KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
At E3 last night, Microsoft wrapped up its Xbox conference with a quick introduction to Project Scorpio, an upgraded console that aims to offer native 4K gaming when it launches at the end of next year. However, there is only so much time in a press conference, so Phil Spencer has gone into a little more detail on what to expect from Scorpio and why it exists during interviews following the main event.
Speaking with Wired, Phil Spencer, head of Xbox explained that while “Microsoft may be speeding up the console cycle”, the company is also “making it okay to upgrade in your own time” by continuing to support the original Xbox One and introducing the Xbox One S for those who only need or want a slight upgrade this year with 4K Blu-Ray and HDR support.
Ultra-HD TVs are being adopted fairly quickly and Microsoft wants to jump on that by offering the first 4K-capable console: “When we started looking at Scorpio we asked the partners, ‘in order to build a true high-fidelity 4K game, what capabilities do you need?’ That’s what we designed Scorpio around. It’s kind of like a GTX 980 card on the PC. I get the capability that I need as a developer to deliver a high-fidelity 4K game.”
Native 4K support isn't the only focus though, while Microsoft doesn't have a Virtual Reality headset of its own, it does want to ensure that its next Xbox is capable of handling the resolution and frame rates required: “When we went out and talked to VR developers the capability and the hardware spec that they need to deliver a console-like experience to VR was a requirement of 6 teraflops, which clearly, today’s consoles—PlayStation 4 and Xbox One—don’t have. The truth is, a console that can run a 2-D version of Doom or Fallout today, which a PS4 and Xbox One can, is not going to be able to do a stereoscopic, high-framerate version of those games”.
Spencer went on to explain that he doesn't want consoles to force VR developers into some sort of middle-ground, where they need to heavily compromise on the scope of their games to get them running.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: While console makers don't typically come out with more powerful hardware so quickly, it is clear that things needed to speed up at least a bit to keep up with new technology. That said, Microsoft isn't forcing this on anyone, if you are happy with the current level of performance then you can probably pick up an Xbox One fairly cheap right now and still play all future games, but if you want more and are willing to pay for it, then you now have that option.
I like how they keep using the 6 Teraflop number. Even AMD with the R9 480 isn’t using 6 Teraflops so either Msft is overstating (rounding up their numbers) or they have something better than the 480 in the Scorpio.
Phil Spencer is still working for M$, even after the absolute XB1 launch debacle?
The original Xbox One fiasco wasn’t down to Phil, it was down to Don Mattrick, who thankfully left soon after the huge backlash.
“The truth is, a console that can run a 2-D version of Doom or Fallout today” It is funny that he refers to these games as 2D now because with the almighty VR that is now the new 3D I guess. But as far back as I can remember once video cards & the games supported they were always referred to as being 3D based. unless 2-D as what was in the quote is the new way to say 3D of the old..lol
VR uses stereoscopic 3D like 3D monitors do. One eye is exposed to a slightly different angle than the other to give the illusion of depth. The current versions of Doom and Fallout are being sent to the TV as a flat image.
A single 980 isn’t able to put out decent fps at a 4k res…
I actually know what VR is as well as inages being sent to a TV as a flat image. What I was saying was how the industry refers to things or changes how they refer to things from the past. In a game objects like a box or a barrel etc are rendered on the TV screen to appear as a 3D object just like we see them in real life or close to it so it was referred to as 3D rendering to give the appearance of being 3D or more real. In the old days they would render a box in 2D and if you turned around the box or whatever it would turn with you to try to give you the appearance of an image that was 3D like it was all the tech back in those days could do in software or hardware back then. anyways my point was how they are now changing things up in the tech slang to better suit today’s new tech toys.
“left”
The difference is that console games can be optimised for a smaller range of hardware than PC, so have performance advantages compared to the same hardware on PC. Also, he was referring to being similar TFLOPs as a 980 TI, not the architectural advantages. He cannot talk about those yet as he’d be revealing something about AMD’s hardware that they are not yet willing to talk about publicaly.
The old “3D” was really a fake form of 3D. It was still rendered in 2D, just with camera and rendering tricks to make it appear 3D movement and depth wise.
I suspect they are using a downclocked Vega card just as Sony is using a downclocked Polaris.
It would also partially be down to the systems firmware and operating system too. The fact that any console has been able to run its games in a stable manner solely based on the hardware itself would seem impossible but consoles, since the hardware is very specific and unlikely to change, can create custom instruction sets and allocate more resources to rendering/physics/shaders/whatever than a general purpose PC would typically allow
He did leave, he went to be Zynga’s CEO, or part of Zynga just after doing so.
True. Not to mention leaner operating systems since they are not so general purpose as a PC. And no third party things like virus scanners and Google Update running in the bacj=kground. Meaning more resources available to game developers than on PCs with similar hardware.
We don’t know how many tf the rx 480 has yet, all they have revealed is that it is more than 5 tf.
Yes I actually know how it all works what I was saying is the objects in a scene are made to look 3D as in being able to walk around them & they have multiple sides the viewer can see making it look 3D. Yes I fully understand the images are sent to the TV or monitor as a flat image just like they have been since TV’s were first made back in the day. The rendering tricks they use make that flat image sent to the TV or monitor look like they have more depth giving a more immersive feel for the viewer. VR is nothing new it has been around for a very long time but hopefully this time they get it right or we may have to wait another 30 years for the next wave of new tech to try again. Personally I want the Holodeck experience but that most likely will not happen in my life time.