• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Digital Foundry: Heard that Xbox Series S Is A "Pain" For Developers Due To Memory Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReBurn

Gold Member
I don't think it is just about res but all the other things that were dialed down to run on Xss.Sure we are at the start of the gen and I am sure that devs will push it hard towards the end of the gen but at what cost....I mean if it was only resolution that was lower than XSX then it would be amazing but sadly it is rarely the case.
For that particular game the developer did what they needed to do in order to hit (mostly) 60 FPS with ray traced global illumination on Series S. It also has quite a bit of pop in with foliage, stuff like that so there were other compromises. I guess they thought the compromises were worth it to keep the performance where they wanted it.
 
SFS will help but the thing is, there will ALWAYS be a hard-set difference in memory capacity between the Series S and Series X. Series S will always have 8 GB of VRAM, Series X will always have 10 GB of VRAM. Series S VRAM bandwidth will always be peak 224 GB/s, Series X VRAM bandwidth will always be peak 560 GB/s. Series S will always have less than 2 GB RAM for CPU and audio data, Series X will always have 3.5 GB of RAM for CPU/audio.

Those differences don't go away simply due to SFS, and it'll be something worth keeping in mind.
Alright. I still have yet to see any evidence that the specifications of the XSS will prevent 'a developer's vision' especially when those games will also have to run on a multitude of PCs that have specifications WORSE than the XSS.

RAM is one component of a system's performance and it just so happens that that piece has a mitigation that has yet to be used at all. The Steam Deck has more RAM than the XSS. Does anyone honestly believe it will outperform the XSS at the same settings? It has more RAM!

Some people are clearly arguing in bad faith as adamsapple adamsapple has noted and it is quite the coincidence that those bad faith arguments are coming from people who do not have any investment in Xbox consoles. I'm not talking about you thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best .
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
look at games the start of every generation. look at ps4 games at the start of the gen and ps4 games the end of the gen and see how much improvement there was when they got used to programming the machine. same will happen with the ps5 the series x and series s. they will get used to working with it and know how to code for it better
That's what I said but if some devs find memory a problem now imagine later in the gen...Because all consoles will progress so the devs will push more xsx/ps5 too....
So have we reached the max potential for the Xss? Of course not, far from it but that is also true of the superior consoles and another point that might be problematic is if we get pro versions of consoles...
Let's imagine that they roughly double the TF numbers and let's use dichotomy pro was 25% more bandwidth and x1x around 5x times bandwidth so let's say twice the bandwidth (which is a very conservative estimation for ram).It means that devs will have to handle 4,12 and 24 TF plus 3 different RAM bandwidth.That means that it won't be possible to maximise the use of pro consoles...That being said I don't think that the x1x nor the pro for that matter were pushed to their limits either.
But yeah to have dev complaining about that issue so early in the gen is definitely not a good sign, maybe they'll find ways to circumvent the problem, maybe they won't I have to admit that my technical knowledge is far from being enough to predict anything.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Its just a Knack gif saying yes. I agreed with you lol

I see people use variations of that all the time, I never get the point. :messenger_grinning_squinting: I always took it as implying rudeness in the person it was directed at, like a sarcastic Yes Ma'am!

My bad.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Definitely agree that it’s really strange. I know the PS5 is weaker in some ways to the XSX but it definitely isn’t on par with the XSS. There’s no way that the XSS should push the PS5 hard in any situation.
Actual there is...If a game is just a wrapper-ed PS4 Pro game (on PS5) sold as a PS5 version - with just access to the additional speed of the GPU, but not the features - and the series S is running a fully open smart delivery version with access to stronger CPU and native GPU Series capabilities, then when the PS4 Pro version on PS5 is jaguar core limited the Series S would get close to parity for resolution IMO.

Many games on PS5 feel like tweaked PS4 Pro versions IMO, like the FF7 Intergrade, HFW to name two, and I even wonder if the Matrix Demo is just an enhanced PS4 Pro demo - maybe as a contractual workaround if the PS5 wasn't supposed to get the demo. Unlike on Series X where all games are through smart delivery and get access to the Zen2 CPU and RDNA GPU, on the PlayStation side it is a bit opaque, other than it is obvious that the IO complex is being ignored for most games which might lead some people to conclude that the jaguar PS4 Pro mode is also being used, and is the reason why the IO complex isn't automatically getting used.
 
Isn't the slow 2GB for the system memory? I think the 8GB faster portion has to handle all the game memory on XSS (CPU and GPU). I guess they've never specifically stated that, but almost everyone that has covered it has painted it that way, however. Even DF and they had access to a lot of information about it. At any rate there would need to be some memory set aside for the OS somewhere. Even the 2GB would be thinned down from the 2.5 that is reserved on XSX (maybe why we can't do 1440p captures 🤷‍♂️).

The system memory includes CPU, audio and OS IIRC. Similar to how the 3.5 GB system memory on Series X is for the same purpose.

I'm guessing that of that 2 GB, 750 MB is probably reserved for the OS, and maybe some 128 or so MB extra as a cache for SSD data. So that's a bit around 1 GB for CPU and audio data. Either that, or if the other 8 GB is being used for GPU, CPU & audio, that means even less VRAM for the GPU which is already limited.

Techpowerup has some listings on the specs for Series S and they list 8 GB which would be for the VRAM (GPU). They do similar with Series X, where they list 10 GB as the VRAM (GPU). Even though they list 16 GB for PS5, realistically for VRAM they're probably using closer to 12 - 12.5 GB (leaving 1.5 - 2 GB for CPU & audio data, and another 2 GB for the OS).

The audio is an interesting point, I wonder if the XSS sees some cutbacks there as well to help reduce memory usage.

Most likely, though audio has less noticeable loss quality at lower sample rates beyond a certain threshold compared to, say, photos.

3GB is a small upgrade from last gen (8 vs 5 available to games if that's the way it's working), no one could deny that. MS really betting on the SSD boosting the memory efficiency.

Well, SFS in particular. Hopefully it works out for them.

Definitely agree that it’s really strange. I know the PS5 is weaker in some ways to the XSX but it definitely isn’t on par with the XSS. There’s no way that the XSS should push the PS5 hard in any situation.

