Support NeoGAF

[SlimySnake]

This is what Metro looks like at 512p.

I dont care if you are watching this on your 1080p work monitor or your 1080p tv screen or a 4k lg oled with vrr or a 720p switch screen. This should not be acceptable. It was not acceptable in 2006 when PS3 games were blasted for resolutions under 720p, and it should not be acceptable 3 gens later.

 

[Andodalf]

This is what Metro looks like at 512p.

I dont care if you are watching this on your 1080p work monitor or your 1080p tv screen or a 4k lg oled with vrr or a 720p switch screen. This should not be acceptable. It was not acceptable in 2006 when PS3 games were blasted for resolutions under 720p, and it should not be acceptable 3 gens later.

Don't buy it then?

 

[Riky]

In the VGtech analysis it say 912p-594p with the lower bound being "rare" as in it doesn't run at that resolution often, it then upscales to 1080p.
Claiming the lowest bound is what it runs at is disingenuous. The PS5 version also goes down to below 1080p according to the same analysis.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying the XSX was not designed to be stronger than the PS5 in every way possible? They chose 12 tflops for a reason. They wanted to be the most powerful console next gen. They advertised it as such.


It's clear that both Sony and MS knew about RDNA 2.0 well before we did. And we knew about RDNA 2.0 in 2019 when RDNA 1.0 was first revealed. Proof is in the specs and Cerny confirmed that it would have ray tracing back in April 2019 before RDNA 1.0 was even announced. Yes, they were designed years in advance but Sony and MS knew what AMD had in store for RDNA 2.0 and a big part of that was ray tracing and the perf per watt gains. Otherwise Sony wouldve never targeted such high clock speeds.

XSX was designed to be the best box that MS could manufacture for $500, same with the equivalent sku of PS5. They seem to have landed in a similar space (somewhere in the 6600XT/RTX3060 but with better bandwidth).

Neither Sony nor MS hit AMD desktop clocks with the gpu most comparable in transistor count. That's typical.

When you look at the XSX there's no way that Sony's chip functions in there heat wise. Plus, the chip built by MS does things that MS needed like run 4 X1 games at once. The two companies built different consoles.

 

[SlimySnake]

In the VGtech analysis it say 912p-594p with the lower bound being "rare" as in it doesn't run at that resolution often, it then upscales to 1080p.
Claiming the lowest bound is what it runs at is disingenuous. The PS5 version also goes down to below 1080p according to the same analysis.

lol Your boy Alex himself said that its really not that hard to find Metro hit 512p when combat begins or when you go to several deamanding areas like the forest level posted above. Weird that you would run to VG Tech when my screenshot is literally timestamped for the DF video where this is stated to imply I was lying.



And yet you call ME disingenuous. lol

 

[DenchDeckard]

I'm quite happy to take your word for it. But what are games like The Matrix Demo supposed to look like on the XSS? Can we see the horrors coming our way, is there an example detailing this?

Because I tooled about in it on an XSS, and I thought it was fine.

avin

I picked up a 32 inch Samsung 1080p TV for my 10 year old daughter and a series s and the matrix demo actually looks pretty damn good when it's running on that box. I'm sure if they were side by side with my series x and my LG OLED I could clearly see the difference, but sat on her bed and watching the Sammy 32 from around 1.5 / 2 metres it looks great on that 1080p display.

 

[DarkMage619]

I picked up a 32 inch Samsung 1080p TV for my 10 year old daughter and a series s and the matrix demo actually looks pretty damn good when it's running on that box. I'm sure if they were side by side with my series x and my LG OLED I could clearly see the difference, but sat on her bed and watching the Sammy 32 from around 1.5 / 2 metres it looks great on that 1080p display.

It's for people with similar circumstances as you that the XSS was created. Not everyone wants or needs the top of the line console just like not every PC builder wants to buy a RTX 3090. These options have been good for consumers and good for MS as well. As long as the biggest complaints aren't coming from customers MS will be fine.

