View Post
Conina said:
Areaz32 said:

I am talking about the problems with the PC version upon launch. 

... which had nothing to do with the Xbox One optimization. 

Why not? You didn't provide a different reason. Go on...

Pemalite said:
Areaz32 said:

Yes, you do if you want that same optimization potential.

Except all the optimization in the world hasn't done wonders for the Xbox One or Playstation 4. - Those consoles still cannot guarantee 1080P, 60fps with anything more than medium quality settings.

The Playstation 4 SoC is doing absolutely nothing that I wouldn't expect out of a Radeon 7870. So... It's not punching above it's weight.

The first party games clearly look better than the third party games on PS4. 60fps is a CPU problem, not a GPU problem. Also, I am pretty certain that no one expected PS4 to do TLOU2 graphics back in 2012 when they released the 7870. 

Areaz32 said:

There is a reason why Quantum Break ran so poorly on PC, and that is because its engine was initially programmed to be highly optimized for the Xbox One hardware, and then the PC, in turn, had to run it in a very inefficient way.

That is a bit of a fallacy that you assume just because one game runs poorly on one platform... That it must be highly optimized for another.

Here is the kicker... The majority of ports to Windows Store tend to be terribly bad.
Quantum Break however runs perfectly fine on my PC... And actually ran like Garbage on my Xbox One X months ago.

It isn't a conclusion I made through any fallacy. It is an educated suggestion as to how and why it happened. If you were to tell me that Remedy devs are incompetent on the tech side, I would call you a liar. This is the only way to explain why the PC version ran so poorly. The would clearly have fixed it given enough time, as they also did with a lot of the issues afterwards. Most windows store games were planned to be Xbox one only for a long time until Microsoft changed their tune.

Areaz32 said: 

I don't think you understand. It is the reality of the Windows OS and their graphics API's that are in the way of letting PC's utilize APU's the same way the console (not sure about Xbox's because they recently mandated all games be made for PC as well) API's make it possible. It is a question of design not processing power. If graphics engineers are able to pull off a certain feature for their engine by utilizing the highly unified structure of the console hardware, then they wouldn't be able to get the same performance on the equivalent PC hardware. Some features done in console games are simply not as efficient on PCs.

No. I don't think you understand.
The Xbox One is using a Monolithic OS that is derived from the Windows 10 Kernel. - It then has high level API's like Direct X 11 and 12 just like the PC.
It also has low-level API's for developers that wish to leverage those.
It's also running multiple Operating Systems in tandem... And gobbling up more Ram than a desktop OS.

Yep, it has a low-level API for developers that wish to leverage that level of control, but the problem comes in when you want to port it to the PC platform because then you can't directly port it without significant performance pitfalls. Simply put, some of the hardware intricacies of the xbox and playstation aren't available on ALL PC hardware (keyword here is "intricacies") so sometimes you can't rely on async compute or some specific number of scheduled wavefronts in your PC games, simply because you never know if it actually has all those ACE units, ROPs or ALU's or whatever.

Elaborate on "gobbling up more Ram than a desktop OS"  Most desktop OS's eat up more ram depending on how much ram it has. For instance, I am running 32gb ddr4 and it eats more than 10 gigs on caching etc. It will free that ram up if i actually start using it in a game, or some other application, but there you have it.

It is also leveraging x86 PC hardware... And you somehow came to the conclusion it's a more lean implementation than what the PC offers? Common.

From a hardware perspective... There is not a single graphics feature that is done on the old and outdated console Graphics Core Next hardware that cannot be done on PC. None at all.
And all the talk of Unified memory, large ACE counts and all the other bells and whistles that have been championed from the last 5 years? Where is the advantage it is has provided over the PC? It just hasn't materialized.

Elaborate on what you mean when you say "more lean". I didn't imply that it is automatically better than what PC offers. What I am arguing is that utilizing different specific hardware in a specialized way is preferred over using random hardware, as random hardware would have to brute-force a ton of random stuff just to get the same result.

As an example, emulators are extremely inefficient. It is a similar principle. The emulation overhead itself can be lightweight but when it comes to executing the code that was built for specific hardware, then it becomes way slow. A laptop I had from 2013 buckled hard in the attempt to render some enemies with a special specular mapping in the later stages of Persona 4 for instance. It dropped to under 10fps and it was a laptop with two GT 650m SLI and an i7. Granted these specs aren't anything special today, but it would still amount to several times the power of a PS2.

I wasn't arguing that PC as a whole cannot achieve these features. I am just saying that developers cannot use these features on PC in any significant way, because they never know if the end user even HAS IT.

The advantages have mostly shown itself in the first party space. Media Molecules game, for instance, has completely done away with the rasterization hardware (ROPs) and they are using a cutting-edge SDF solution for their graphics. If they didn't have those ACE units they would never have been able to go with this SDF solution. The Tomorrow Children is also a game that uses cascaded voxel cone tracing. No one else was doing that back in 2014. Here is a GDC PDF from early 2015  

The take away here is that, if this game was multiplat, it would most definitely mean that they would be forced to use more traditional technology. Unless they only want to target that very narrow segment of the PC market that had GPU's with those exact features.