PS5 might've just not been a lead platform for the game. A bit weird, but considering the developer is soon going to be working primarily on Microsoft hardware in the future, they may've used Lego Star Wars as a testing ground to develop optimization techniques with Xbox Series devices in mind.

And maybe that caused them to deemphasize PS5. Just a theory.

look at games the start of every generation. look at ps4 games at the start of the gen and ps4 games the end of the gen and see how much improvement there was when they got used to programming the machine. same will happen with the ps5 the series x and series s. they will get used to working with it and know how to code for it better

Gonna be honest here: I don't think there are a lot of "tricks" to learn with consoles these days to where that is going to unlock performance. It's not like the PS3, PS2, or Saturn days where the hardware was very complex and required a lot of time to learn but in doing so, massive gains came about. It's not like SNES or MegaDrive, either, in that regard.

The big things limiting game visuals and production these days IMO are budgets, team sizes, and length of development. All of those are somewhat hinged on the install base size, so the bigger an install base gets, the more publishers are willing to throw out huge budgets and longer dev for bigger games. Those are the main factors these days.

Alright. I still have yet to see any evidence that the specifications of the XSS will prevent 'a developer's vision' especially when those games will also have to run on a multitude of PCs that have specifications WORSE than the XSS.

Dude calm down I was only saying that memory capacity differences are absolute & constant. You can't make 8 GB RAM in one system act like 10 GB of another system if they're both using the same feature, otherwise the system with 10 GB RAM will act like it has 12 GB.

The physical differences will always present themselves between the two SKUs since differences in things like memory capacity are hard-set.

RAM is one component of a system's performance and it just so happens that that piece has a mitigation that has yet to be used at all. The Steam Deck has more RAM than the XSS. Does anyone honestly believe it will outperform the XSS at the same settings? It has more RAM!

No because RAM capacity is only one part of the picture. RAM bandwidth also matters and Steam Deck has much less of it than Series S. Steam Deck also has a less performant GPU and CPU, and lacks a decompression I/O block, so those are other things working against it compared to Series S.

If the thing you're referring to is SFS, well both Series S and Series X have SFS. Anything Series S can do with SFS, Series X can as well. So there's no scenario where Series S suddenly "virtualizes" an amount of RAM (through SFS) that can match the RAM capacity of Series X because Series X always has more VRAM capacity, more RAM capacity, and faster bandwidths on both than Series S while having the exact same technology features.

That gap between the two will always exist no matter what.

Some people are clearly arguing in bad faith as adamsapple adamsapple has noted and it is quite the coincidence that those bad faith arguments are coming from people who do not have any investment in Xbox consoles. I'm not talking about you thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best .

This despite my multiple posts in the past defending aspects of Xbox architecture design? Shame 😞
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Gold Member
You achieve parity by bringing in a studio that specializes in Xbox hardware to port the engine over with as minimal cutbacks as possible.

Even if you believed what you wrote above, do you think its a positive indicator that a Microsoft studio will be called upon for every multiplatform game for the sake of having their titles run on Series S? You're essentially suggesting that the Series S is so exotically inept that the Coalition will need to co-develop alongside external studios making their games.

Riky Riky before you lol my comments to oblivion, I don't believe this! Series S is a lean mean VRR machine. Woohoo yeah love me some Series S baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sure.After a gargantuan effort and an additional studio.

I didn’t. It’s in the article. Gargantuan.
The extra work is implied. See the extra studio and cut backs needed just to get it running. See halo infinite needing an extra 6 months to have 120 fps support after a year delay and god knows how much more $.
See thread title and the use of the word “pain”
Quote it for me please. Find did not work, nor did reading.

It clearly says here Epic made the demo and reached out to The Coalition to help with Ray Tracing on Series X and memory management on Series S.

The demo was designed by Epic, it was not designed around the Series S, more FUD from the usual suspects.
It was probably designed around the ps5 and ported to Xbox. The teams other big project is ps5 only.
You’re going to have people not wanting to interpret how that could be possible. It’s seems to reason that, if an extra studio has to come in to work on one console specifically, there was at least an attempt by epic beforehand. Either way, it’s a pretty damning indictment. They either tried and it was too much work or didn’t even bother and knew it was going to be too much work.
Or it's a small team who are not the best at optimizing.
 

elliot5

Member
Or, hear me out, it was an advertisement partnership with The Matrix and they wanted complete user base coverage for the interactive ad, while demonstrating the scalability of the next generation features of Unreal Engine 5 making it look as attractive as possible to future developers, thus they made sure the experience was possible across all devices.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
The system memory includes CPU, audio and OS IIRC. Similar to how the 3.5 GB system memory on Series X is for the same purpose.

I'm guessing that of that 2 GB, 750 MB is probably reserved for the OS, and maybe some 128 or so MB extra as a cache for SSD data. So that's a bit around 1 GB for CPU and audio data. Either that, or if the other 8 GB is being used for GPU, CPU & audio, that means even less VRAM for the GPU which is already limited.

Techpowerup has some listings on the specs for Series S and they list 8 GB which would be for the VRAM (GPU). They do similar with Series X, where they list 10 GB as the VRAM (GPU). Even though they list 16 GB for PS5, realistically for VRAM they're probably using closer to 12 - 12.5 GB (leaving 1.5 - 2 GB for CPU & audio data, and another 2 GB for the OS).
i'm pretty sure 2 gb part is completely ignored by games

8 gb is for both cpu and gpu operations (ram+vram) so a most likely 5.5/3.5 allocation on 8 gb

i don't think 1.5-2 gb is enough for CPU, audio, game logic and physics data. it has to be 3-4 GB. i mean, it was 2.5-3 GB last gen. there has to be some improvements on that front to call these games "next gen". if the entire premise of nextgen games are only graphics wise, then its pretty sad.

xbox sx 10 gb+ 3.5 allocation makes sense. a full fat 10 gb for gpu operations and 3.5 gb for CPU data. ps5 is probably similar.

just because series s has divided memory, does not mean CPU data cannot be on the main block.