 

[Riky]

lol Your boy Alex himself said that its really not that hard to find Metro hit 512p when combat begins or when you go to several deamanding areas like the forest level posted above. Weird that you would run to VG Tech when my screenshot is literally timestamped for the DF video where this is stated to imply I was lying.



And yet you call ME disingenuous. lol

The point is it's "rare" you're implying that's the norm and it isn't, far from it. No more than the sub 1080p resolution results on the PS5 are.

 

[ReBurn]

This is what Metro looks like at 512p.

I dont care if you are watching this on your 1080p work monitor or your 1080p tv screen or a 4k lg oled with vrr or a 720p switch screen. This should not be acceptable. It was not acceptable in 2006 when PS3 games were blasted for resolutions under 720p, and it should not be acceptable 3 gens later.

I guess that's the trade-off to get mostly 60 FPS with ray traced global illumination on the Series S. The developer opted to allow their DRS solution to take the resolution that low. They probably should have allowed the framerate to drop a bit more and cap the lower resolution bound at 720p or something. Or they could have had it run at 30 FPS.

This game is one that you need to take with a grain of salt, though. It isn't exactly rock solid native 4K/60 on the beefier consoles, either. PS5 bottoms out at around 1296p and XSX at around 1512p based on other comparisons done around the same time as the one this screenshot came from. The developer definitely made choices, but I don't know that it's all that bad for such a demanding version release 8 months into the console generation. Have to think developers will only get better at driving the hardware.

 

[yamaci17]

In the VGtech analysis it say 912p-594p with the lower bound being "rare" as in it doesn't run at that resolution often, it then upscales to 1080p.
Claiming the lowest bound is what it runs at is disingenuous. The PS5 version also goes down to below 1080p according to the same analysis.

df practically confirmed that it runs consistently at 500-512p in the entirety of taiga (and sx and ps5 consistently 1000-1100p in the same location). based on my own experience, half of the game runs like the taiga, while the other half runs like the starting region (good, high performance). based on that, it is justified to say that at least a %40 portion of the game runs at 500-600p. even if that was the case, you would still say it looks good, perfect, and crisp on a 1080p screen, which I disagree as well (because, i tried this game @720p and @800p, and it also includes its own bespoke temporal upscaler, yet it did not look good on my end. dlss quality at 1080p also did not look that good, for extra note)

sry dude, im not with you on this one

if you really, really want it i can record A Average framerate in every chapter of the game and show you the performance profile between them

 

[Riky]

df practically confirmed that it runs consistently at 500-512p in the entirety of taiga (and sx and ps5 consistently 1000-1100p in the same location). based on my own experience, half of the game runs like the taiga, while the other half runs like the starting region (good, high performance). based on that, it is justified to say that at least a %40 portion of the game runs at 500-600p. even if that was the case, you would still say it looks good, perfect, and crisp on a 1080p screen, which I disagree as well (because, i tried this game @720p and @800p, and it also includes its own bespoke temporal upscaler, yet it did not look good on my end. dlss quality at 1080p also did not look that good, for extra note)

sry dude, im not with you on this one

I didn't say it looks good, it looks acceptable on my 43" 1080p TV, point is just using the lowest count found and saying that's it for the game isn't correct, actually guessing resolutions from what you see is actually very difficult, that's why people are often surprised by results from these pixel counters as they have no clue themselves.
Also it not my count it's VGtech who shows the pixel counted screens as evidence, so if he's counted them and say they are Rare who am I to argue.

 

[DarkMage619]

df practically confirmed that it runs consistently at 500-512p in the entirety of taiga (and sx and ps5 consistently 1000-1100p in the same location). based on my own experience, half of the game runs like the taiga, while the other half runs like the starting region (good, high performance). based on that, it is justified to say that at least a %40 portion of the game runs at 500-600p. even if that was the case, you would still say it looks good, perfect, and crisp on a 1080p screen, which I disagree as well (because, i tried this game @720p and @800p, and it also includes its own bespoke temporal upscaler, yet it did not look good on my end. dlss quality at 1080p also did not look that good, for extra note)

sry dude, im not with you on this one

The system has bigger trade-offs. You want 60fps and raytracing? The resolution will suffer. You want higher resolutions? Then raytracing and higher framerates might have to be compromised. No one ever claimed otherwise. As you noted yourself even higher end boxes take a hit too when stressed but for some strange reason only the budget box is attacked? Why aren't the PS5 and XSX locked at 4K with raytracing and 60fps? They are the premium option! Sounds silly doesn't it?

