By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Series X: The Most Powerful and Compatible Next Gen System

trasharmdsister12 said:
Otter said:
" Backwards compatible games run natively on the Xbox Series X hardware, running with the full power of the CPU, GPU and the SSD. No boost mode"

Whats the difference between running natively and boost mode?

The difference is that there's a virtual limit set on the hardware in a "boost mode".

So for example, say a game on Xbox One X runs at a target of 4K and 60 FPS set by the developers. Xbox Series X will use all the CPU and GPU it needs to in order to hit that target. If the developer goes in and makes a patch to support higher settings or changes 60 FPS to 120 FPS, then Xbox Series X will automatically scale to use the CPU and GPU capabilities it has to reach that new target up until that hardware hits its natural limit.

In boost mode (as Sony has employed it in PS4 Pro - not sure this is the definition MS is employing in their PR) what happens is that the hardware is virtualized to run games to a specific set of hardware. This can be used to ease compatibility. For example, Sony has a boost mode on PS4 Pro that can run some PS4 games at better framerates even though they didn't get PS4 patches. But that new performance profile isn't taking full advantage of the CPU or GPU. The CPU or GPU is being restricted to a certain frequency or to use a certain amount of resources/cores that parallel the earlier hardware. So even if the hardware is capable of a higher performance threshold, it won't be realized. 

So really the big difference in practice is say a developer goes back and adds a mode to have a higher framerate; for this example RDR2 at 60 fps. With a boost mode, the new console would limit its CPU and GPU resources to better mimic the hardware setup of an older console (less cpu cores/threads and gpu compute units so the code's parallel nature can operate the same way) and the boost comes from frequency upgrades and other IPC improvements. This has a lower natural limitation as maybe half the CPU is just sitting idle for example. In the case of RDR2 at 60 FPS this setup may top out at 50-55fps even though the CPU is half unused. MS's approach is what would possibly allow them to use the rest of that CPU to increase the framerates in this example to a solid 60. And only the parts of the CPU that don't need to be used to hit that limit would sit idle.

I see, thanks for the detailed response!

I'm curious to see how this will compare to sonys approach and whether it will make a meaningful difference to the quality of BC between the 2 systems.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

I remember a clear new from Phil or someone of that level saying they had put a stop on launching new BC titles while they were working on Series X, I think it was Scarlet the codename? So with the XSX being near release they will probably add many more og xbox and x360 titles on the system while keeping almost 100% X1 also BC for XSX. All of that with automatic improvements so less burden on the team with some improvement for the user, even though BC doesn't bring many customers and I usually only play new titles this is a solid implementation.

In 2016 Phil claimed 50% of users used BC. Given it will be available at launch, I bet the percentage of people that use BC on PS5 and Series X will be much higher than that.

I don't get why people keep saying BC doesn't bring many customers or any variation of that thought. Its a feature people want and many will use it, that's all I care about.

I can understand that people want it, but it's not something MS should be hanging their hat on. The whole world knows by now that it has BC, but they keep repeating it and making it sound like Smart Delivery and BC are their main selling points.

We need to see them Series X exclusives with never-before-seen eyeball melting graphics. If they don't have that during their July showcase, it's going to be a bad look for them. Especially when they're calling Series X the most powerful console and Sony is the one that ends up wow'ing everybody when they showcase true next games during their reveal.



Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

I remember a clear new from Phil or someone of that level saying they had put a stop on launching new BC titles while they were working on Series X, I think it was Scarlet the codename? So with the XSX being near release they will probably add many more og xbox and x360 titles on the system while keeping almost 100% X1 also BC for XSX. All of that with automatic improvements so less burden on the team with some improvement for the user, even though BC doesn't bring many customers and I usually only play new titles this is a solid implementation.

In 2016 Phil claimed 50% of users used BC. Given it will be available at launch, I bet the percentage of people that use BC on PS5 and Series X will be much higher than that.

I don't get why people keep saying BC doesn't bring many customers or any variation of that thought. Its a feature people want and many will use it, that's all I care about.

He also gave the average playtime on BC and it was very small.

Still using the BC and buying because of BC are different things. A lot of us use the console for Netflix, Prime, Crunchyroll, etc but I doubt any of us bought the console because of it.

The reason why we keep claiming it is because of data. Full BC with PS1 and PS2 was available on PS3 launch and didn't really help the sales, pricecut did even if they had to take out the BC. PS4 didn't had any and broke all records (even from PS2 that had BC), X1 didn't had acceleration in sales when BC released. Switch doesn't have BC and still sold record breaking numbers. There isn't a single iota of evidence that would prove BC improve sales.

