×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Relaxing Xbox One Kinect Requirements, Giving GPU Power a Boost?

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the full-speed-ahead-damn-the-torpedos dept.

XBox (Games) 220

MojoKid writes "News from gaming insider Pete Doss is that Microsoft is mulling significant changes to the restrictions it places on developers regarding the Xbox One's GPU. Reportedly, some 10% of total GPU horsepower is reserved for the Kinect — 8% for video and 2% for voice processing. Microsoft is apparently planning changes that would free up that 8% video entirely, leaving just 2% of the system's GPU dedicated to voice input. If Microsoft makes this change, it could have a significant uplift on system frame rates — and it's not clear that developers would necessarily need to patch the architecture to take advantage of the difference."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

220 comments

Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078901)

Is a 10% boost going to take 720p to 1080p? Or 1080p 30 fps to 60 fps? Not likely. Fact remains that even moderate PCs today outperform both the PS4 and Xbox One at a similar price point. Toying with 8-10% GPU consumption is insignificant in the big picture.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078959)

But it makes them feel like the hero. Give Micro$haft a break

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079211)

Give Micro$haft a break

Free advertising like this puff-piece IS giving them a break.

Unless they're paying Dice, of course, then it's just service for a fee.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46078969)

" Toying with 8-10% GPU consumption is insignificant in the big picture."

I suspect that MS (and Sony) have no expectation of pulling a miracle out of their hat, or doing anything about the fact that consoles always become increasingly unimpressive vs. PCs as their release period drags on. However, given that MS is currently facing a modest; but somewhat embarrassing, graphical prettiness gap vs. Sony, they have a certain incentive to free up what they can to ensure that any comparisons are as flattering as hardware choices far too late to change will allow them to be.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078987)

given that MS is currently facing a modest; but somewhat embarrassing, graphical prettiness gap vs. Sony

but... but... but... microsoft has metro!

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#46079255)

Which is why I am considering a PS4....

I HATE Sony, and Microsoft's steaming turd is making me consider one.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079347)

I normally hate Sony as well which is why I let my old roommate buy the PS3 but open your mind for the PS4 but don't be gullible. The guy that is now heading the PS4 department is no longer a snobby CEO that knows nothing about games but a game developer that goes back, way back and knows how to make the PS4 successful. I'm mostly a PC gamer myself but I think keeping an eye on the PS4 would be a good idea :)

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079543)

I hate Sony so much! But it is such a great piece of hardware and...place to work for!

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079417)

The solution is to buy a Steam machine, Valve will know which games you can play on it and it has the future.

Non-Steam games on Steam Machine (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#46080817)

The solution is to buy a Steam machine

When will those come to Best Buy

Valve will know which games you can play on it

Valve doesn't know much. Valve knows which games I can buy through Steam. But a Steam Machine runs not only games acquired through Steam but also games acquired through unknown sources. It's really just Debian with a real-time kernel and the Steam client, and the user can always exit Steam and drop to GNOME to run non-Steam games.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (5, Funny)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#46079517)

I have all new gen consoles (Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One) and frankly think it's silly to get pissy about one or the other. The Xbox One isn't a pile of turd because even if it doesn't give you 1080p 60fps on everything it still has great games like Dead Rising 3 which gives you many tens of hours of some of the best gameplay going that you just can't get anywhere else. Similarly the Wii U seems all but dead, but Pikmin 3 was my favourite game of last year, and the likes of Lego City Undercover and Super Mario 3D World were excellent so I really couldn't give a shit about how crap the hardware supposedly is.

Just figure out what games you like and buy whichever console has them. Most of the rest of what you read is just FUD, all the stuff about Kinect not being unpluggable and so forth was bollocks, you can, turn it off, unplug it, and throw it out the window if you feel like it and everything is fine. Both the PS4 and X1 have their quirks right now, the X1 is missing some UI functionality that the 360 had which is stupid and annoying, whilst the PS4's support for parties and online gaming is still worse than that of the 360s which is embarassing given it was the biggest criticism of the PS3 and they should've sorted that shit out by now. Despite these sorts of things it's stupid to say one is better than the other, sure BF4 runs at a slightly higher resolution, but it's also got less good exclusives - there are pros and cons to either system. If you're only getting one you just have to figure out which has the best ratio of pros to cons, but to me the biggest deciding factor would probably be the exclusives. I'm not into The Order, whilst Ryse and Dead Rising 3 were exactly my type of thing, but the PS4 is getting a new Uncharted game so it's really what sort of game you prefer, and ignore all the other bullshit, because it's exactly that, bullshit.

