Jump to content

Darksouls Remastered Runs "upscaled 4K" on X1X

Keikavoos

What the eff? 

From what I know, Remastered releases that fromsoftware offers are higher resolutions and better fps... so NO upgrade in visual effects, and the fun part is that "true/native 4K" BS that microsoft was pushing around since 12-10 months ago. And there it is, a remastered ver. Runs upscaled without any VE upgrades, but the blame isn't only for phil, it is for FS too, you don't need a game like dark souls to run at >60 Fps, it is sweet of course but the priority must be resolution NOT the frame rate, and taking 40$ for that? It's just stupid, I may consider the pc version if it runs good (because the original pc version was an absolute mess, historical mess!) , but for ps4/xbox it is just stupid, and it is coming for switch too, good for them. 

Is X1X's fault or fromsoftwares fault? Or both? Obviously...

 

IMG_20180113_125422_130.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take 60Hz with graphical settings cranked to the max. I really hope From Software fixes the UI scaling for triple monitors not using Surround since the game looked freaking gorgeous at 5760x1080. 

Cor Caeruleus Reborn v6

Spoiler

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K

CPU Cooler: be quiet! - PURE ROCK 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste 
Motherboard: ASRock Z370 Extreme4
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3200/14
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive 
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive
Storage: Western Digital - Blue 2TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive
Storage: Western Digital - BLACK SERIES 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: EVGA - 970 SSC ACX (1080 is in RMA)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA P2 750W with CableMod blue/black Pro Series
Optical Drive: LG - WH16NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer 
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Pro OEM 64-bit and Linux Mint Serena
Keyboard: Logitech - G910 Orion Spectrum RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard
Mouse: Logitech - G502 Wired Optical Mouse
Headphones: Logitech - G430 7.1 Channel  Headset
Speakers: Logitech - Z506 155W 5.1ch Speakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Froody129 said:

FPS> resolution 

 

Up until a point of course

This is not counter strike or overwatch to push all the frames it is dark souls! 

Besides... with graphical options on ps4 pro and x1x you can always Sacrifice your resolution to get better fps!

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

I'll take 60Hz with graphical settings cranked to the max. I really hope From Software fixes the UI scaling for triple monitors not using Surround since the game looked freaking gorgeous at 5760x1080. 

There is no graphical upgrades, no newly added 8-gen effects, just like dark souls 2 remastered it will be better AA and better Resolution, that's it, so i wonder why they were not able to reach "Native 4K"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

This is not counter strike or overwatch to push all the frames it is dark souls! 

Besides... with graphical options on ps4 pro and x1x you can always Sacrifice your resolution to get better fps!

There is no graphical upgrades, no newly added 8-gen effects, just like dark souls 2 remastered it will be better AA and better Resolution, that's it, so i wonder why they were not able to reach "Native 4K"

Because an RX 480 is not capable of pushing native 4k at even 30fps on decent settings (where the extra resolution will be beneficial)...

 

You’re expecting a lot from this hardware

That's an F in the profile pic

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

This is not counter strike or overwatch to push all the frames it is dark souls! 

Besides... with graphical options on ps4 pro and x1x you can always Sacrifice your resolution to get better fps!

There is no graphical upgrades, no newly added 8-gen effects, just like dark souls 2 remastered it will be better AA and better Resolution, that's it, so i wonder why they were not able to reach "Native 4K"

I'm sorry to say that you're in the minority, when you say they should prioritize resolution over FPS.

 

Most gamers on this forum seem to think the complete opposite - that devs should aim for 60 FPS, and then match quality settings and resolutions to whatever is necessary to get there.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Froody129 said:

Because an RX 480 is not capable of pushing native 4k at even 30fps on decent settings (where the extra resolution will be beneficial)...