So it is a nice feature but don't bring that many new sales, and since both consoles will have it that won't really be much of a differentiator.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

EnricoPallazzo said:
Im just waiting for the announcement of how the Series X will treat resolution on older titles WITHOUT a developer patch. If they say I will be finally able to play, for example GTA4/Mass Effect/Assassins Creed Syndicate at 1080p WITHOUT a developer patch then it will be day 1 for me. If it is possible to go to 60fps then I will even pre order.

From all they said and their algorithm for me is clear that all titles may have better pixel count and framerate even if the dev doesn't do any patch.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Mr Puggsly said:
hinch said:
Nice. Would be awesome to see old legacy games running at higher res (like 1440p or 4k) and framerates. Should they launch a Series S, I'd be tempted to buy one for my older library and newer games.

A video showed Gears Ultimate apparently running at 4K on BC. That would simply be 1080p at 2x scale.

If they applied that to all games, even the 720p games would suddenly become 1440p. Nothing is confirmed yet, but that showed it could be done.

4k is like four times the resolution of 1080p. Older titles should be easily be able to be emulated to 4k from 720p (360 era) one I would hope.



Around the Network
hinch said:
Mr Puggsly said:

A video showed Gears Ultimate apparently running at 4K on BC. That would simply be 1080p at 2x scale.

If they applied that to all games, even the 720p games would suddenly become 1440p. Nothing is confirmed yet, but that showed it could be done.

4k is like four times the resolution of 1080p. Older titles should be easily be able to be emulated to 4k from 720p (360 era) one I would hope.

1080p to 4K is doubling each axis
720p to 4K is tripling each axis

Hence 720p looks better on a 4K tv than on a 1080p tv (where every 2 pixels become 3)
Doubling 720p to 1440p to then upscale to 4K will look worse. (double then scale every 2 pixels to 3 again)

Of course all it does is get cleaner lines and sharper textures in the distance. Detail is still made for 720p and 1080p. Same with adding HDR, higher contrast range but you won't get more detail in the bright and dark areas.

It will look better than having the TV do the upscale and adding HDR yet results will vary greatly by game. PC has the options to increase detail levels and effects, BC doesn't have those options or very limited unless the game is remastered.

The biggest improvement will come from higher, stable fps.



SvennoJ said:
hinch said:

4k is like four times the resolution of 1080p. Older titles should be easily be able to be emulated to 4k from 720p (360 era) one I would hope.

1080p to 4K is doubling each axis
720p to 4K is tripling each axis

Hence 720p looks better on a 4K tv than on a 1080p tv (where every 2 pixels become 3)
Doubling 720p to 1440p to then upscale to 4K will look worse. (double then scale every 2 pixels to 3 again)

Of course all it does is get cleaner lines and sharper textures in the distance. Detail is still made for 720p and 1080p. Same with adding HDR, higher contrast range but you won't get more detail in the bright and dark areas.

It will look better than having the TV do the upscale and adding HDR yet results will vary greatly by game. PC has the options to increase detail levels and effects, BC doesn't have those options or very limited unless the game is remastered.

The biggest improvement will come from higher, stable fps.

It all depends on the quality of their algorithm and they keep improving it, but it should be something that applies to all games even if devs don't do any patch. There is good stuff to be expected from it. And sure some devs had even at the time made better assets than what they put in the game due to optmization so they can make those available as well.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

@SvennoJ I'm talking full 4k internal resolution across the board for legacy titles, which shouldn't be too hard for next gen consoles. Especially for the disparity in hardware between the Series X > 360 for emulation.

Going to kindly disagree. Games will just look better all around even with just a resolution boost. Try playing any older legacy games on modern hardware, the boost in image quality means that even though textures are the same, but you can see more detail as there is more detail per pixels on screen. I've been playing on PC's for a long time and with emulators. Games running at higher resolutions native to display always looks better. Just look at he amount of remasters this generation.

I just hate to run anything 720p on my monitor or TV's it just looks like vaseline mess. Even running my base PS4 on my monitor leaves much to be desired.

Last edited by hinch - on 29 May 2020

Well that's a fine how-do-you-do.



Twitter: @d21lewis

First SSDs, now compatibility. If we aren't careful they might even introduce options menus next.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.