Honestly, the only thing I really hate about the PS4 and X1 is they both seem to have been trying to compete for who can make their console look the most retardedly like a 1980s VHS recorder. I think Microsoft just about won that one, but it was a pretty fucking close call.

Re: Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#46079849)

For me, the PS3s killer feature was the $60/year play station plus membership.

Lots of decent games for free (a handful of indie games, x-com when it was still $40 and BioShock infinite when $30 come to mind off the top of my head). I have all the games o can play for a very low price.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (2)

Anonymous Cowled (917825) | about 3 months ago | (#46079525)

Which is why I am considering a PS4....

I HATE Sony, and Microsoft's steaming turd is making me consider one.

You do realise that you could... you know, just not buy either? It's not like you have to buy one or the other or your dick will fall off.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (-1, Troll)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 months ago | (#46079603)

Yes, that's the answer to everything. Don't like our government, just leave the USA. Screw friends and family, vote with your wallet! Teach us how to punish ourselves to make these big corps feel bad, Obi-Wan.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079855)

Yes, that's the answer to everything. Don't like our government, just leave the USA. Screw friends and family, vote with your wallet! Teach us how to punish ourselves to make these big corps feel bad, Obi-Wan.

Yes, thank you for drawing the obvious much-needed parallels between government corruption, family abandonment, corporate greed, and simply not wanting to buy a fucking video game console. I especially liked the part where NOT lunging to play the latestest and greatestest games as soon as possible was somehow interpreted as self-punishment rather than the lack of a socially crippling addiction it really is.

Re: Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079375)

Metro is for metrosexuals

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078979)

But maybe they could sell it as a DLC. That's pretty damn innovative if you ask me.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46079043)

Wasn't that IBM's "Golden Screwdriver" upgrade model, in the before times when big iron ruled the earth?

Re:Golden Screwdriver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079087)

Yes, it was.

From experience I can tell you that the Golden Screwdriver liberated more than just measly 10% of disk capacity (or whatever other resource).

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078981)

Too bad processing power is not everything.

Re: Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079385)

Microsoft sure proved that. Most WiiU game run at higher resolution than the XBO and look better as a result.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (5, Interesting)

Kartu (1490911) | about 3 months ago | (#46078995)

Fact remains that even moderate PCs today outperform both the PS4 and Xbox One at a similar price point.

I'm not quite sure about that.
PS4 has a GPU that is between AMD 7850 / 7870, when building your PC you'd pay 150+ Euro for the GPU alone.

Despite "common knowledge" that "PCs are faster", at least if we can trust Valve's statistics (about a third of their PC users run games on an integrated GPU!), no it isn't.
7870 is a good mid range GPU these days even in PC world.
One could argue about underwhelming CPU part , but 8Gb GDDR5 and software written to use most of it's 8 cores makes up for it.

Re: Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079071)

My 7850 plays games quit well at 1080p at settings higher than condoles. Are there actually any standardized benchmarks showing that it's real world performance is in between a 7850 and 7870?

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079073)

Bear in mind that prices for AMD GPUs are a little inflated at the moment because of the crypto mining craze.

All the same, $150 sounds about right for the GPU in a mid-range gaming machine. Machines at that level are often built 'unbalanced' - a weaker CPU mated with a more expensive GPU, on the assumption that most games don't fully utilise the CPU. You only see serious investment on the CPU for higher end gaming machines or workstations.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Kartu (1490911) | about 3 months ago | (#46079199)

If AMD GPU prices are inflated there sure must be a card from competitors, that is faster yet costs less.
Care to name it?

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079235)

Not to mention, AMD/ATI drivers suck massive donkey dick. Sorry. I'm an Nvidia man, and I always will be.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Funny)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#46079647)

Sorry. I'm an Nvidia man, and I always will be.

Apology accepted. Accepting you have a problem is the first step out of fanboyism.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 3 months ago | (#46080013)

Bear in mind that prices for AMD GPUs are a little inflated at the moment because of the crypto mining craze.

Price inflation is mostly affecting Tahiti (7950/7970/280X) and Hawaii (290/290X). The Pitcairn-based cards (7850/7870/270/270X) haven't moved much. The deals aren't as good as they were in the run-up to Christmas, but that's true of just about everything else, not just AMD video cards.