 

[yamaci17]

I didn't say it looks good, it looks acceptable on my 43" 1080p TV, point is just using the lowest count found and saying that's it for the game isn't correct, actually guessing resolutions from what you see is actually very difficult, that's why people are often surprised by results from these pixel counters as they have no clue themselves.

they should do more pixel counts, or find smarter ways to calculate average resolution pixel counts. its really hard to discuss anything without concrete data, I agree with you.

or maybe not count pixels at all, say nothing, and that way none of us will have to deal with this stuff.

for example, if VG Tech is sure of himself about that resolution count being the absolute lowest, it is quite possible he has more data on his hands. i really wonder how many frames he calculates. a more comprenhesive pixel count consisting of at least 40-50 frames would be more helpful

it is easy to do on PC, i discovered that Reshade can show the current render resolution on-the-fly. i'm sure if xbox and ps made it so that the information was accesible by reviewers, they could provide more "accurate" average pixel resolution counts for us

i think it would be best for everyone if he stopped saying "lowest resolution is this". instead just say the most common resolution you've come across and we can do a more accurate discussion with that information

 

[yamaci17]

The system has bigger trade-offs. You want 60fps and raytracing? The resolution will suffer. You want higher resolutions? Then raytracing and higher framerates might have to be compromised. No one ever claimed otherwise. As you noted yourself even higher end boxes take a hit too when stressed but for some strange reason only the budget box is attacked? Why aren't the PS5 and XSX locked at 4K with raytracing and 60fps? They are the premium option! Sounds silly doesn't it?

im dismissing all consoles

you should've noticed by now, i'm calling them blatant 1080p 60 fps gaming consoles over and over again, is it not considered attacking? to my eyes, they're simply that. and i also say that it is a disgrace that they couldn't target 4k 60 fps. they can run all last gen games at 4k 60 fps for all I care. ps4 also ran tons of ps3 games at 1080p 60 fps. it was not the end result the console was targeting though.

i was so hyped when i heard ac:valhalla was going to be 4k 60 fps on ps5 and sx. i felt like "nice, if the games like valhalla runs at 4k 60 fps, then it means we can have tons of 1440-1620p nextgen games, and series s would be comfortable at 900p-1080p 60 fps). and then the game comes out, oh god, 1100ps... 1200ps... 760ps... everywhere. from that point on, I lost all my respect to all consoles altogether. i hoped valhalla would be an exception. instead, even worse ports came to be. like dying light 2 and GOTG (in the case of dl2 and gotg, both can actually run at 1300-1440p 60fps. both devs purposefully gimped the console ports for reasons I have no idea about)

maybe 1200p looks better on 4k screen because temporal upscaler has more pixels to work with. sadly, that's not a case with 1080p.

native 4k 60 fps should've been the standard. sacrifice unnecessary visual settings if necessary. because i know there are lots of them. ac valhalla is one good example where resolution is sacrificed instead of visual settings. 1200p sounds too funny on a native 4k screen. i dunno man. these consoles are a 4k scam to my eyes. here's my attack, if you want to be like forza horizon 5 and halo infinite (but this game looks particularly bad so I can't even be properly happy that it manages to run 4k 60 fps)

 

[SlimySnake]

The point is it's "rare" you're implying that's the norm and it isn't, far from it. No more than the sub 1080p resolution results on the PS5 are.

