Xbox one x = Better pc optimization?

[leelaa14]

For a while now I've been wondering, with the one x and devs trying to mostly push for 4k (though not 100% achieving it) would this mean we should see better optimised games on pc?

[Sam Worthley]

Im pretty sure Luke made a video on this on LTT, I remember the one X was doing better than a $500 dollar PC in a few games

 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

Nope. The XBOneX sees that because there is no hardware variations between the One X consoles, and ALL XBOne consoles use the same architectures and drivers.

 

However, PC offers graphics options that can be adjusted for 4K30-60 if it's that important to people.

[leelaa14]

Yeah I've seen that video, still curious though as to weather it means in theory, we should see better performance scaling in third party games.

[Mira Yurizaki]

No. It still depends on how the game was designed and how much of the game's high performance code relies on how the system behaves.

[Audherbagn]

Short answer: maybe

 

Long answer: probably not

 

I am not an industry expert or anything however I would assume that it will very drastically vary from game to game, and engine to engine, but the real issue with optimization has less to do with resolution and more to do with windows. Linus made a video where he was touring some game studio where they said they made the game in 16k or some such resolution, and there is also a recent techquickie video talking about scaling in windows, and how much it sucks. 

[Princess Luna]

Games will look prettier on low and make less difference at ultras, like crysis 3 as an example, play it on low or ultra it is amazing how little you really lose in graphical quality, take crysis 1 instead that was intended for PC: low is potato and ultra was beautiful.

[Kyle_N]

DX12 games will probably see any benefits of optimization, since it's basically the same code running on either platform. Other games likely won't see same improvements as a direct result of the X, simply because they won't have the exact same code. 

 

Like Forza engine is really good now, Motorsport 7 being able to run at 1080@30 on integrated graphics and 4K@60 on the X.

In comparison, the previous game (Motorsport 6) had much higher hardware requirements and wouldn't have been able to do 1080@30 on integrated (the game crashes if you try), and we obviously can't test 4K@60 on the X, but on similar PC hardware I doubt it would do it. 

 

Now that's just one game, but you get the idea. In the end, it will always depend on what target the devs want to hit. If they really want to do 1080@60 on low-end hardware, or 4K@60 on the X, they have to put more time into optimizing it. Better optimization in general = better performance on all hardware. 

The idea of optimizing for a specific hardware configuration is on the way out, with how PC-like modern consoles are. 

 

So for a short answer, no, I highly doubt many games would see improvements as a direct result of the X. But, with how similar consoles are to PCs, optimizing for one usually means optimizing for all. 

[Himommies]

11 minutes ago, Abyssal Radon said:

Most games are designed for the console first then ported over to the PC now a days.

It's pretty much only the really really really big AAA games and out of those there aren't that many

 

12 minutes ago, Abyssal Radon said:

then ported down for the consoles, it would be a win-win situation for both parties.

How?

The only reason consoles can function at all is because of their amazing optimization,which even if you make a tiny mistake it'll be magnified 1000 fold

 

[PlayStation 2]

Not really. The most it'd mean is that they'd know how to use high-end hardware better per se, but it wouldn't mean better optimization, especially since you can't build to the tee on a PC game, especially if it winds up on multiple operating systems.

[Ertman]

I will also go with less than likely. PC ports haven’t seen the optimizations caused by the low end CPU in the Xbox1. Most PC CPUs can run circles around the consoles, but the PC ports aren’t  seeing the efficiency that would leverage that additional power.

 

Its still fairly recent that heavy use of multithreading is being used in games.

[Sniperfox47]

Also note than UWP and Win32 app optimizations are different in a number of ways, so even if the XOX's optimizations carried over, they'd only *really* apply to games bought from the Windows 10 store... So eh?

[Combustible Lemon]

They can't even optimize the 'Play anywhere' titles (Shadow of War, Forza Horizon 3 and ReCore perform noticeably worse for some reason in the Windows Store version compare to Steam) so don't get your hopes up.