The 7870 always had a street price of a bit under $200; the 2GB 7850 was usually around $150, with the 1GB version somewhat less (but not in much demand). I paid $179.99 for my 7870 and thought it was a pretty good deal.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (4, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | about 3 months ago | (#46079123)

Despite "common knowledge" that "PCs are faster", at least if we can trust Valve's statistics (about a third of their PC users run games on an integrated GPU!), no it isn't.

Consider how many laptops are out there... My laptops have both integrated and dedicated GPUs, depending on when Steam's survey comes up they can get quite different results. For that matter I've been playing quite a few 'casual' games that shouldn't stress ANY CPU on my laptop.

Also, to echo the AC - Source on the 7850/7870 thing? I know that all of my cards from the last 5 years handles 1080P rendering just fine.

Apples vs Apples (5, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#46079035)

Fact remains that even moderate PCs today outperform both the PS4 and Xbox One at a similar price point.

Not in your or mine wildest dreams

The PS4 from Wikipedia "The CPU consists of two quad-core Jaguar modules totaling 8 x86-64 cores. The GPU consists of 18 compute units to produce a theoretical peak performance of 1.84 TFLOPS. The system's GDDR5 memory is capable of running at a maximum clock frequency of 2.75 GHz (5500 MT/s) and has a maximum memory bandwidth of 176 GB/s. The console contains 8 GB of GDDR5 memory" for US$399.99, €399.99, £349.99

vs

For just the base unit of the PC for the same price http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Ins... [amazon.com] Processor: Intel® Pentium® processor G2030 (3M Cache, 3.0 GHz), Memory (RAM): 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 1600MHz-1X4GB, Storage (hard drive): 500GB Hard Drive, 3.5", 7200rpm, SATA, Optical Drive: DVD+/-RW Tray Load Drive, 16X, SATA Color: Black

I am a bit tired of these comments being modded up in the hope of PC gaming making a comeback.

Re:Apples vs Apples (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079107)

Radeon 7770 (~1.3Tflops) roughly matches XBONE @ $109
Radeon 7859 (~1.8tflops) roughly matches PS4 @ $169 (139 with MIR)

The 8 core Jaguar is crap. Any dual or quad core CPU will probably run circles around it, including Core2Quads. Take a 5+ year old PC, toss in a new GPU and your done.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Kartu (1490911) | about 3 months ago | (#46079153)

AMDs own CPUs would run circles around Jaguar, single core performance is not the point of that CPU.
Although its cores are weak, it has 8 of them (running on a faster RAM that PCs get) and while PC game developers might not care, console developers suddenly do.

Price breakdown. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079259)

FX8320: 150 on sale, 170 Retail Pricing (This is the cheapest 8 core AMD offers and thus the closest CPU capacity to the xbone/ps4. Also power management allows underclocking down to at least 800 mhz, so you should be able to find an equivalent clocking to the 1.9 ghz one or both of those consoles uses.)
MSI 970A-G43: 70 dollars on sale Maybe 80-90 Retail
Hard disk: 50-150 for 500 gig to 4 terabyte.
Memory: 8 gigs for under 100 dollars, including ECC (Kingston ram. Look under server memory on Newegg.)
AMD GPU: XFX 7850 2gig 169.99 Retail @ Newegg.
Case: 30-100 dollars depending on your preferences. I haven't bought one over 40 dollars in a good 10 years and most included a PSU.
Grand total: Around 200 bucks more.
This is still missing a kinect, keyboard, mouse, and controller, as well as OS.

It's not quite as cheap as any of the consoles, but it's much faster cpu-wise, should spank the XBOne memory-wise, and should give the PS4 a run for its money when GPU prices drop again (7950's were going for ~250 just before Christmas, which would've added another gig of GDDR5 to help compete with the PS4's GPU/GPGPU processing capacity.) Combine it with SteamOS and you've got a competitive 'console' that will probably outlast the current generation consoles handily while allowing much more diversity in usage (and room for 32-64 gigs of ram and a much more powerful GPU before you are finished with it.)

Re:Price breakdown. (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46079809)

You managed to match a $500 console using only $700 worth of parts and the assumption that you'll add a new $250 GPU in a year's time. By grabthar's hammer, what a savings.

Re:Price breakdown. (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 3 months ago | (#46081043)

Atleast it won't be locked at 30fps, aside from the games seemingly engineered for a console and still locked at 30fps on a PC, but other games won't be locked at 30fps!

Re:Apples vs Apples (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46079623)

I'll be impressed if you can add 8GB GDDR5 and the rest of a SFF PC for under $330.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#46080299)

There is no point. CPU part isn't memory bandwidth-constrained. PS4 does GDDR5 as a way of unlocking more memory bandwidth for GPU which sits on the same memory bus as CPU.

