fps_d0minat0r said:
1) Because memory is is the bottleneck for X1 resolution. Thats why MS made adjustments to their SDK remember? 2) Sony could do that too since they have reserved a similar amount of memory, it just wouldnt be called directX, it would be called something else. If you really think X1 is gonna get direct x, updates to API, OS and SDK's and sony are just gonna sit idle, you are wrong. Until then, as it stands, theres nothing to suggest the X1 is 'far more flexible and capable' than the PS4 because its not. |
Again, what does the flexibility of the OS have to do with resolution? Resolution is a matter of hardware capability, not software capability. Yes, Microsoft can and DirectX12 will make software more efficient, thus allowing for improved graphic fidelity, but the hardware is still capable of achieving the graphic fidelity.
For one, what makes you think Microsoft doesn't already own the patents for parallelism in a graphical API? Considering neither NVidia, Intel, nor AMD have offered anything similar to DirectX12, what makes you think anyone else will be able to develop an API on the same level as DirectX12? DirectX12 talks to the hardware on the same level as Mantle, yet offers parallelism with the GPU. Who's going to write that capability for free and give it to Sony? Sony's not a software developer. Their OS is FreeBSD with their UI on top of it. The only thing Sony knows how to do is take an OS that someone else wrote, put it on hardware, stick a UI on top of it, and throw some apps in it. They don't know how to write kernels or APIs.
Until they know how to do that, then as it stands, a Microsoft OS will always be more capable and flexible than any OS that Sony can install on a piece of hardware.
It doesn't matter how good the hardware is if the code is inefficient. DirectX12 removes a substantial inefficiency in the hardware. Any Windows PC capable of supporting DirectX12 will offer substantially greater efficiency, and that includes the Xbox One. I know first-hand the importance of efficient code vs. more hardware and I can attest to the fact that no matter how much you have and how good the hardware is, unless you improve the software you won't see any improvement in performance.
Doesn't matter if you're talking in-house code or packaged code. I've dealth with it.
Very few people can say this, but I've actually gone through the experience of a mainframe crash because of software inefficiencies that got so out of hand they obliterated the resources of an IBM mainframe. So don't try and suggest to me the importance of hardware over software. Hardware is only important to people who know nothing about software, because they think the hardware is like an engine in a car. The reality is, however, that software is the gasoline/petrol that creates the horsepower the hardware is capable of.
And that my good...whatever is a fact.