I really dont know what to say. Just listen to what Alex says. He says its really not hard to find the series s drop to 512p during combat and during ANY of the GPU intensive areas he had covered earlier in the game which were the desert level and the forest level. Thats 2 out of the 3 open world areas in the game. Even the first open world, the snowy area, one drops during combat but maintains 864p when just exploring.

By definition, thats not rare.

 

[SlimySnake]

I guess that's the trade-off to get mostly 60 FPS with ray traced global illumination on the Series S. The developer opted to allow their DRS solution to take the resolution that low. They probably should have allowed the framerate to drop a bit more and cap the lower resolution bound at 720p or something. Or they could have had it run at 30 FPS.

This game is one that you need to take with a grain of salt, though. It isn't exactly rock solid native 4K/60 on the beefier consoles, either. PS5 bottoms out at around 1296p and XSX at around 1512p based on other comparisons done around the same time as the one this screenshot came from. The developer definitely made choices, but I don't know that it's all that bad for such a demanding version release 8 months into the console generation. Have to think developers will only get better at driving the hardware.

Yeah, I mentioned this when it was originally released. Just make Series S 30 fps and it would definitely easily hit 720p consistently since 512p is around 500k pixels and 720p is around 950k pixels. Not sure why they didnt but i think they might have wanted to avoid bad press if they had decided not to support 60 fps on the series s.

I think Metro is the perfect game to gauge the series s, PS5 and XSX performance. Every other game should be the ones taken with a grain of salt since they are all last gen game using last gen rendering methods. The Matrix and Metro are literally the only two games pushing consoles like next gen games will whenever devs get their head out of their ass and actually start making them.

In fact, Metro isnt even pushing any advance physics, destruction or AI that will no doubt increase the rendering budget or worse borrow more ram bandwidth for the CPU. PS5 might be 1296p right now but it might hit 1080p like the Matrix which is pushing advanced chaos physics destruction and fully simulated NPC A.I for traffic and pedestrians. What would happen to the 512p resolution of the series s then?

 

[Riky]

I really dont know what to say. Just listen to what Alex says. He says its really not hard to find the series s drop to 512p during combat and during ANY of the GPU intensive areas he had covered earlier in the game which were the desert level and the forest level. Thats 2 out of the 3 open world areas in the game. Even the first open world, the snowy area, one drops during combat but maintains 864p when just exploring.

By definition, thats not rare.

Better take that up with VGtech then, some people seem to cherry pick who they believe when it suits them, when Tom counts something suddenly DF isn't a reliable source anymore.
4A when discussing the patch said they were very interested in SFS going forward, that should help immensely on their next game.

 

[dcmk7]

This is what Metro looks like at 512p.

I dont care if you are watching this on your 1080p work monitor or your 1080p tv screen or a 4k lg oled with vrr or a 720p switch screen. This should not be acceptable. It was not acceptable in 2006 when PS3 games were blasted for resolutions under 720p, and it should not be acceptable 3 gens later.

That does look atrocious and it's sad to see as 4a games are one of the best independent studios around imo.

IIRC they spoke out about XSS being a bit of a pain that couldn't find suitable compromises for.

 

[DeepEnigma]

some people seem to cherry pick

 

[SlimySnake]

XSX was designed to be the best box that MS could manufacture for $500, same with the equivalent sku of PS5. They seem to have landed in a similar space (somewhere in the 6600XT/RTX3060 but with better bandwidth).

Neither Sony nor MS hit AMD desktop clocks with the gpu most comparable in transistor count. That's typical.

When you look at the XSX there's no way that Sony's chip functions in there heat wise. Plus, the chip built by MS does things that MS needed like run 4 X1 games at once. The two companies built different consoles.

The PS5 was held back by their ridiculous need to offer a $399 console. If Sony can sell the same GPU/CPU/RAM/SSD combo for $399 then for a hundred dollars more they couldve offered a better GPU/tflops console. Like Richard said, the BOM cost for a UHD is barely even $20 that leaves them with $80 to spend on a 10% bigger GPU to get 40 CUs, faster VRAM and a less archaic cooling solution. That giant heatsink is supposedly only a few dollars which is great for cost savings, but who give a shit about cost savings when you ended up charging your consumers an extra $100 for a premium $500 console anyway?