DDR3 hooked to a decent GPU is going to be memory bus constrained in some scenarios. This will likely become a problem for XB1. It's fine for CPUs for a long time to come however - I did some testing and I ran DDR3 at 1ghz and 2.1ghz. No visible difference when paired with my massively overclocked i5 2500k which would absolutely crush this gen's console CPUs.

PC GPUs have had GDDR5 at higher speeds than PS4 for a long time now, sitting on dedicated memory bus hooked to GPU. Hell, my trusty GTX560Ti has it, and that one is several years old.

Re:Apples vs Apples (0)

Megol (3135005) | about 3 months ago | (#46079683)

The AMD Jaguar core isn't crap - it isn't the fastest x86 processor but so what? It should be faster than any Core 2 processor for any reasonable test (most processors can be made to benchmark badly if selecting the "right" tests). Look for some benchmarks. The Jaguar based console chips have an improvement that makes a huge difference for some tasks compared to standard AMD offerings: memory bandwidth. The fastest standard Jaguar chip have a 64 bit, 1333MHz DDR3 memory bus - even Intel Atom cores have better memory performance!

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46079841)

The 8 core Jaguar is crap. Any dual or quad core CPU will probably run circles around it, including Core2Quads.

Not really. These days games are heavily threaded. You have a deadline to meet, say 16ms if you want 60fps. Having 8 cores and a modern memory controller that to feed them is going to work much better than having two or four slightly faster cores. And actually for the kinds of processing that games do a Core2 is going to be slower, clock for clock.

Also keep in mind that consoles will always perform better than an equivalent PC in any well programmed game, since the game can be tailored and optimized specifically for a single hardware platform. A shader can be optimized specifically for the console's GPU, for example, instead of having to be generic and optimized by the driver at run-time on a PC.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#46080305)

Questionable. Nowadays consoles are no longer dedicated gaming machines - they run heavy operating systems that do a lot of stuff on the background, just like PC operating systems do.

Re:Apples vs Apples (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079207)

Really? Because I just built myself a comparable desktop on Newegg for $550 delivered. 500gb 7200rpm hdd (mmm, nice and faster) 4 gigs DDR3, Athlon x4 (easily comparable to a pair of ultra mobile processors), R9 270x 4gb version (good reviews too), Powersupply and case included. The only thing you're missing is labor, and suddenly you've got a much more capable game machine. Play a wide variety of games including fully and indefinite backwards compatibility, and while you're not actively using it mine litecoins and actually make money back while your at it!

Oh and the largest games in history are still on the PC. Call of Duty would be lucky to sell 25 million+ copies altogether for a single version, let alone having 32+ million active users per month, not to mention Crossfire, Day Z (already at a million copies for an alpha) oh and Minecraft has sold far more on the PC than all the console versions combined. Don't worry, when you're staring at the eighth version of Call of Duty you just bought and realized you've wasted all that time and money PC's will still be here.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#46079229)

Let's be realistic. The only reason why it gets a boost like that is because of the GDDR5 in the system, you strip that out and it's slower than a PC built 5 years ago. But, your example is rather flawed, being that "buying a name" means you're gutting 20% of your upgrade budget.

And PC gaming has been killing consoles for the last 5 years, in fact it takes the wii, xbox and PS3 to equal the sales on the PC generally speaking. Not only that but in the last year and half, it's been a case of "the console is dead. Long live the PC." Not that the PC went anywhere, and the doomsayers have been calling that it's dead since the mid-90's.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 months ago | (#46079305)

PC built five years ago? On what budget?

That isn't relevant if spent a lot of money then...

Furthermore, PC gaming hasn't been killing console gaming. What's been killing it has been the flattening of genres. Everything now is some kind of generic 1st or 3rd person shooter. And THAT is thanks to the much lauded PC Gaming Master Race.

Gross.

Also I'd like to see some recipts on that figure about sales. VGchartz shows Bioshock infinite sold 5 times as more on ps3 and 360 combined than on Windows. Not just that but with persistent steam sales devaluing gaming, I just don't see 2k doing better in terms of raw revenue either.

See: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/4... [vgchartz.com]

Re:Apples vs Apples (0)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 3 months ago | (#46079473)

Not just that but with persistent steam sales devaluing gaming, I just don't see 2k doing better in terms of raw revenue either.