 

You’re expecting a lot from this hardware

This gaming ((boxes)) don't work like that a ps4 has the most terrible hardware specs you could find but it runs the witcher 3 at 1080p with 30fps without any fps loss, (I havn't seen any at least) and it also runs project cars 2, Shadow of war etc. At 1080p in most situations (these games have dynamic res turned on but i can clearly see the high pixel density in my screen), and ps4 pro runs these games at 4k upscaled or some heavy games on native, that's great for 350$ but x1x is 150$ higher and it has the same performance, and that my friend, is painful. 

(For compartion to a 480, x1x has higher base clock, more vram which is important if you want 4k , recievs all the resourses from a powerful cpu which benefits from 8 cores and is clocked at 2.3, and i think that one x's graphic unit has more compute units than the rx 480)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm sorry to say that you're in the minority, when you say they should prioritize resolution over FPS.

 

Most gamers on this forum seem to think the complete opposite - that devs should aim for 60 FPS, and then match quality settings and resolutions to whatever is necessary to get there.

That depends on the person true but even so, it is still stupid, note that there is little to NO Visual upgrades in fromsoftwares remasters, like ds2: schoolar of the first sin, so it is possible to run 50-60fps (give or take) in naitive 4K 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Keikavoos said:

That depends on the person true but even so, it is still stupid, note that there is little to NO Visual upgrades in fromsoftwares remasters, like ds2: schoolar of the first sin, so it is possible to run 50-60fps (give or take) in naitive 4K 

You should send your complaints to the Dev then. If they didn't make a remaster to your liking, let them know what exactly is not up to your expectations.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You should send your complaints to the Dev then. If they didn't make a remaster to your liking, let them know what exactly is not up to your expectations.

If devs were to listen to complains then they would've listened to critics a long time ago like 7 yeas ago about dat pc version

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Keikavoos said:

If devs were to listen to complains then they would've listened to critics a long time ago like 7 yeas ago about dat pc version

Well I don't know what to tell you then. Lots of people prefer higher FPS, myself included, over visuals.

 

If you don't want to Tweet (or other social media) the devs and tell them what you don't like, you know they won't listen to you.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

This gaming ((boxes)) don't work like that a ps4 has the most terrible hardware specs you could find but it runs the witcher 3 at 1080p with 30fps without any fps loss, (I havn't seen any at least) and it also runs project cars 2, Shadow of war etc. At 1080p in most situations (these games have dynamic res turned on but i can clearly see the high pixel density in my screen), and ps4 pro runs these games at 4k upscaled or some heavy games on native, that's great for 350$ but x1x is 150$ higher and it has the same performance, and that my friend, is painful. 

(For compartion to a 480, x1x has higher base clock, more vram which is important if you want 4k , recievs all the resourses from a powerful cpu which benefits from 8 cores and is clocked at 2.3, and i think that one x's graphic unit has more compute units than the rx 480)

xD

 

It uses the same piece of shit Jaguar cores the PS4 does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

xD

 

It uses the same piece of shit Jaguar cores the PS4 does.

it does, yet again, what TF microsoft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

xD

 

It uses the same piece of shit Jaguar cores the PS4 does.

To be fair, they are higher clocked, so that's a bonus.

8 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

it does, yet again, what TF microsoft

TL;DR, Microsoft kept the same CPU architecture for two reasons:

1. To maintain existing optimizations with XBOX One and XBOX One S consoles (meaning, no weird performance issues on the faster XBOX One X that might make it perform worse than the slower consoles)

2. And more importantly, because Ryzen wasn't out yet, and Ryzen APU's (Essentially the XBox One SoC is an APU) were still quite a long ways off.

 

You got to remember that Microsoft designs these things a long time before they get manufactured and hit retail. They had to finalize hardware specs AT LEAST a year ago, if not longer. Unfortunate, but it's the way it has to be done.

 

If there's another iteration of the XBOX One (Or an "XBOX Two" or a successor/next gen console), I'd expect that to contain a Ryzen based APU/SoC.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

To be fair, they are higher clocked, so that's a bonus.