I think both Sony and MS missed a trick here. Sony for cost reasons. MS because they wanted to hit 12 tflops no matter what. A 40 CU 6700xt at 2.23 Ghz PS5 clocks would be 11.4 tflops and offer way better performance than what the XSX is offering now in games where it is inexplicably tied with the PS5. And the $500 PS5 SKU would be a far better product than it is today. it makes no sense to me that games that can run at native 4k 30 fps LOCKED like Guardians of the Galaxy and Horizon FW struggle to run at 1080p 60 fps while using downgraded settings. Both consoles are bottlenecked somehow, both for different reasons that arose from execs meddling with the design. In Sony's case, putting a hard limit at $399 and in MS's case, that ridiculous sandwich strategy Panello confirmed on era. I for once admired MS sticking with a $500 premium price tag. It allowed them to push for more elegant and expensive cooling solution, way faster VRAM and a bigger GPU. So I will give MS execs props for that.

 

[SlimySnake]

That does look atrocious and it's sad to see as 4a games are one of the best independent studios around imo.

IIRC they spoke out about XSS being a bit of a pain that couldn't find suitable compromises for.

I think 30 fps wouldve been a suitable compromise. The game was perfectly playable in 30 fps on last gen consoles.

Sometimes devs just make dumb decisions.

Same thing happened with the Matrix. Just use Software Lumens on XSS. Hardware Lumens has a 38% performance penalty according to Alex. And thats just the GPU. We all know ray tracing is very memory bandwidth heavy. For all we know the XSS is dropping significantly below 533p because of hardware lumens using hardware accelerated ray tracing. Who knows a 4 tflops GPU might run the game at 720p consistently if not forced to utilize hardware accelerated ray tracing.

 

[ReBurn]

Yeah, I mentioned this when it was originally released. Just make Series S 30 fps and it would definitely easily hit 720p consistently since 512p is around 500k pixels and 720p is around 950k pixels. Not sure why they didnt but i think they might have wanted to avoid bad press if they had decided not to support 60 fps on the series s.

I think Metro is the perfect game to gauge the series s, PS5 and XSX performance. Every other game should be the ones taken with a grain of salt since they are all last gen game using last gen rendering methods. The Matrix and Metro are literally the only two games pushing consoles like next gen games will whenever devs get their head out of their ass and actually start making them.

In fact, Metro isnt even pushing any advance physics, destruction or AI that will no doubt increase the rendering budget or worse borrow more ram bandwidth for the CPU. PS5 might be 1296p right now but it might hit 1080p like the Matrix which is pushing advanced chaos physics destruction and fully simulated NPC A.I for traffic and pedestrians. What would happen to the 512p resolution of the series s then?

I don't know that I would use this game as the benchmark precisely for the reasons you mentioned. If it isn't doing much that's overly taxing outside of ray traced global illumination and all console versions steeply drop resolution as the action picks up then it doesn't seem like a game where the developer spent time optimizing the experience from the get-go. It's a similar story to Guardians of the Galaxy where people use it to criticize Series S but ignore it running at 1080p native res to hit the best performance on the bigger boxes. What I want to see are games where it's clear the developer made an effort to maximize performance and just couldn't do it but we don't seem to see many of those on any of the current consoles.

 

[adamsapple]

This is what Metro looks like at 512p.

I dont care if you are watching this on your 1080p work monitor or your 1080p tv screen or a 4k lg oled with vrr or a 720p switch screen. This should not be acceptable. It was not acceptable in 2006 when PS3 games were blasted for resolutions under 720p, and it should not be acceptable 3 gens later.

RTGI and a flat 60 FPS line on a $299 machine, and it only drops to low resolutions in stress areas, not running at it all the time.

Asking anything else from a $299 machine is just weird, if it doesn't fit your criteria, you have a few other choices to play this game on.