[leelaa14]

5 hours ago, DesertWing said:

They can't even optimize the 'Play anywhere' titles (Shadow of War, Forza Horizon 3 and ReCore perform noticeably worse for some reason in the Windows Store version compare to Steam) so don't get your hopes up.

Out of those games you mentioned, only shadow of war is available on steam.

[leelaa14]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

[Combustible Lemon]

39 minutes ago, leelaa14 said:

Out of those games you mentioned, only shadow of war is available on steam.

I remembered ReCore was on Steam, but apparently not. You are right.

[Nedkely]

It could and probably will push developers to make use of DX12, which increases the overall performance of the game. 

Since xbox one x has hardware support for it, there will be developers aiming for it, because it will make the job easier. 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 1/27/2018 at 3:17 PM, Nedkely said:

It could and probably will push developers to make use of DX12, which increases the overall performance of the game. 

Since xbox one x has hardware support for it, there will be developers aiming for it, because it will make the job easier.

Not really. DX12 isn't some magical API that automatically improves performance of a game if you use it. It's a different paradigm than using DX11 and developers have expressed concern that the effort to reach parity with DX11 visuals is a bit higher (if not the same).

 

Plus the DX12 only helps to lower the CPU bottleneck bar. If your system can maintain near 100% GPU usage, then DX12 won't help.

[Stefan Payne]

On 18.1.2018 at 2:09 AM, M.Yurizaki said:

No. It still depends on how the game was designed and how much of the game's high performance code relies on how the system behaves.

Yep, that's always the case.

And some developers are just incompetent to get the 

On 30.1.2018 at 3:33 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

Plus the DX12 only helps to lower the CPU bottleneck bar. If your system can maintain near 100% GPU usage, then DX12 won't help.

No, depends on how you use it and how good you are with it.

 

DX12 can help a lot if you know what you are doing because you know what the driver should do like Memory Allocation and things like that - you don't with DX11...

Its the same with Vulcan btw...

[Guest]

Seeing as trash like PUBG gets released devs could probably do better, but usually its money that decides stuff now.

[Ithanul]

On 1/17/2018 at 8:14 PM, Princess Cadence said:

Games will look prettier on low and make less difference at ultras, like crysis 3 as an example, play it on low or ultra it is amazing how little you really lose in graphical quality, take crysis 1 instead that was intended for PC: low is potato and ultra was beautiful.

Yep, back then you could really tell the difference.

Also, one must keep in mind that back then, the first Crysis was PC only for a long time.  And, a good chunk of PCs back then could hardly run it.

Hence the phrase, can it play Crysis was born (basically if the computer could play it, you had a powerful computer and a very expensive one during that time).

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 1/31/2018 at 9:24 PM, Stefan Payne said:

DX12 can help a lot if you know what you are doing because you know what the driver should do like Memory Allocation and things like that - you don't with DX11...

Its the same with Vulcan btw...

What I'm saying is if the CPU in a DX11 render path can saturate the GPU to 100% constantly, then DX12 isn't going to be better, because the GPU was already saturated. The API only affects how good the pathway between the application and the driver is. If the driver was already saturating the GPU with a less efficient API, changing to a more efficient API isn't going to improve performance much for the same quality.

 

AMD even stated when presenting Mantle that it would only help in CPU limited scenarios.

[Stefan Payne]

7 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

What I'm saying is if the CPU in a DX11 render path can saturate the GPU to 100% constantly, then DX12 isn't going to be better, because the GPU was already saturated. The API only affects how good the pathway between the application and the driver is. If the driver was already saturating the GPU with a less efficient API, changing to a more efficient API isn't going to improve performance much for the same quality.

Yes but you are missing the difference between both API and you assume that both do the exact same thing under DX11 and DX12.

 

With a competent programmer that knows what he's doing that is not the case. You can do things a bit different under DX12 because it is _THAT_ different.

 

You must not (just) think that DX12 or Vulkan is just DX11 with a bit less overhead, that's wrong. Its a different API - both are thanks to AMD and Mantle...