TL;DR, Microsoft kept the same CPU architecture for two reasons:

1. To maintain existing optimizations with XBOX One and XBOX One S consoles (meaning, no weird performance issues on the faster XBOX One X that might make it perform worse than the slower consoles)

2. And more importantly, because Ryzen wasn't out yet, and Ryzen APU's (Essentially the XBox One SoC is an APU) were still quite a long ways off.

 

You got to remember that Microsoft designs these things a long time before they get manufactured and hit retail. They had to finalize hardware specs AT LEAST a year ago, if not longer. Unfortunate, but it's the way it has to be done.

 

If there's another iteration of the XBOX One (Or an "XBOX Two" or a successor/next gen console), I'd expect that to contain a Ryzen based APU/SoC.

Power consumption may also have prevented 8 Ryzen cores from being used. 4 Ryzen cores would more suffice for a new console and blow away the Jaguar cores, though as you said, any optimizations made for many Jaguar cores would be stepped on. Even if Ryzen was an option, I don't think Microsoft would jump on it unless they were willing to break compatibility.

 

Personally, I think these consoles would have been better served with 4 Stars cores (AMD's cpu used in their 1sr gen APU, and similar to earlier Turions and mobile Phenom). Better performance than Jaguar, but not so voracious as Bulldozer was.

My eyes see the past…

My camera lens sees the present…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Power consumption may also have prevented 8 Ryzen cores from being used. 4 Ryzen cores would more suffice for a new console and blow away the Jaguar cores, though as you said, any optimizations made for many Jaguar cores would be stepped on. Even if Ryzen was an option, I don't think Microsoft would jump on it unless they were willing to break compatibility.

 

Personally, I think these consoles would have been better served with 4 Stars cores (AMD's cpu used in their 1sr gen APU, and similar to earlier Turions and mobile Phenom). Better performance than Jaguar, but not so voracious as Bulldozer was.

I would assume 4c8t Ryzen APU w/ similar Vega graphics as the XBOX One X would have been sufficient (and would vastly improve CPU bound games).

 

Or go crazy, and include the Jaguar SoC for backwards compatibility xD Completely inefficient for cost management purposes, but it would have been possible I'm sure.

 

Power consumption may have been an issue, but Ryzen is fairly power efficient - and I'm sure they would have been willing to increase total system draw, if they were also able to keep cooling and temps under control. Though the original Xbox One ran pretty hot, and even my Xbox One S runs a bit on the warm side.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

To be fair, they are higher clocked, so that's a bonus.

TL;DR, Microsoft kept the same CPU architecture for two reasons:

1. To maintain existing optimizations with XBOX One and XBOX One S consoles (meaning, no weird performance issues on the faster XBOX One X that might make it perform worse than the slower consoles)

2. And more importantly, because Ryzen wasn't out yet, and Ryzen APU's (Essentially the XBox One SoC is an APU) were still quite a long ways off.

 

You got to remember that Microsoft designs these things a long time before they get manufactured and hit retail. They had to finalize hardware specs AT LEAST a year ago, if not longer. Unfortunate, but it's the way it has to be done.

 

If there's another iteration of the XBOX One (Or an "XBOX Two" or a successor/next gen console), I'd expect that to contain a Ryzen based APU/SoC.

And amd had the zen art. up and running in 2014, the 2016 releases were consumer version, microsoft didn't ask! note that consol chipset isn't a simple apu, it is highly modified so they had access to zen and also placing vega in that chip wasn't impossible either

But the first reason seems more reasonable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

And amd had the zen art. up and running in 2014, the 2016 releases were consumer version, microsoft didn't ask! note that consol chipset isn't a simple apu, it is highly modified so they had access to zen and also placing vega in that chip wasn't impossible either

But the first reason seems more reasonable

Source that AMD had anything even remotely ready for mass production back in 2014 on the Ryzen arch?