 

[Riky]

I don't know that I would use this game as the benchmark precisely for the reasons you mentioned. If it isn't doing much that's overly taxing outside of ray traced global illumination and all console versions steeply drop resolution as the action picks up then it doesn't seem like a game where the developer spent time optimizing the experience from the get-go. It's a similar story to Guardians of the Galaxy where people use it to criticize Series S but ignore it running at 1080p native res to hit the best performance on the bigger boxes. What I want to see are games where it's clear the developer made an effort to maximize performance and just couldn't do it but we don't seem to see many of those on any of the current consoles.

I agree.

We'll know a lot more when we finally see some first party next gen only games, it'll be interesting to see what Microsoft come up with when they have several performance saving features both software and in the hardware. FSR 2.0, Tier 2 VRS, SFS and Mesh Shaders. What will get used and what will be used in conjunction with each other and what affect will they have on Series X and S. Last gen ports aren't really telling us much.

 

[DarkMage619]

RTGI and a flat 60 FPS line on a $299 machine, and it only drops to low resolutions in stress areas, not running at it all the time.

Asking anything else from a $299 machine is just weird, if it doesn't fit your criteria, you have a few other choices to play this game on.

I would love for the detractors to point to an equal or lower cost device with better performance. It's impressive what is possible for the price and as Riky said we still haven't seen what is really possible yet.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The PS5 was held back by their ridiculous need to offer a $399 console. If Sony can sell the same GPU/CPU/RAM/SSD combo for $399 then for a hundred dollars more they couldve offered a better GPU/tflops console. Like Richard said, the BOM cost for a UHD is barely even $20 that leaves them with $80 to spend on a 10% bigger GPU to get 40 CUs, faster VRAM and a less archaic cooling solution. That giant heatsink is supposedly only a few dollars which is great for cost savings, but who give a shit about cost savings when you ended up charging your consumers an extra $100 for a premium $500 console anyway?

I think both Sony and MS missed a trick here. Sony for cost reasons. MS because they wanted to hit 12 tflops no matter what. A 40 CU 6700xt at 2.23 Ghz PS5 clocks would be 11.4 tflops and offer way better performance than what the XSX is offering now in games where it is inexplicably tied with the PS5. And the $500 PS5 SKU would be a far better product than it is today. it makes no sense to me that games that can run at native 4k 30 fps LOCKED like Guardians of the Galaxy and Horizon FW struggle to run at 1080p 60 fps while using downgraded settings. Both consoles are bottlenecked somehow, both for different reasons that arose from execs meddling with the design. In Sony's case, putting a hard limit at $399 and in MS's case, that ridiculous sandwich strategy Panello confirmed on era. I for once admired MS sticking with a $500 premium price tag. It allowed them to push for more elegant and expensive cooling solution, way faster VRAM and a bigger GPU. So I will give MS execs props for that.

That assumes that a $400 price supported the manufacturing cost of a PS5 at launch. Considering this would be the more profitable model for them (thanks to being 100% locked to their store), if that were the case I think the manufacturing would have been at minimum split 50/50, but more likely skewed in favor of the digital box. Instead the digital PS5 has been the purple unicorn, with the $500 option being the most consistently produced. If I had to guess, I would say that the $400 sku was in the red by a good margin at launch and the sku was limited in production to control those losses.

 

[dcmk7]

SFS and Mesh Shaders; how long have we been hearing about these for

 

[dcmk7]

I would love for the detractors to point to an equal or lower cost device with better performance

A better value for money proposition is any of the bigger consoles, they are more future proof and as of yet don't drop to ~500p resolutions in any title as far as I am aware. Hard drive space on XSS is very stingy but guess targeting casuals who might not be fussed.

If ask me the PS5 DE is undoubtedly best bang for buck and is designed to give the same experience as the PS5 at the same resolution.

 

[Tripolygon]

What a shitty underpowered console Series S is. Microsoft needs to kill it and release something better at least as powerful as Xbox One X in terms of GPU and up memory to 12GB, the storage to a full 1TB. They can do that for $349 and it would seem like a better deal.

