Because it would be a short video if they didn’t?
1 Like
Honestly, this is quite disappointing. Only the edges seems to be handled well, everything else is a bit messy, specially surface detail. Doesn’t seem like, as expected when it was known it doesn’t take temporal info, that it doesn’t beat any temporal reconstruction tech save for CB.
Hopefully Ms delivers with directl ML SR
1 Like
But that’s because Xbox installs the updates alongside the installation, on PS5 you still need to download them afterwards.
Most likely the reality was that the PS5 specs were already set in stone before they invested in the SSD.
I would say, much like the overclocking that the PS5 SSD speeds reeks of they reacting to a better than expected SX, more specifically to SFS. But in this case the only compromise they likely had to do was the SSD size.
1 Like
Well, DLSS which AMD has pitched FSR against can run a game at 1600p say and make it look as good or better than the native 4K game. That is I think why they baseline in the way they do.
I’m frankly not seeing what any fuss about FSR is - its an upscaling solution that potentially offers a little more performance than other options but at a heavier IQ hit. So whilst its nice to have another technique the fundamental issue is that DLSS still is unrivalled in that it can upscale AND simultaneously improve IQ or at the least maintain it.
It looks to me that they spent significantly more time on the SSD than anything else. Don’t see how it could come across as reactive.
3 Likes
Agreed, everything from the controller to the decompression block and IO setup doesn’t scream reactive at all. The entire system design seems to be centered around fast throughput and a really fast SSD would be critical to this design.
I do love the idea of these engineers hearing about a competing product and dramatically throwing their blueprints into a fire in anguish. That or crossing out Mb and scribbling in Gb 
Can you explain why their SSD becomes as slow as a HDD while playing unoptimised backcompat titles? Atleast the upgrade in RAW throughput should make a difference like in the case of Series X|S consoles.
I don’t know where this should go so thought this would be the best place. I have no idea what this is but it has something to do with finding memory bugs apparently. I hope it’s useful!
Summary
With Address Sanitizer now being available on Xbox, developers can leverage this powerful technology to help debug memory issues in their titles. Combined with the crash dump changes detailed here, it should provide all the flexibility required to support your automated tests suites and enable you to find issues quickly and easily. We welcome any feedback on these changes and would ask you to raise any issues through the Xbox forums in the usual way.
4 Likes
My best guess is this is due to the APIs for each system. The HDD in the One X was around 50% faster than the OG Xbox One IIRC, so their tools and OS were designed in a flexible way to take advantage of faster hardware. Maybe this is all related to the DirectX roots of their tools that are designed to support a wide range of hardware. On the Playstation side, we’ve seen a slide indicating that the PS5 will play BC games in certain modes, this likely limits the IO speeds when playing these games in these modes.
I meant the raw speeds. Both Ms and Sony customized the ssd controllers, created hardware compression blocks and created a low latency file system and api, so there’s no extra care between the two approaches.
However, Ms had the ace in the sleeve in the SFS, which Sony didn’t have, and Sony increased the SSD speeds from the first devkits to final. To me, the speed bump was a reaction to SFS to brute force the scenarios SFS allow.
That is highly unlikely. You don’t go through all the steps Sony did to the IO design to equip it with a sub-par SSD. System design goals and cost are usually set years in advance to a system’s launch and doing something like greatly increasing the speed, which would also increase the cost, is not something you typically see with console development.
To be fair to AMD, they didn’t pitch FSR as a competitor to DLSS. Journalists did that. AMD pitched it as their attempt to solve the same problem that DLSS solves (tech-wise) but in a way that is vastly more open for devs/platforms. The result is their openness drastically reduces the capabilities FSR can realistically target.
3 Likes
Where does the info about a speed increase on the SSD relative to dev kits come from? o.0
They did pitch it as a competitor to journalists though, we’ve been told that. We’ve also seen AMD refer to FSR as their answer to DLS. It’s very much a competing feature.
Grubb didn’t even realize AMD never called FSR an ML-based soln, so I’m not taking his word for something he likely relayed inaccurately imho. It is more probable that he simply misunderstood the actual context of whatever AMD said to him and drew incorrect inferences from that.
Where did AMD refer to it as their ‘answer to DLSS’?
I’ll have to go back and look over that twitter thread where we had a discussion because I swear I posted a link that you did not agree with lol unfortunately every search result now is just covering the recent launch.
I’m going to take Grubb at his word. Knowing whether or not FSR is ML based wouldn’t influence what he and other journalists are told from AMD. Just about every outlet is describing it as their answer, that kind of widespread understanding doesn’t happen by mistake.
If it is sourced to AMD that’s cool but I have looked for AMD’s comments on FSR lots of times and scoured every interview Herkleman gave and he never presented it in a head to head way with DLSS and in fact basically never even mentions DLSS. I might have missed something though.
It isn’t that Grubb is lying btw (for those who have no clue what tweet thread we are referencing), just that he isn’t positioned to distinguish details that in this case are super important. Every outlet described FSR at ML-based too at the outset btw, so yes, that widespread misunderstanding happens all the time actually and happened here even. So I would not take his word at face value without him providing direct quotes, which he didn’t.
I’m on tenterhooks.