5.5 gb vram should be doable by devs at low resolution targets with lower textures (but the said textures must be carefully prepared and they should not look hideous). practically, series s will breath life into every 4-6 GB out there

irrelevant btw but steam deck also supports sampler feedback xd
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Even if you believed what you wrote above, do you think its a positive indicator that a Microsoft studio will be called upon for every multiplatform game for the sake of having their titles run on Series S? You're essentially suggesting that the Series S is so exotically inept that the Coalition will need to co-develop alongside external studios making their games.

Riky Riky before you lol my comments to oblivion, I don't believe this! Series S is a lean mean VRR machine. Woohoo yeah love me some Series S baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see it as nearly as much of a big deal as some users are trying to make it sound, don't forget that Sony was sending out its ICE developers to multiple publishers almost all the way across the PS3 generation as well.

And the series s isn't even a nightmare to developer for like a PS3 was.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
The system memory includes CPU, audio and OS IIRC. Similar to how the 3.5 GB system memory on Series X is for the same purpose.

I'm guessing that of that 2 GB, 750 MB is probably reserved for the OS, and maybe some 128 or so MB extra as a cache for SSD data. So that's a bit around 1 GB for CPU and audio data. Either that, or if the other 8 GB is being used for GPU, CPU & audio, that means even less VRAM for the GPU which is already limited.

Techpowerup has some listings on the specs for Series S and they list 8 GB which would be for the VRAM (GPU). They do similar with Series X, where they list 10 GB as the VRAM (GPU). Even though they list 16 GB for PS5, realistically for VRAM they're probably using closer to 12 - 12.5 GB (leaving 1.5 - 2 GB for CPU & audio data, and another 2 GB for the OS).

I guess that's a possibility. I just don't see why MS would reserve 2.5GB for OS/non-game use on XSX and then reserve nothing on XSS. Especially given the fact that the last gen systems reserved 3GB for OS/non-gaming usage. I can see maybe getting that reduced to 2.5/2GB since the CPU thread they have to work with is faster, but down to 700MB? That just doesn't seem right.

I would need to find the DF article again, but I'm fairly certain that they specifically stated that MS had reserved 2.5GB for the OS/Non-gaming usage on XSX with 13.5GB available to game developers (10GB GPU optimal and 3.5GB in the slower section). It just seems more realistic that the 2GB of ultra slow memory in the XSS is handling the OS/Non-gaming functions and developers have 8GB to work with for games (with no GPU optimal segmentation on this one). 8GB basically reserved for the little GPU would be odd with the much bigger GPU only having 10GB, while at the same time you've got a system with near identical CPU capabilities and have reduced CPU memory to next to nothing on the smaller box. And then there's the issue with the OS only using 700MB on one machine and over 2GB on the other, if MS could get the OS/Non-gaming stuff that streamlined they would do it on both and save the memory on the XSX. The OS is essentially the same on both, it's not like the XSS is missing features (other than reduced capture resolution).

I just think Techpowerup goofed on this one tbh. They do that sometimes.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Kind of a double standard going on here though......Nintendo gets a pass and "its all about the gameplay" running on ancient hardware. I drool at even the prospects of Nintendo making games for a 4tf machine. (But would rather they had a 12tf but know it's not happening)
 

kyliethicc

Member
Kind of a double standard going on here though......Nintendo gets a pass and "its all about the gameplay" running on ancient hardware. I drool at even the prospects of Nintendo making games for a 4tf machine. (But would rather they had a 12tf but know it's not happening)
Because Nintendo are last gen. Doesn’t affect 9th gen multi plat as much.

Baseline for The Witcher 4 isn’t the Switch. It’s the Sbox.
 
Last edited:
Dude calm down I was only saying that memory capacity differences are absolute & constant. You can't make 8 GB RAM in one system act like 10 GB of another system if they're both using the same feature, otherwise the system with 10 GB RAM will act like it has 12 GB.

The physical differences will always present themselves between the two SKUs since differences in things like memory capacity are hard-set.
I am perfectly calm. I never indicated that there wasn't a RAM quantity difference. I am well aware. What hasn't been factored in is asset quality difference between the systems. While XSS has less memory it is also not going to be storing 4K texture data. SFS hasn't been used on Series consoles and that could mitigate some RAM issues. Until it is implemented stating RAM is preventing developer vision is premature. Many here talking about RAM refuse to acknowledge it is even an option available to devs.

No because RAM capacity is only one part of the picture. RAM bandwidth also matters and Steam Deck has much less of it than Series S. Steam Deck also has a less performant GPU and CPU, and lacks a decompression I/O block, so those are other things working against it compared to Series S.
I agree with you. I've never stated otherwise.
If the thing you're referring to is SFS, well both Series S and Series X have SFS. Anything Series S can do with SFS, Series X can as well. So there's no scenario where Series S suddenly "virtualizes" an amount of RAM (through SFS) that can match the RAM capacity of Series X because Series X always has more VRAM capacity, more RAM capacity, and faster bandwidths on both than Series S while having the exact same technology features.

That gap between the two will always exist no matter what.
Again no one is saying that there's no difference between the two SKUs. My point is SFS hasn't been used at all so to declare the XSS is like the Switch or PS4 or whatever other silliness others have stated again shows the disingenunity behind the comments.

This despite my multiple posts in the past defending aspects of Xbox architecture design? Shame 😞
I'm not sure what you mean here. I have never categorized you the same way as the Sony fans coming here to get in free jabs on a platform they will never own. I explicitly stated that I wasn't talking about you. 🤷🏿

Because Nintendo are last gen. Doesn’t affect your GTA6s, etc.
Can you explain why the XSS would be incapable of running a title like GTA 6? Full open world games were capable of running on the PS2.
 

Md Ray

Member
Same for the id software guy who never touched a Series S before writing those tweets :messenger_beaming: Fascinating indeed.
So fascinating that we now see ray tracing is missing from this id software guy's game on Series S while it's present on SX. Looks like he was right all along when he complained/wrote those tweets about XSS memory situation even before touching the "little beast". :messenger_beaming: It's almost as if he knew what he was talking about...