 

[SlimySnake]

What a shitty underpowered console Series S is. Microsoft needs to kill it and release something better at least as powerful as Xbox One X in terms of GPU and up memory to 12GB, the storage to a full 1TB. They can do that for $349 and it would seem like a better deal.

The GPU they are using is already just as powerful as the XBox One X in its desktop version with higher clocks.

The XSS for whatever reason has clocks locked to 1.4 GHz. This thing at peak clocks is 5.2 tflops. With 1.25x RDNA IPC gains, this thing wouldve been as powerful as the 6 tflops Polaris based X1X.

It even has a dedicated 8 GB of VRAM with the same 224 GBps of bandwidth. The only difference is that it doesnt have to share this with the CPU unlike the XSS which then gets bottlenecked by having to share its 7.5 GB of vram with the CPU.

All they had to do was use this GPU as is without any underclocking and give it an additional 2GB and it would not be bottlenecked the way it is today. How much would an extra 2GB of 224 GBps of vram cost them anyway? $10? I saw some power consumption benchmarks and this entire console tops out at 80 Watts while both the PS5 and XSX can go up to 220 watts. Why cant this console go to 100 or 120 watts? Even the XBox One was 120 watts.

 

[twilo99]

Do you guys think they will halt production and sales of the xss because of all of this? I think they should.

 

[Tripolygon]

The GPU they are using is already just as powerful as the XBox One X in its desktop version with higher clocks.

The XSS for whatever reason has clocks locked to 1.4 GHz. This thing at peak clocks is 5.2 tflops. With 1.25x RDNA IPC gains, this thing wouldve been as powerful as the 6 tflops Polaris based X1X.

It even has a dedicated 8 GB of VRAM with the same 224 GBps of bandwidth. The only difference is that it doesnt have to share this with the CPU unlike the XSS which then gets bottlenecked by having to share its 7.5 GB of vram with the CPU.

All they had to do was use this GPU as is without any underclocking and give it an additional 2GB and it would not be bottlenecked the way it is today. How much would an extra 2GB of 224 GBps of vram cost them anyway? $10? I saw some power consumption benchmarks and this entire console tops out at 80 Watts while both the PS5 and XSX can go up to 220 watts. Why cant this console go to 100 or 120 watts? Even the XBox One was 120 watts.

Yup it has a lot of thermal headroom with appropriate cooling.

 

[Lognor]

Is it doing gangbusters because people actually want it or is it because they can't get an X or PS5? I don't know myself. All I do know is that you can find an S easily. And as you said this is an enthusiast forum. We like the nice things. PC guys on this forum aren't playing on budget gpus if we can help it. If you want an Xbox and can find an X you're going to get that one. Not an S.

Does it matter? No, it doesn't.

 

[Jayjayhd34]

Do you guys think they will halt production and sales of the xss because of all of this? I think they should.

Of cause not no matter what side of the fence your on the Series s is financial success.

 

[Topher]

Do you guys think they will halt production and sales of the xss because of all of this? I think they should.

No, they won't and they shouldn't. Regardless of how much of a "pain" XSS is, it is still a successful product.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Does it matter? No, it doesn't.

It matters to the people who have to settle.

 

[adamsapple]

Do you guys think they will halt production and sales of the xss because of all of this? I think they should.

Yes this topic should put MS to shame.

 

[assurdum]

Anyway it's ironical that the same channel who spent a lot of time on articles, videoanalysis and so on about how smart was such hardware and wouldn't never be a problem to scale games on it, suddenly discovered it's problematic to work on Series S ; it's almost like any developer never warned them before.

 

[Lognor]

It matters to the people who have to settle.

A sale is a sale. And does it actually matter to those ppl that bought it? You don't know. Don't assume you do.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

A sale is a sale. And does it actually matter to those ppl that bought it? You don't know. Don't assume you do.

I literally know two people in real life who had to get an S instead of an X. Do they hate the machine? Nope. Would they rather have an x? Yes, of course, they would.

