saying that Xbox fanboys didn't change their tune either throughout the Gen. At the moment, CPU/GPU matters to Xbox fanboys and its all about the SSD and games to Sony fanboys without really knowing WHAT each will bring. We will have a clearer idea of what MS will bring for games on Thursday but again, only hindsight will tell us which really delivered this upcoming gen as Game output can dry up, new techniques in game development, new engines etc can make a difference etc.

In any case, I still think its 'premature' to speak of what perceived advantages/disadvantages each has and what 'features' each could be missing. Because MS didn't speak too much about dedicated Audio, rumble triggers etc, there were Sony fanboys who believed the CPU would be weaker because its handling Audio and not even 3D audio either, that Xbox doesn't offer any 'feedback' bar a basic rumble - it does offer some 'haptic' feedback through the triggers and of course the SSD will be a 'game changer' and make games so much better than Xbox can offer - even if they are 'lower' res. Point is, until these consoles are out and all the actual details are known, its best not to assume that one doesn't have features that the other talked about - they may not have chosen to reveal things 'yet'...

Expand

@Z3u5000 I am not saying that all options are 'equal' in both quality and/or application. Not saying that Software too will be as good as hardware implementation at all. I was merely making the point though that its wrong to flat out state that one console has or does not have some format or their own bespoke alternative until ALL the information is available.

I wouldn't categorically state that Sony's PS5 for example has superior Audio and that games will inherently load faster, have better LoDs or less Pop-in because of its 'Superior' SSD bandwidth, many more channels and superior prioritising. The fact that its SSD and Hardware around that is 'Superior' and the fact that MS are perhaps far more efficient in what it streams and 'could' use Machine Learning to upscale 'lower' res textures to try and offset the fact that Sony can stream the High Res textures and/or can stream more data if/when required is irrelevant if the end user cannot see a difference in gaming. If you see an object in the distance that looks essentially the same whether that texture is a 'native' high res texture or a ML upscaled lower res texture, does it really matter?

If Sony's implementation of Shading is inferior, but in game-play, you can't really see it, does it matter? I don't think it matters if a console is running at native 4k, 1bn rays being traced etc and the other has to run at CB 4k with 800m rays being traced if both are also running at a locked frame rate and you can't tell if VRS or lower res ML upscaled textures are being used on one but not the other. To me it matters if Sony for example has to settle for significantly lower res and/or less stable, maybe lower frame rates. Chances are, if the difference is 'big' enough, it will end up being an 'exclusives' only box.

Its all well and good having features like VRS, super fast SSD's with more levels of Priority, Mesh Shading/Geometry engine or even having the Tempest Engine vs MS's Audio, but its up to developers to fully utilise these in the 'best' way for gamers. VRS is a 'degradation' of image quality in essence, reduce the quality in areas that are not obvious, not the focal point for gamers. Its essential rendering parts at 'different' resolutions - instead of every pixel being treated as an individual, blocking some together because they are in shadow, because they are blurred by motion, because you are not looking at the sky etc. The sky for example could be rendered in blocks of 4 pixels - essentially 1080p but would that be seen as a 'negative' because of the gains elsewhere. Like I said, is it a downside if MS uses AI upscaling of textures because it can't stream the high res versions in as fast as Sony's. Obviously to an Xbox fan, that's acceptable because the end result looks as good in games anyway. I would rather have CB 4k than Native 1440p and would be OK with CB 4k or DLSS 1080p but with higher quality visual settings and/or higher frame rates but for some the fact that its not 'native' - especially if the competition offers 'native' 4k is something to argue over even if the end result is difficult to see the difference.