When DF questioned him about why RT wasn't feasible on the S, he straight up answers: "there are differences in hardware y'know?"...and that they tried it out and even after the optimization they felt it was best to completely omit the feature from the XSS version -- and not even include it as an option for users to toggle on/off.
 
Last edited:

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Because Nintendo are last gen. Doesn’t affect 9th gen multi plat as much.

Baseline for The Witcher 4 isn’t the Switch. It’s the Sbox.

That's one half of the the argument, that it holds back this gen (even though we know it doesn't considering most games are made for PC too)
The other half the argument seems to bet that the S doesn't have "good enough" graphics to make it worthwhile, what I'm saying is we are kind of missing the point here a bit, in that you can still play great games on the S, and it still has very good graphics overall.
Even more so for someone like a casual gamer who is maybe coming from a 360 or a basic xbox one. (or even a switch for that matter)
 
Last edited:

dcmk7

Banned
People are still going on about SFS? :messenger_grinning_smiling:

Just going by the lack of interest in it or developer talks about the feature would imagine it's already been superseded.

The Coalition would have been all over that for the Matrix teaser, instead it was described as a 'gargantuan effort' 🤷‍♂️
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
This thread has been like entering a time warp, reading the exact same thread and individual exchanges that have gone on for the last 2 years. I wonder if people just copy and past their previous comments?

Thank you everyone.

tenor.gif
Isn't it embarrassing that this is the most popular thread on Neogaf? Shame on you all (you known who you are).
 
So fascinating that we now see ray tracing is missing from this id software guy's game on Series S while it's present on SX. Looks like he was right all along when he complained/wrote those tweets about XSS memory situation even before touching the "little beast". :messenger_beaming: It's almost as if he knew what he was talking about...

When DF questioned him about why RT wasn't feasible on the S, he straight up answers: "there are differences in hardware y'know?"...and that they tried it out and even after the optimization they felt it was best to completely omit the feature from the XSS version -- and not even include it as an option for users to toggle on/off.
Why focus on raytracing and not the 120fps mode which WAS in the game? For a fast paced action game I'll let you decide which was more important. Seems more like the goal post shifting again. 'Little Beast' redeemed.

Devs will always make the final call about graphical effects in games like how raytraced reflections were omitted on Cyberpunk 2077 even on PS5 and XSX. No one seemed to shed a tear strangely.

That's one half of the the argument, that it holds back this gen (even though we know it doesn't considering most games are made for PC too)
The other half the argument seems to bet that the S doesn't have "good enough" graphics to make it worthwhile, what I'm saying is we are kind of missing the point here a bit, in that you can still play great games on the S, and it still has very good graphics overall.
Even more so for someone like a casual gamer who is maybe coming from a 360 or a basic xbox one. (or even a switch for that matter)
Please let me know when they finally answer your question about the resolution double standard!
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes


in these sections, he gets 60-80 frames. how is this better than my results, i fail to understand ? :D

Because you are testing at 1080p. Hes testing at 1440p. The fact that hes around your fps while at a much higher resolution shows his 3070 is performing better.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Actual there is...If a game is just a wrapper-ed PS4 Pro game (on PS5) sold as a PS5 version - with just access to the additional speed of the GPU, but not the features - and the series S is running a fully open smart delivery version with access to stronger CPU and native GPU Series capabilities, then when the PS4 Pro version on PS5 is jaguar core limited the Series S would get close to parity for resolution IMO.

Many games on PS5 feel like tweaked PS4 Pro versions IMO, like the FF7 Intergrade, HFW to name two, and I even wonder if the Matrix Demo is just an enhanced PS4 Pro demo - maybe as a contractual workaround if the PS5 wasn't supposed to get the demo. Unlike on Series X where all games are through smart delivery and get access to the Zen2 CPU and RDNA GPU, on the PlayStation side it is a bit opaque, other than it is obvious that the IO complex is being ignored for most games which might lead some people to conclude that the jaguar PS4 Pro mode is also being used, and is the reason why the IO complex isn't automatically getting used.
Excellent observation. Pretty sure the reason why HFW does not support VRR like all BC games is probably because its compiled as PS4 game. Same goes for GT7.

Matrix though is most definitely a PS5 title. No way in hell it is matching XSX in performance on a boost PS4 Pro profile without the IPC gains.
 
i'm pretty sure 2 gb part is completely ignored by games

8 gb is for both cpu and gpu operations (ram+vram) so a most likely 5.5/3.5 allocation on 8 gb

i don't think 1.5-2 gb is enough for CPU, audio, game logic and physics data. it has to be 3-4 GB. i mean, it was 2.5-3 GB last gen. there has to be some improvements on that front to call these games "next gen". if the entire premise of nextgen games are only graphics wise, then its pretty sad.

xbox sx 10 gb+ 3.5 allocation makes sense. a full fat 10 gb for gpu operations and 3.5 gb for CPU data. ps5 is probably similar.

just because series s has divided memory, does not mean CPU data cannot be on the main block.

5.5 gb vram should be doable by devs at low resolution targets with lower textures (but the said textures must be carefully prepared and they should not look hideous). practically, series s will breath life into every 4-6 GB out there

irrelevant btw but steam deck also supports sampler feedback xd

I think you guys are not seeing the potentially serious issue of just 5.5 GB VRAM for Series S games (in typical usage cases) as the generation progresses, regardless of it using lower texture settings than Series X (which also, as the gen goes on, that difference will shrink as there aren't terribly many current-gen or crossgen games hitting native 4K resolutions as-is).

Go look at some of the lower-end RTX 30 GPUs if you want to see where even 8 GB VRAM can be causing some issues for games targeting 1440p resolution output targets with medium texture quality. 5.5 GB VRAM, even 6 GB VRAM, for Series S (if in fact the other 2 GB is for CPU & audio while the other 2 GB is for system O.S which I guess is possibly the case) is going to cause some issues even with SFS liberally applied.

Keep in mind, for various reasons they can't go TOO low on resolution targets, either. In the chance the next Switch has DLSS 2.0 or 3.0, even in limited capacity, that would give it an advantage over the base Series and PS5 systems in terms of image upscaling hardware. Do you really think MS wants to, or could weather, a marketing blunder where future Series S games are running at a lower resolution than Switch 2 titles simply to stretch use of 5.5 GB of VRAM?