Which is why I sometimes uncharitably refer to PC gamers as "Cheap bastards, Euro-pirates and 2nd worlders who don't want to pay for anything"

You can see it on Slashdot with the "I only buy games at Steam Sales" crowd Sure I can see picking up games that are part of your "second tier or third tier" on the cheap, but games in one's favorite genre or by one's favorite developer?

If PC gamers want to know why developers have been focusing more on consoles lately...they only have themselves to blame.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#46080385)

Actually, developers appear to have largely stopped focusing on consoles lately and are now spreading their focus pretty evenly between platforms. Most AAA games now get simultaneous releases on PC unlike before when we had to wait months or even years for console games to be ported, many of the older console games that dev said would never be ported got ported, and so on.

Steam Sales vs. Greatest Hits (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#46080911)

Consoles are no different. Some console gamers buy games only once they're cheap used or once they're PlayStation Greatest Hits (or other companies' equivalent). Not everyone has to beat a game in 30 days after launch.

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about 3 months ago | (#46079803)

There's plenty of weird, inventive games out there... They just happen to be mostly indie, so they are released for the PC Master Race.

Big developers are the ones sitting on their asses, and that has more to do with the fact that modern graphics are expensive as hell than anything else. Hard to sink 50-200 million on a game that you don't expect to have a very broad appeal

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 3 months ago | (#46080043)

Furthermore, PC gaming hasn't been killing console gaming. What's been killing it has been the flattening of genres. Everything now is some kind of generic 1st or 3rd person shooter. And THAT is thanks to the much lauded PC Gaming Master Race.

Agreed. FPS is played out; can we please move on and do something else?

Re:Apples vs Apples (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#46079671)

I was with you up until

in the hope of PC gaming making a comeback

As far as I can tell, PC gaming is doing just fine.

Re:Apples vs Apples (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079885)

In terms of raw power it's mostly irrelevant to compare PC computers to consoles as consoles don't have to take the burden of insane backwards and forwards compatibility as PC does not even counting the bloat which easy unoptimized porting of console games to PC creates.

Write code once on a console and it's the job of the console manufacturer to make sure it works now and on future revisions of the same hardware. With PC doing things right translates to way more effort and/or usage of very expensive middleware.

In the hardware side It's clear that the OEM solutions geared to gaming at the moment are very sad. And with system builders it's coming more clear with the arrival of tablets that most of the people don't really want to fiddle around with ATX, BTX or whateverTX compatible hardware compromises which end up taking space 100x times more than a regular tablet does without battery support or screen. Not to mention the maintenance *fun* which begins with the operating system...

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079157)

Don't kid yourself. Most devs still aim at DirectX 9 support and add any fancy crap on later. Well, admittedly that has been changing the past couple years, but that is still awful.
We only have Microsoft to thank for this shitheap of an industry that we are in right now.

Not to mention games still being made for crappy single-core. Wake up developers, we are in the multi-core age now. Multi-core isn't hard. Forget everything you know and just read the damn specs.
It saddens me there are developers from the 80s and 90s that know better than all these awful developers of today, can't even write their graphics code separate from the game logic that would make it trivial to separate them for multi-core, bloated memory usage, terrible netcode (Quake ran on fucking dial-up with no lag! What the hell are games doing these days?!)
The days of writing Good Code are over. It is all Enterprise Quality (read:terrible) code these days.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079577)

Multi-core isn't hard.

Yeah, right.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#46080401)

Are you the dumbass who thought that putting Cell into PS3 was a brilliant idea? You sure sound like him.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079187)

"Similar price point"? Do you mean that you can buy a 400$ computer with the same graphics as the PS4? I don't think so.

Most importantly, the biggest franchises are produced firstly for consoles, and then ported to PC, because of sales volumes, hence wasting much of modern video cards' computing power. Some aren't even ported at all (e.g., GTA V). So it's becoming really useless to buy a cutting-edge gaming PC nowadays.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#46079285)

Or 1080p 30 fps to 60 fps?

What really annoys me about this one is that plenty of games could happily run at 60fps for 80-90% of the time, but the developers don't want you thinking their game is slowing the system down when the action starts. So they just cap it to 30fps all the time for consistently crappy gameplay. I'd sooner do without a few effects.

Bioshock on the PS3 springs to mind, only because they included an option to turn off the framerate cap.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (3, Funny)

Gabest (852807) | about 3 months ago | (#46079325)

The funny part is, even after 8 years the release of xbox 360, we still can't run all our games in 1080p.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079495)

Problem with your logic is that the PCs don't have the games I play on the consoles such as the racing games and sports games.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46080821)

Both of which are garbage, anyway.