 

Microsoft had deadlines to make, and they had to plan far enough in advance that they would have been heavily impacted by a hardware delay because the SoC wasn't ready to be produced in the numbers they needed yet.

 

Maybe AMD could have delivered on that time frame, maybe not. I think Microsoft decided the risk wasn't worth taking. AMD had a product that could do the job, in the time frame Microsoft had in mind.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

And amd had the zen art. up and running in 2014, the 2016 releases were consumer version, microsoft didn't ask! note that consol chipset isn't a simple apu, it is highly modified so they had access to zen and also placing vega in that chip wasn't impossible either

But the first reason seems more reasonable

Well again, Zen and Jaguar are different architectures with different quirks and thus different optimizations. Even if AMD had Zen ready for development in 2014, it was likely Microsoft wouldn't have asked AMD to make a custom APU with it simply because you'll likely be breaking things more by changing the CPU than upgrading the GPU... which the GPU upgrade was just another iteration of GCN.

 

Heck, Nintendo used the same CPU architecture for three generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Source that AMD had anything even remotely ready for mass production back in 2014 on the Ryzen arch?

I don't have the source you're looking for but it's obvious they started working on it 2012, and surely they had something in 2014

7 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Well again, Zen and Jaguar are different architectures with different quirks and thus different optimizations

Exactly, they had the access to more powerful stuff but they didn't ask, because of this optimization thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

I don't have the source you're looking for but it's obvious they started working on it 2012, and surely they had something in 2014

Exactly, they had the access to more powerful stuff but they didn't ask, because of this optimization thing

"Surely they had something"

 

Based on what, exactly? CPU architecture generally is accepted to take 4+ years to design. 2012 to 2014 would be right in the middle, so beyond MAYBE some engineering samples, I'd doubt there would even be any finalized or even close to finalized designs.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Keikavoos said:

Exactly, they had the access to more powerful stuff but they didn't ask, because of this optimization thing

It's not really just optimizations. It's more like the designed their software heavily around the behavior of one architecture and moving to another would break things that they would have to fix. And even if they did move to it for more power, they would have to maintain two separate software builds (well, technically they have to maintain one for each SKU, but a Ryzen one would have less commonality than the Jaguar builds, increasing development costs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's not really just optimizations. It's more like the designed their software heavily around the behavior of one architecture and moving to another would break things that they would have to fix. And even if they did move to it for more power, they would have to maintain two separate software builds (well, technically they have to maintain one for each SKU, but a Ryzen one would have less commonality than the Jaguar builds, increasing development costs)

I'm thinking that they'll do a Ryzen based APU for the "next gen" of XBOX Console, where it has XBOX One backwards compatibility, but performance isn't guaranteed - and it'll likely be up to devs to ensure stable performance (if they care enough to patch an old game).

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm thinking that they'll do a Ryzen based APU for the "next gen" of XBOX Console, where it has XBOX One backwards compatibility, but performance isn't guaranteed - and it'll likely be up to devs to ensure stable performance (if they care enough to patch an old game).

They won't, at least i don't think so, xbox 360 games were a LOT better and some developers from last gen. didn't have the resources to go for a remaster, so they gave in to microsofts offer, but this gen is something different, we don't see a lot of ground breaking games from devs, those few amazing games are either little games from indie developers or big games from big developers 

For those little games like inside or stardew valley etc. The players can simply turn their old pc on and play without any problem, 

For big games like witcher 3, fallout 4 etc. They will get a remastered version, more money for the developers

But there is another thìng which may completely sabotage my scenario: if microsoft gives up the backward compatibility, they may suffer very very big pressure from the fans. 

 

22 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's not really just optimizations. It's more like the designed their software heavily around the behavior of one architecture and moving to another would break things that they would have to fix. And even if they did move to it for more power, they would have to maintain two separate software builds (well, technically they have to maintain one for each SKU, but a Ryzen one would have less commonality than the Jaguar builds, increasing development costs)

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×