I don't see it as nearly as much of a big deal as some users are trying to make it sound, don't forget that Sony was sending out its ICE developers to multiple publishers almost all the way across the PS3 generation as well.

And the series s isn't even a nightmare to developer for like a PS3 was.

Well very few systems are in that league of absolutely pain to develop for like PS3, I think only PS2, Sega Saturn and Atari Jaguar are among them. The difference between Series S and all of those systems, though, is that in terms of raw specs those other systems were more or less in line with their contemporaries.

Series S is notably less performant than Series X or PS5 when looking at raw specifications, and there are no amount of technologies it can use that will close that gap since Series X can use all of those same technologies, and PS5 has equivalents for the ones it doesn't exactly 1:1 have in common with those. Even if Series S is aiming for lower resolution targets, this could be a problem because fewer and fewer Series X & PS5 games will probably target native 4K as the generation proceeds and games get more technically taxing.

I guess that's a possibility. I just don't see why MS would reserve 2.5GB for OS/non-game use on XSX and then reserve nothing on XSS. Especially given the fact that the last gen systems reserved 3GB for OS/non-gaming usage. I can see maybe getting that reduced to 2.5/2GB since the CPU thread they have to work with is faster, but down to 700MB? That just doesn't seem right.

I would need to find the DF article again, but I'm fairly certain that they specifically stated that MS had reserved 2.5GB for the OS/Non-gaming usage on XSX with 13.5GB available to game developers (10GB GPU optimal and 3.5GB in the slower section). It just seems more realistic that the 2GB of ultra slow memory in the XSS is handling the OS/Non-gaming functions and developers have 8GB to work with for games (with no GPU optimal segmentation on this one). 8GB basically reserved for the little GPU would be odd with the much bigger GPU only having 10GB, while at the same time you've got a system with near identical CPU capabilities and have reduced CPU memory to next to nothing on the smaller box. And then there's the issue with the OS only using 700MB on one machine and over 2GB on the other, if MS could get the OS/Non-gaming stuff that streamlined they would do it on both and save the memory on the XSX. The OS is essentially the same on both, it's not like the XSS is missing features (other than reduced capture resolution).

I just think Techpowerup goofed on this one tbh. They do that sometimes.

Fair points, and it's likely GPU, CPU and audio share the 8 GB while the OS uses the other 2 GB.

However, if that creates situations where, say, you're getting 5.5 GB of physical memory or even 6 GB physical memory for GPU and the rest for CPU & audio data, even with SFS and the SSD I/O that creates some situations where in terms of physical memory footprint Series S isn't any more than the XBO and PS4. They can have somewhat less data pre-cached into that 8 GB due to the SSDs and SFS, but...

...also keep in mind these current-gen games are going to be more complex in terms of asset quality, physics models, AI etc. than 8th-gen games, on average. Those things won't stay fixed, they'll increase in size and complexity. SSD I/O bandwidth is just part of describing the efficiency of data loading & streaming, as the total latency in the chain from loading the data, checking it in, processing it, writing it to RAM and then the CPU/GPU/audio accessing from the RAM matters just as much if not more, as well as RAM bandwidth. A lot of those are areas where Series X (and PS5) are just going to constantly have the advantage in over Series S.

I am perfectly calm. I never indicated that there wasn't a RAM quantity difference. I am well aware. What hasn't been factored in is asset quality difference between the systems. While XSS has less memory it is also not going to be storing 4K texture data. SFS hasn't been used on Series consoles and that could mitigate some RAM issues. Until it is implemented stating RAM is preventing developer vision is premature. Many here talking about RAM refuse to acknowledge it is even an option available to devs.

Series X isn't going to be storing a lot of 4K texture data as the gen goes on, either, nor will PS5, as games will target native 4K less and less.

SFS will help, but it's not going to magically double or triple effective RAM capacity from 8 to 16 or 8 to 24. The systems have to do a lot more in a given frametime than just loading in data from storage to RAM, usually.

Again no one is saying that there's no difference between the two SKUs. My point is SFS hasn't been used at all so to declare the XSS is like the Switch or PS4 or whatever other silliness others have stated again shows the disingenunity behind the comments.

I think comparing it to Switch is going too far.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I have never categorized you the same way as the Sony fans coming here to get in free jabs on a platform they will never own. I explicitly stated that I wasn't talking about you. 🤷🏿

Oh, whoops 🤣. I read through that part too fast. Sorry for the misunderstanding :/
 

Riky

$MSFT
Even if you believed what you wrote above, do you think its a positive indicator that a Microsoft studio will be called upon for every multiplatform game for the sake of having their titles run on Series S? You're essentially suggesting that the Series S is so exotically inept that the Coalition will need to co-develop alongside external studios making their games.

Riky Riky before you lol my comments to oblivion, I don't believe this! Series S is a lean mean VRR machine. Woohoo yeah love me some Series S baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah, the improvements made were put into the engine for everyone, some even for your beloved PS5😁
 
Well very few systems are in that league of absolutely pain to develop for like PS3, I think only PS2, Sega Saturn and Atari Jaguar are among them. The difference between Series S and all of those systems, though, is that in terms of raw specs those other systems were more or less in line with their contemporaries.

Series S is notably less performant than Series X or PS5 when looking at raw specifications, and there are no amount of technologies it can use that will close that gap since Series X can use all of those same technologies, and PS5 has equivalents for the ones it doesn't exactly 1:1 have in common with those. Even if Series S is aiming for lower resolution targets, this could be a problem because fewer and fewer Series X & PS5 games will probably target native 4K as the generation proceeds and games get more technically taxing.
Don't forget the PS3 had a completely different architecture than anything else out there. Development on it required specific effort. The XSS has the SAME architecture and in the case of the XSX and PC the same development environment as well.

Outside of graphical performance we have seen no indication it won't be able to handle current generation physics or AI. I fully expect graphical compromises to be made and MS has said as much.