Besides, giving money to evil companies (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) is unprincipled and immoral.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (2)

ZenMatrix (1299517) | about 3 months ago | (#46079551)

This isn't exactly on topic, but the reason I have a console is to play games that everyone is on equal footing. With PCs your generally pay for better performance, its ALOT more easier to cheat, and you have a bigger chance of running into problems due to incompatability. The only advantage you could really have on console is a better internet connection but lately that seems to be more of a handicap. Now choosing between the major consoles, I can't really consider nintendo based on the library of games that I like to play. I've had a xbox 360 for awhile and have been "considering" and xbox one just because its what my gamer friends have. I think thats a big consideration for most people, personally I'd rather have a PS4 because of some of the exclusives they have, but I buy games to play with people I know. In general I'm happy to see them trying to get more out of the system without paying more, unlike Sony in the past took out features that you already paid for.

Re: Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079693)

The last gen, most big games couldn't even handle 720p at 30fps. 1080p is for the next gen, maybe.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 3 months ago | (#46079839)

While I agree that a PC that costs the same as a console is generally more performant, one of the benefits of the console world is that the upgrade cycle (in other words frequency of cash outlay) is a lot longer. In PC gaming, you are likely spending on average $500/year to keep up. In the console world, you spend once every 6 years or so. For those of us on a tighter budget, knowing that if I buy a console near the beginning of the cycle, I will still be getting similar performance near the end of the cycle. Game developers can target a known platform and optimize accordingly.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (0)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 3 months ago | (#46080003)

. Fact remains that even moderate PCs today outperform both the PS4 and Xbox One at a similar price point.

The PS4 GPU is about as powerful as an AMD Radeon HD 7870. So, no, it's not true that a "moderate PC" outperforms the new consoles. A "moderate PC" these days has integrated graphics, which are nowhere near that good. Most people aren't spending ~$200 for video cards.

PS4 should be able to do 1080p@60fps in most games; XB1 will struggle a bit more, due to its use of DDR3 instead of GDDR5.

Re:Still lightyears off of today's PC hardware (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#46080411)

Most people do not buy PC for gaming. Those who do however typically do spend money on discreet GPU.

2014... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46078975)

...year of Xbox One

Re:2014... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079041)

2014... year of index2.dat

Make speech actually work! (2)

whois (27479) | about 3 months ago | (#46078997)

I wish they would devote 8-10% of their resources to making their voice recognizer worth a damn. It was hilariously bad on xbox 360 and then I watched some xbox one launch parties and saw what a travesty it still was.

Re:Make speech actually work! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46079057)

It makes you wonder how much it would have cost MS to purchase some sort of specialty 'embedded/fixed function' license to, say, Dragon...

A full copy, without academic pricing or anything, (and get your checkbook ready if you need the supplements for a specific jargon set like law or medicine...) is pretty pricey; but you'd think that they'd be willing to license the same core for substantially less so long as they were assured that it would be useful only for providing voice commands to games and such, rather than competing with the rest of their product line. NIH, perhaps.

Re:Make speech actually work! (2)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 3 months ago | (#46079445)

There have been games that used "embedded Dragon", the PS2's SOCOM series for example, 12 years ago.

Why is a GRAPHICS Process Unit processing VOICE?? (-1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 3 months ago | (#46079005)

Typical Microsoft ass-backwards thinking. I guess the Win 8 team helped develop the Xbox.

Because mathematically ... (3, Informative)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 3 months ago | (#46079053)

... the algorithms use mostly the same kind of operations, which are are what GPUs specialize in.

Re:Why is a GRAPHICS Process Unit processing VOICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079085)

You see this on PCs occasionally as well - reprogrammable GPUs work really well as DSPs, and since dedicated sound chips aren't widely available (and are much more expensive than just reserving a little throughput on a part already present) it makes a lot of sense to do it.

Re:Why is a GRAPHICS Process Unit processing VOICE (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 3 months ago | (#46079249)

Probably because it's the right tool for the job.

Kind of ... (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 3 months ago | (#46079291)

Probably because it's the right tool for the job.

Kind of. It can do the job well enough that using specialized audio processing hardware is a thing for applications that have additional requirements besides "needs X GFlops for audio stuff", for example where power is a big issue (e.g. hearing aids) or where ultra-low latencies are required.