Until we know the full story and what that actually means for us as gamers, its rather 'fanboyish' to make claims that one doesn't do this or that, and what it does do is somehow far superior in games. Even if something does transpire to be better under a microscope, if it doesn't have much (if any) impact on the experience, does it really matter? Does it matter if MS's Mesh Shading is superior right now? It only matters if games utilise it and as a result, the overall gaming experience is enhanced by it. As I said, I would be perfectly fine with VRS, ML upscaling and/or Temporal reconstruction if it enhances the overall impact of the gaming visuals - its better than having a 'lower' native resolution upscaled in the normal way and/or lower quality visual settings. Its all about utilising the hardware most efficiently to give the 'best' impression. Native 1440p with regular upscaling is softer, with lower finer detail than CB 4k so I would rather Devs use CB rendering and if it looks as good as another console running at 'native 4k' because of hardware object tracking (for example - and apart from the 'first' frame after a transition - which may only be displayed for up to 33ms). We really should wait to see what all of these things add up to, what aspects the console manufacturers have yet to divulge and ultimately what differences we will see in games.

I don't care if Sony's SSD and data throughput is superior - at least not until we can see exactly what that means for me as a gamer. What difference that makes in games and game design. If its just a second or 3 of time saved loading, I don't care. Its not a 'big enough' advantage to worry about. If it means that Xbox has more pop-in because it can't stream enough data across, if it means that there is more stutter in some games because its streaming in slower or objects have 'soupier' textures etc, these things could outweigh a 'higher' native resolution. Again not saying this will be the case but right now, we do not have any practical information regarding both consoles and what the choices Sony/MS have made will have on the impact of games. There was talk that the ESRAM in XB1 would offset the difference in RAM on the PS4 - but we know the reality now. Having a wider but slower GPU, despite the higher TF values, may not be advantageous in some areas, some game design where faster is better - theoretically, it can do more bounces for Ray Tracing because it has more cycles per frame (as its faster) but with fewer cores, it may have fewer Rays in total too but what difference that makes in the visual quality to the end user is not known and could vary on a game by game basis - depends on whether the game benefits by having more bounces or more rays for example.

Software too may not be the optimal solution either but that could still be better than nothing and help reduce the gap in some areas too. The point is we just don't know what all these different approaches will do for us, the gamer, and whether or not they end up being a 'big' advantage or mitigated by 'hardware/software' options. Even if its not mitigated entirely, it could still close the gap over not having these options entirely. MS have a solution to mitigate some/all of the SSD advantage but until we actually see games running on SSD, pushing the PS5 to its 'limit' on data streaming, we won't know whether MS's solution is robust enough to keep up. As I would on PushSquare though, I won't turn round and say MS's SSD implementation is terrible and that it will end up being its 'weak' link or MS's Audio will be so much worse because Sony's Tempest engine is much better. I won't slag off MS's decision to just add a Share button to its controller and games will ultimately be more immersive on PS5 as a result of the Audio and Haptic Feedback because until we get games, can actually play them and compare the visuals, the audio, the experience etc, all these 'features', what each console has built in at a hardware level and the impact of those are unknown. Also we don't yet know 'everything' about what's under the hood so there could yet be some 'surprise' to bring one closer to the other than it appears right now.

There is no secret that on paper, the Series X is the more powerful on raw specs and could translate into a big gap between it and the PS5 but right now, how much of a gap, is unknown and we can't say for definite that its implementation of the Geometry Engine or even software solutions won't negate some of that advantage and if so by how much. To say the PS5 can't do (some form of) mesh shading or VRS at this point is not accurate though.

Anyway, I would rather not be talking about what the PS5 does or does not have and rather talk about the Series X and what all the specs will mean for me as a gamer, what that means to the next generation of games and what developers will be able to achieve with the hardware. Talking about how much 'better' the Series X in some areas (especially without talking about the areas it seems (notice I said seems) weaker on) does come across as fanboy bashing. I hate that on PushSquare at the moment and as such, refusing to get involved in any discussion with the immaturity being displayed there. I know its an 'exciting' time with new hardware coming from both companies but constantly bashing one, their choices and strategies is ridiculous and immature - buy the console that suits your preference, delivers on what you want from games and/or new hardware the most and focus on the positives of your preferred platform, not the 'negatives' of the other to 'justify' your preference!!