I think you guys are not seeing the potentially serious issue of just 5.5 GB VRAM for Series S games (in typical usage cases) as the generation progresses, regardless of it using lower texture settings than Series X (which also, as the gen goes on, that difference will shrink as there aren't terribly many current-gen or crossgen games hitting native 4K resolutions as-is).

I am not sure where you are getting the RAM usage statistics from. Since it is all one unified pool of memory there is flexibility as to how it's allocated.

Go look at some of the lower-end RTX 30 GPUs if you want to see where even 8 GB VRAM can be causing some issues for games targeting 1440p resolution output targets with medium texture quality. 5.5 GB VRAM, even 6 GB VRAM, for Series S (if in fact the other 2 GB is for CPU & audio while the other 2 GB is for system O.S which I guess is possibly the case) is going to cause some issues even with SFS liberally applied.
I'm still going to want to see SFS deployed before passing judgment.

Keep in mind, for various reasons they can't go TOO low on resolution targets, either. In the chance the next Switch has DLSS 2.0 or 3.0, even in limited capacity, that would give it an advantage over the base Series and PS5 systems in terms of image upscaling hardware. Do you really think MS wants to, or could weather, a marketing blunder where future Series S games are running at a lower resolution than Switch 2 titles simply to stretch use of 5.5 GB of VRAM?
I would be shocked to see a new Nintendo portable outperform the XSS. If it could I wonder what the price would be. The Steam Deck doesn't do that now at $600. A $300 or $400 new Nintendo handheld console would be unbelievable.

Series X isn't going to be storing a lot of 4K texture data as the gen goes on, either, nor will PS5, as games will target native 4K less and less.

SFS will help, but it's not going to magically double or triple effective RAM capacity from 8 to 16 or 8 to 24. The systems have to do a lot more in a given frametime than just loading in data from storage to RAM, usually.
This may be true but until the technique is actually deployed any talk about how the XSS will cause problems is a bit premature. Part of the reason MS designed the console they way they did was to leverage the features of Direct X. If those features aren't used it's not really a good metic of the performance of the hardware. Think about the games that don't use the SSD APIs on PS5. Wouldn't exactly be fair to say the storage wasn't special.

I think comparing it to Switch is going too far.
Of course it is. I'd put PS4 as well. It's lame console war trash talk.

Oh, whoops 🤣. I read through that part too fast. Sorry for the misunderstanding :/
All love bro. ❤️
 
Last edited:

Riky

$MSFT
Why focus on raytracing and not the 120fps mode which WAS in the game? For a fast paced action game I'll let you decide which was more important. Seems more like the goal post shifting again. 'Little Beast' redeemed.

Devs will always make the final call about graphical effects in games like how raytraced reflections were omitted on Cyberpunk 2077 even on PS5 and XSX. No one seemed to shed a tear strangely.


Please let me know when they finally answer your question about the resolution double standard!

It's pretty telling how they never comment when Ray Tracing is missing from the likes of Cyberpunk and Far Cry 6 and severely cut back on other games like Dying Light 2 on the bigger consoles but present on PC.
Suddenly it's not quite so important to have feature parity, strange that.

Maybe it's a gargantuan effort too far😁
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Fair points, and it's likely GPU, CPU and audio share the 8 GB while the OS uses the other 2 GB.

However, if that creates situations where, say, you're getting 5.5 GB of physical memory or even 6 GB physical memory for GPU and the rest for CPU & audio data, even with SFS and the SSD I/O that creates some situations where in terms of physical memory footprint Series S isn't any more than the XBO and PS4. They can have somewhat less data pre-cached into that 8 GB due to the SSDs and SFS, but...

...also keep in mind these current-gen games are going to be more complex in terms of asset quality, physics models, AI etc. than 8th-gen games, on average. Those things won't stay fixed, they'll increase in size and complexity. SSD I/O bandwidth is just part of describing the efficiency of data loading & streaming, as the total latency in the chain from loading the data, checking it in, processing it, writing it to RAM and then the CPU/GPU/audio accessing from the RAM matters just as much if not more, as well as RAM bandwidth. A lot of those are areas where Series X (and PS5) are just going to constantly have the advantage in over Series S.

There would still be an increase in vram since the last-gen base systems only had 5GB total for games, so, maybe 3 or 3.5GB for GPU if they were stingy everywhere else. 3GB increase in available memory for games isn't a lot, but still a little.

You've got me thinking about it now and I do wonder if devs are adjusting settings in some areas to lower memory usage for CPU and audio as well as GPU, to lower the overall footprint like you said. No one has been testing for that, would probably be hard to see/hear.

I guess we'll see how it goes in regards to just how much the SSDs change the memory usage.
 
It's pretty telling how they never comment when Ray Tracing is missing from the likes of Cyberpunk and Far Cry 6 and severely cut back on other games like Dying Light 2 on the bigger consoles but present on PC.
Suddenly it's not quite so important to have feature parity, strange that.

Maybe it's a gargantuan effort too far😁
You mean they aren't being sincere? I'm stunned at this gargantuan news!
 

Hoddi

Member
Nah. It's 300 MB per second.
I suppose it could get that high in flight mode. When I tested it on my PS5 then I made a point of not going into flight mode and was just running and driving around for 10 minutes. In total, I recorded 100GB of reads from my SSD over 10 minutes of gameplay.

I actually did a whole bunch of testing when I upgraded my PS5 SSD and posted about it on B3D. You can follow the thread starting here if you're curious.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
That literally just talks about bringing in The Coalition to help run it on Series S, which we've already all discussed.

There was nothing in there about the other consoles versions being compromised because of it.

When they say clawing back memory, they're talking about on the Series S side, hence you have some effects missing on top of the expected lower resolution.
How many studios are going to spend time and money on getting a square peg to fit into a round hole vs the other way?

Path of least resistance is build for S for solid outcome with X getting a no effort token rez bump. Pro console scenario through and through.

Not hard to understand the nature of business. Wouldn’t be in this quandary without MS’s brain dead move sacrificing tech for subs. Kill it!
 