Re:Kind of ... (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 3 months ago | (#46080209)

Yes, I completely agree. And really, to defend their decision, it makes much more sense to give over 2% of your GPU to the task than adding a specialized piece of hardware which would likely increase the cost by a disproportionate amount.

Re:Why is a GRAPHICS Process Unit processing VOICE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079263)

Ahh... it seems you think a GPU can only process graphics. Ignorant troll is ignorant.

Xbox One Slow (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#46079105)

The News here is that the Xbox is significantly crippled compared to the cheaper, less abusive opposition Sony!? Kinect is not the selling point to justify the Xbox's inflated Price. This is being reflected in the current sales numbers with worldwide sales being (almost) half that of that of the PS4 (or a little higher than the PS3) http://www.vgchartz.com/#This%... [vgchartz.com] . The only other thing of note is software is no longer the significant factor it was in choosing a console. Personally though I have my eye on Android gaming.

Re:Xbox One Slow (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#46079463)

The News here is that the Xbox is significantly crippled compared to the cheaper, less abusive opposition Sony!?

Less Abusive? What color is the sky on your planet, and are you accepting immigrants? OtherOS? Lik-Sang? Geohotz? Sony is unique in that they make Microsoft look friendly.

Too little, too late (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079147)

Sorry, the computing power difference between PS4 and Xbox One is far higher than 8%:
http://www.extremetech.com/gam... [extremetech.com]

And most of the recent cross-platform games have visually confirmed that.

Not to mention that this is probably the first time in consoles' history that the most powerful console is even cheaper than its direct rival (!). And why is that? Because of the kinect that NOBODY wants, especially after the NSA scandal.

It's a marketing disaster from MS, no excuse. They basically made any possible mistake that they could have done.

Re:Too little, too late (4, Interesting)

stdarg (456557) | about 3 months ago | (#46080265)

The vast majority of my time on the Xbone so far has been in the Amazon Instant Video app. It turns out that the Kinect is (or rather, could be) a great tool for occasional user input. The irritating thing about using the controller in this scenario is that it turns off after some period of inactivity (which is still long enough that your battery drains pretty quickly). So if you want to pause, or move on the next episode, you have to turn on the controller and let it sync wirelessly with the console, which takes a good 5 seconds.

Enter the Kinect.. now you can say "xbox pause" and it pauses. "Xbox play" resumes. "Xbox stop... yes... episode 6" goes to the next episode.

In theory.

The problem is, seemingly at random, one of the commands won't work. It opens up the xbox voice control screen which has some generic commands. It might say something like "Play is not available from here" or something. After many minutes of frustrating experimentation, it turns out that sometimes you have to say "select" before giving the same command that may have worked 2 minutes ago. So it's like, "xbox pause" then a few minutes later "xbox play... xbox.. xbox select.. play." That's dumb.

The other problem is the app needs to be intelligently designed for voice control. Amazon Instant Video is NOT one of these apps. The voice commands map pretty directly to the controller commands, but of course the controller is much faster than the voice recognition. A good example of where that's annoying is rewinding and fast forwarding. "Xbox rewind" starts rewinding.. at 2x speed. So if you want to skip back 30 seconds, it'll take 15 seconds to do so. That's no good. So you can say "faster" which increases the speed. Of course, it takes the xbox a second to recognize the command. If you're rewinding 10 minutes, you end up saying "faster [pause] faster [pause] faster [pause]." It's obscene sounding and it takes forever. Then you let it go for a few more seconds... and "play!" But the voice control just timed out, so it's still rewinding. "Xbox play!" and a second later it starts, but you rewound a few minutes too far. And it's too much of a bother to fast forward.

But that's mostly the app's fault, not the Kinect's.

I hate jumpy FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079149)

"Most people will take a constant 30 FPS over a 40 FPS average frame rate that bounces between 20 and 60 FPS" On OSU I lock mine down at 120 because turning it off it runs around 1000 -1200 but the jumps can be worse than low FPS. You don't need a good card for it that for sure because even my crappy integrated gets over 100. Sadly it only ran 4-10 on Path of Exile hence the upgrade.

hang on to our hemispheres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079223)

zeus on the loose no excuse http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

retaliation for tricking the never ending holycosters into composting their dna into the lhc? vanity addicts sheesh

Oh, really? By Phillip Spring (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079253)

If someone else but me could figure out about one of my game ideas for Xbox One using Kinect, it brains would explode.

It's beyond the awesomeness of the greatest artist from the past combined with cutting edge technologies, one himself helped to create.