 

[ReBurn]

I agree.

We'll know a lot more when we finally see some first party next gen only games, it'll be interesting to see what Microsoft come up with when they have several performance saving features both software and in the hardware. FSR 2.0, Tier 2 VRS, SFS and Mesh Shaders. What will get used and what will be used in conjunction with each other and what affect will they have on Series X and S. Last gen ports aren't really telling us much.

I think one thing we're dealing with today is developers possibly being limited by the development environments they're working in. More and more developers are relying on third party engines and tools on top of the SDK's and API's the platform holders publish. I've seen a lot of game dev job postings for high level languages like c# suggesting developers aren't coding to the metal the way they did in the old days. At least not as much.

I used to write code in assembly for 8-bit and 16-bit embedded systems and I switched to C++ when 32-bit multi-threading took off because it became too complex. Hardware makers started releasing their own libraries to manage all of the functions. We learned to live with the limits of the SDK. Based on that experience I could see how that it would make development on a less powerful spec frustrating if you're depending on things outside of your control to help you be successful in delivering your software, especially when the larger spec is more capable and behaves differently.

 

[Lognor]

I literally know two people in real life who had to get an S instead of an X. Do they hate the machine? Nope. Would they rather have an x? Yes, of course, they would.

Oh so anecdotal evidence? Cool. And I literally know someone who has a xsx and bought a xss for his bedroom and he is totally content with that. Who would have thought?!

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Oh so anecdotal evidence? Cool. And I literally know someone who has a xsx and bought a xss for his bedroom and he is totally content with that. Who would have thought?!

How is it anecdotal when I have direct proof? What would please you? Want their numbers so you can confirm directly? Think I'm making shit up to score points on a forum of strangers? You got me. Jesus Christ.

 

[adamsapple]

I literally know two people in real life who had to get an S instead of an X. Do they hate the machine? Nope. Would they rather have an x? Yes, of course, they would.

That's two more people with next gen consoles than otherwise. Job well done !

 

[SlimySnake]

Do you guys think they will halt production and sales of the xss because of all of this? I think they should.

Not happening. Series S is selling like hot cakes. The split was 50-50 last year before the holiday season with XSS selling way more than the XSX due to availability during the holidays. Wouldnt be surprised if the split is now 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of the S.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

That's two more people with next gen consoles than otherwise. Job well done !

"next gen" Yeah. Good job MS. By not being able to supply enough consoles you've made people settle for an inferior product. Awesome.

 

[assurdum]

"next gen" Yeah. Good job MS. By not being able to supply enough consoles you've made people settle for an inferior product. Awesome.

I don't think Series S was totally a bad idea at all but they should balance better the hardware specs for sure. They seemed care more to make it cheaper than anything else.

 

[adamsapple]

"next gen" Yeah. Good job MS. By not being able to supply enough consoles you've made people settle for an inferior product. Awesome.

1/ no one forced people to buy it. it's a conscious decision made by (hopefully) consenting adults.
2/ if anyone is dissatisfied with their purchase they can always wait for more stock and trad in / sell their previous console.
3/ generally on this forum, i've seen people who actually own one post mostly satisfactory comments about it, folks like s0ulzborne, franky etc do not have the device to be critical about it from a hands on point of view to the best of my knowledge.

Let's not assume dissatisfaction on others behalf.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

1/ no one forced people to buy it. it's a conscious decision made by (hopefully) consenting adults.
2/ if anyone is dissatisfied with their purchase they can always wait for more stock and trad in / sell their previous console.
3/ generally on this forum, i've seen people who actually own one post mostly satisfactory comments about it, folks like s0ulzborne, franky etc do not have the device to be critical about it from a hands on point of view to the best of my knowledge.

Let's not assume dissatisfaction on others behalf.

I'm not assuming anything. I've talked to these people. I'll try and get it recorded next time I suppose.

 

[kyliethicc]

Thoughts and prayers for those affected in this trying time.