Last edited:
So fascinating that we now see ray tracing is missing from this id software guy's game on Series S while it's present on SX. Looks like he was right all along when he complained/wrote those tweets about XSS memory situation even before touching the "little beast". :messenger_beaming: It's almost as if he knew what he was talking about...

When DF questioned him about why RT wasn't feasible on the S, he straight up answers: "there are differences in hardware y'know?"...and that they tried it out and even after the optimization they felt it was best to completely omit the feature from the XSS version -- and not even include it as an option for users to toggle on/off.

RT/120 fps modes aren't essential modes. How many games did you play on consoles in one of those modes. (Except a few games where you don't have a choice)

If a 60 fps mode was missing, that could be considered as missing feature. Still wouldn't be concerned much cause on my new monitor 30 fps feels buttery smooth for some reason. Maybe cause of LFC + 120 fps low latency.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Kind of a double standard going on here though......Nintendo gets a pass and "its all about the gameplay" running on ancient hardware. I drool at even the prospects of Nintendo making games for a 4tf machine. (But would rather they had a 12tf but know it's not happening)
How many Nintendo fans do you see in this thread? They have abandoned tech threads on every forum, site, discord. It's a travesty.

Nintendo does get a pass but from the critics and their fans who dont enter these tech threads because they have either given up or worse have come to terms with the fact that Nintendo will never make a powerful console like the N64 or Gamecube anymore. I think the Nintendo fanbase should be a warning or cautionary tale of what could happen when a company is allowed to get complacent by its fanbase.

First they lost the tech advantage then they lost the AAA games. AAA Zelda now takes 6 years. There has been no AAA Mario for the last five years. There has no been no Metroid for the last 13. You allow these corporations to get complacent and this is what happens. They used to call Nintendo a Zelda, Metroid and Mario company and we arent even getting those on a regular basis. Microsoft has produced more AAA Gears, Forza, Halo games than Nintendo has AAA Metroid, Zelda and Mario. Think about that for a second. Starfield gets delayed and everyone jumps down Phil's throat. Mario and Metroid cant even get revealed after 5 and 13 years respectively and not a peep.

This is why I think it's important to raise a big stink about the series s issues. If you allow companies to get away with underpowered products, and god forbid they find financial success, they will chase those dollars and nothing more. You might have an XSX right now, but dont be sure MS will always have one. Dont be sure they will have a 100 tflops GPU in that cloud if the consumer base proves they are ok with 512p games. Witcher 3, Doom, Wolfenstein, Mortal Kombat, Hellblade all drop to 360p to 480p on the Switch. You dont want MS or Sony being ok with standards that low.

USItNoO.jpg

How many studios are going to spend time and money on getting a square peg to fit into a round hole vs the other way?

Path of least resistance is build for S for solid outcome with X getting a no effort token rez bump. Pro console scenario through and through.

Not hard to understand the nature of business. Wouldn’t be in this quandary without MS’s brain dead move sacrificing tech for subs. Kill it!
Thats not whats happened with the Matrix. It was made for the PS5 and XSX baseline of 1080p then downscaled to the Series S. Actually they werent even going to do it so MS sent coalition to do the downgrades for them. It wasnt even a straight res downgrade, they had to downgrade several other things on top of the 1/4th res downgrade we have come to expect.

Even Metro. They dont care if they hit 512p. They shipped the game in that state without giving two shits about the user experience. This will not hold back the series x. Several games have skipped 60 fps modes or ray tracing modes already. Guardians literally has 90% of the foliage missing despite the 1/4th resolution downgrade.

BBz1gPP.gif
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Holy shit this thread has grown by like 6 pages since I last really checked. How are we at 25 pages lol. I thought no one liked Alex and DF on the Sony side?

The series S is fine for what it is, its a 250 pound box (often cheaper) in th3 middle of a pandemic and chip shortage. As soon as anyone can afford a price cut it will be like 199 or 250 for a 1tb version.

Even with cut grass and settings etc its still doing a good job at delivering a more or less identical gameplay experience for the users that it's designed for. Eg my daughter. Or someone looking for a cheap barrier to entry into current gen. Of course there is cut backs. You can't be like I want a ferrari but at almost have the price.....well sir the engine won't be as fast and you'll have to cut back on speed.....NO WAY THATS NOT FAIR!
 

cireza

Banned
Even Metro. They dont care if they hit 512p. They shipped the game in that state without giving two shits about the user experience.
So in the end it is a problem with the developer, not the console. Thanks for clarifying this, and defending Series S owners as well !
 

FireFly

Member
Holy shit this thread has grown by like 6 pages since I last really checked. How are we at 25 pages lol. I thought no one liked Alex and DF on the Sony side?

The series S is fine for what it is, its a 250 pound box (often cheaper) in th3 middle of a pandemic and chip shortage. As soon as anyone can afford a price cut it will be like 199 or 250 for a 1tb version.

Even with cut grass and settings etc its still doing a good job at delivering a more or less identical gameplay experience for the users that it's designed for. Eg my daughter. Or someone looking for a cheap barrier to entry into current gen. Of course there is cut backs. You can't be like I want a ferrari but at almost have the price.....well sir the engine won't be as fast and you'll have to cut back on speed.....NO WAY THATS NOT FAIR!
The thread is just PS5 vs. Xbox at this point. Kind of pointless it existing when neither "side" is going to change their opinion about anything.
 
How many Nintendo fans do you see in this thread? They have abandoned tech threads on every forum, site, discord. It's a travesty.

Nintendo does get a pass but from the critics and their fans who dont enter these tech threads because they have either given up or worse have come to terms with the fact that Nintendo will never make a powerful console like the N64 or Gamecube anymore. I think the Nintendo fanbase should be a warning or cautionary tale of what could happen when a company is allowed to get complacent by its fanbase.

First they lost the tech advantage then they lost the AAA games. AAA Zelda now takes 6 years. There has been no AAA Mario for the last five years. There has no been no Metroid for the last 13. You allow these corporations to get complacent and this is what happens. They used to call Nintendo a Zelda, Metroid and Mario company and we arent even getting those on a regular basis. Microsoft has produced more AAA Gears, Forza, Halo games than Nintendo has AAA Metroid, Zelda and Mario. Think about that for a second. Starfield gets delayed and everyone jumps down Phil's throat. Mario and Metroid cant even get revealed after 5 and 13 years respectively and not a peep.