I can't be bothered with either (5, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46079321)

From what I've seen the improvement in graphics from my PS3 to the PS4 or XB1 just isn't enough to justify spending the money on a new console. I think like a lot of people I'll be skipping this generation and seeing what comes around in the next 5-10 years.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (3, Insightful)

Sandman1971 (516283) | about 3 months ago | (#46079487)

We're talking first gen /release day games here. Take PS3/Xbox 360 release day games and compare them to late PS2/Xbox games. It was exactly the same thing. Heck, just compare first year 360/PS2 games and compare them to new releases for those platforms. They are worlds apart. It takes developers a while to ramp up and get to know the architecture that they are writing for.

  Also, waiting for the next gen console before upgrading is fine and dandy if you don't plan on playing any new console releases. Give it a couple of years and most major developers will no longer be releasing most of their titles for the previous consoles.

Considering the record sales of the new consoles, I don't think your assumption that a lot of people are going to be skipping this generation is anywhere near the truth. You still can't find Xbox Ones and PS4s on store shelves or online stock, they're selling faster than either company can produce them. There might be a very small pocket of gamers who will, but so far all indications is that most will be upgrading at some point.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46079791)

"We're talking first gen /release day games here."

Irrelevant. Even on the first day the PS3 graphics blew the PS2 out of the water and then shot it up some more. Considering the PS4 is effectively just a PC with standard components there's no reason for it not to have blistering graphics on day 1 since game devs should already have been familiar with the hardware when preview hardware was made available (which was not the case with the PS3 and Xbox 360) and PC games libs should essentially Just Work when ported over.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46079963)

People have short memories: the big talking point when the 360 launched was that all the games looked like Xbox titles running in HD, or else they looked like a modest PC.

I mean, Kameo? Perfect Dark Zero? A passable port of Oblivion? These were not the games people lined up for.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 months ago | (#46079981)

I don't know about you, but I can tell a vast difference between the quality of games that came out earlier vs. later, particularly in the same series (e.g. Halo 3 vs. Halo Reach vs. Halo 4).

Re:I can't be bothered with either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46080097)

Saturday evening at Fry's electronics: A shelf of ps4s and 2 shelves of xbones. Seems available to me.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46080293)

I've seen shelves lined with Xbones at all the major shops, but no PS4's.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079553)

I cannot imagine why you'd believe there will be a next generation if a lot of people skip this generation.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 3 months ago | (#46080571)

[...] I think like a lot of people I'll be skipping this generation and seeing what comes around in the next 5-10 years.

I would expect that 5-10 years from now we'll have mirroring of our phones onto the TV screen and optional bluetooth gamepads.

Re:I can't be bothered with either (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 3 months ago | (#46080597)

I was kinda hoping that we'd left behind the desperate need for games to be propped up on their graphics. Can we not hope that actual good games will be released? Of course, we don't need new consoles for that either. I'm tempted to get the PS4, but I'm definitely going to wait until there's a sufficient library of games, and perhaps a version 2.0 with any niggles or bugs ironed out.

My PC is a higher spec than either console already, so I'm mostly hoping that developers just release games on more platforms, in a hope to get more money ;)

Doesn't anybody think of the lack of surveillance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46079447)

But how can the MS/RIAA/NSA now "monitor" players with just the voice and not the full video?

PC master race (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46080071)

The idea that a game would drop below 60 FPS on hardware that developers know about ahead of time makes my head want to explode. Yet, I saw a game stutter to about 10 FPS on the new Xbox One at my friend's house. Like I need one more reason to reinforce the fact that PC gaming is the superior type of gaming.

Re:PC master race (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 3 months ago | (#46081011)

So you've never seen a PC struggle to output a high frame rate before? Of course a PC platform has the advantage that you can throw $1000 of new hardware at a game to make it perform better, but perhaps then we're not comparing like with like.

Hardly surprising (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 3 months ago | (#46080993)

The PS3 launched with pretty stringent restrictions on the amount of CPU and memory games could use and loosened up over time. Sony wasn't sure what they'd need for future features / firmware updates and so chose to play it safe. As the firmware matured and was optimized, they were able to release some of that surplus power to games to make use of.

I don't see Microsoft doing much different. Maybe they reserved the CPU/GPU for similar reasons and now they've figured they don't need to any more, or can wake the Kinect up when the user hits pause or starts talking. I'm sure the change if it happens has a lot to do with the recent criticism the XB1 received about resolution and GPU performance when compared to the PS4. It's doubtful they'll ever reach parity but perhaps they can boost performance enough that in most instances it is close enough.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...