This is why I think it's important to raise a big stink about the series s issues. If you allow companies to get away with underpowered products, and god forbid they find financial success, they will chase those dollars and nothing more. You might have an XSX right now, but dont be sure MS will always have one. Dont be sure they will have a 100 tflops GPU in that cloud if the consumer base proves they are ok with 512p games. Witcher 3, Doom, Wolfenstein, Mortal Kombat, Hellblade all drop to 360p to 480p on the Switch. You dont want MS or Sony being ok with standards that low.

USItNoO.jpg


Thats not whats happened with the Matrix. It was made for the PS5 and XSX baseline of 1080p then downscaled to the Series S. Actually they werent even going to do it so MS sent coalition to do the downgrades for them. It wasnt even a straight res downgrade, they had to downgrade several other things on top of the 1/4th res downgrade we have come to expect.

Even Metro. They dont care if they hit 512p. They shipped the game in that state without giving two shits about the user experience. This will not hold back the series x. Several games have skipped 60 fps modes or ray tracing modes already. Guardians literally has 90% of the foliage missing despite the 1/4th resolution downgrade.

BBz1gPP.gif

MS isn't aiming for underpowered console like Nintendo. They are aiming for $99 console. There is a huge difference in both.

Switch is being sold at a nice profit, while MS is dropping price on Series S wherever possible.

It aims to expand gaming audiance. I applaud MS for Series S and gamepass.
 

yamaci17

Member
Because you are testing at 1080p. Hes testing at 1440p. The fact that hes around your fps while at a much higher resolution shows his 3070 is performing better.
no my 3070 performs just like his at 1440p and i proved it just a couple posts prior back. i don't know why you keep bringing this up.

a) locations are different
b) game has a dynamic performance profile that ranges between 80 and 130 frames depending on the GPU load. the videos you've posted have tons of light GPU load sections which i have zero cares about. the video i posted is a specific small sample that takes part in a very GPU bound section that has nothing to do with intro mission.

you're not being any different than comparing series s's higher resolution to ps5's lowest resolution and claim they're performing similar.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
I think you guys are not seeing the potentially serious issue of just 5.5 GB VRAM for Series S games (in typical usage cases) as the generation progresses, regardless of it using lower texture settings than Series X (which also, as the gen goes on, that difference will shrink as there aren't terribly many current-gen or crossgen games hitting native 4K resolutions as-is).

Go look at some of the lower-end RTX 30 GPUs if you want to see where even 8 GB VRAM can be causing some issues for games targeting 1440p resolution output targets with medium texture quality. 5.5 GB VRAM, even 6 GB VRAM, for Series S (if in fact the other 2 GB is for CPU & audio while the other 2 GB is for system O.S which I guess is possibly the case) is going to cause some issues even with SFS liberally applied.

this is just pure speculation. 8 gb vram at 1440p with medium textures has never created any problems or whatsoever in any kind of game. if you have data or examples, you're free to point them out. i'm using my 3070 mostly at 4k and never needed to drop textures up to now. 8 gb currently can run ray tracing+ultra textures together in ALL games @1440p. only exception is far cry where you cannot run ultra textures and ray tracing together at 4K resolution. even that is resolved at 1440p. even then, you can simply use high textures and still be at 4K without any problems

again, do not mistake allocation with actual usage. important point.

there are practically no games that 1650s cannot run @1080p with high textures (not ultra but not medium neither) as of 2022, let alone medium textures with a 4 gb buffer.

5.5 gb should be fine with medium textures, 720p-1080p going forward. we only need good looking medium textures and that's the pain part

 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
How many Nintendo fans do you see in this thread? They have abandoned tech threads on every forum, site, discord. It's a travesty.

Nintendo does get a pass but from the critics and their fans who dont enter these tech threads because they have either given up or worse have come to terms with the fact that Nintendo will never make a powerful console like the N64 or Gamecube anymore. I think the Nintendo fanbase should be a warning or cautionary tale of what could happen when a company is allowed to get complacent by its fanbase.

First they lost the tech advantage then they lost the AAA games. AAA Zelda now takes 6 years. There has been no AAA Mario for the last five years. There has no been no Metroid for the last 13. You allow these corporations to get complacent and this is what happens. They used to call Nintendo a Zelda, Metroid and Mario company and we arent even getting those on a regular basis. Microsoft has produced more AAA Gears, Forza, Halo games than Nintendo has AAA Metroid, Zelda and Mario. Think about that for a second. Starfield gets delayed and everyone jumps down Phil's throat. Mario and Metroid cant even get revealed after 5 and 13 years respectively and not a peep.

This is why I think it's important to raise a big stink about the series s issues. If you allow companies to get away with underpowered products, and god forbid they find financial success, they will chase those dollars and nothing more. You might have an XSX right now, but dont be sure MS will always have one. Dont be sure they will have a 100 tflops GPU in that cloud if the consumer base proves they are ok with 512p games. Witcher 3, Doom, Wolfenstein, Mortal Kombat, Hellblade all drop to 360p to 480p on the Switch. You dont want MS or Sony being ok with standards that low.

USItNoO.jpg


Thats not whats happened with the Matrix. It was made for the PS5 and XSX baseline of 1080p then downscaled to the Series S. Actually they werent even going to do it so MS sent coalition to do the downgrades for them. It wasnt even a straight res downgrade, they had to downgrade several other things on top of the 1/4th res downgrade we have come to expect.

Even Metro. They dont care if they hit 512p. They shipped the game in that state without giving two shits about the user experience. This will not hold back the series x. Several games have skipped 60 fps modes or ray tracing modes already. Guardians literally has 90% of the foliage missing despite the 1/4th resolution downgrade.

BBz1gPP.gif
But that's what I'm saying Slimy. Sizable effort was placed into downporting Matrix to the S.

Not many devs will go through such time & effort and instead build for S and scale up with essentially slider bumps - this is the hold back. The target platform by virtue of time, money & business becomes the lowest common denominator. The worst aspect to this gen.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom