Stardock CEO On DX12 Affecting Xbox One Games’ Resolution, DX11 Not Fast Enough In Case of SLI

Will DX12 help improve resolution issues on Xbox One?

Posted By | On 28th, Jan. 2015 Under News | Follow This Author @GamingBoltTweet

xbox one amd

Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock Studios is not sure whether DirectX 12 will help resolve the resolution issue of Xbox One games. Ever since the launch of Xbox One, several games on the platform run at a lower resolution compared to the PlayStation 4. Although the situation has improved, it’s still an issue for some games. He stated that since resolution is something that is not tied up with the CPU, resolution improvement may or may not happen.

“I’m not sure. The resolution thing depends on the game and is usually not due to the CPU not keeping up,” he said on Twitter. This makes sense since one of the big advantages of DX12 is related to CPU overhead reduction, which in turn is not related to resolution.

He also shared his thoughts about how DX 11 is not fast enough to feed the CPU in case of Scalable Link Interface (SLI) set up. This is again one of the areas where DX12 will bring in improvements by making sure that CPU is not the bottleneck in case of dual GPU configuration.

DX12 will launch later this year on Windows 10 and Xbox One.

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • JerkDaNERD7

    Why do we keep asking these dumb questions?! All Dx12 does for XOne is utilizes it’s hardware design to fully implement it’s innovative feature sets. I don’t give a crap about resolutions, I want some cool looking games not some high-res texture in a mundane atmosphere with a very linear gameplay approach. True next-gen is NOT resolution, it’s graphics resources, AI and some epic “stuff” happening on the screen.

    • tplarkin7

      All games should run at native 1920 x 1080 at 60 fps. I understand trade-offs are tough, but I’m a believer in frame rate 1st, resolution 2nd, and everything else 3rd.

    • JerkDaNERD7

      I would rather have your 3rd be first, your second …second, and your first obviously third even at an upscaled 900p is fine with me. ;D

      But it’s all up to the developers, with Dx12 it’s going to be a whole new ballgame where “everything else” truly is the driving factor behind next-gen graphics. It only makes sense, more objects on screen, more light sources especially if’ts voxel global illumination, and just overall real-time implementations instead of outright illusions. In my opinion.

      At the end our brains will be less fooled and …feel fresh? If that makes sense. ;DD

    • Edonus

      The sad thing is this is what the gaming media has educated and facilitated in the community and it is completely stupid.

      A game consists of hundreds of things yet the only 2 that seem to be used as the measuring stick is resolution and frame rate.

      That is like saying the measure of the value of a car is how many cylinders it has and number of seats.

      These consoles could easily run the games we had last gen just kick up the resolution and frame rate. Look at the Last Of Us and Halo MCC. The games for this gen will bring different things to the table that couldnt be done in anyway last gen. Its out of control. You will have people telling me that a cell shaded game needs to be 1080p, thats stupid. 1080 is only noticeable in side by side comparisons in the ranges these console are working in . Its not even like 720p is bad as much as 1080p is just good. 900 is more than enough. You really are missing nothing. Its a placebo.

      Frame rate is a little bit tricky but bottom line the same thing. When you play a game you become synced to the environment that you are in (if you are any good).

      Its like people forgot about lighting, physics, character and environment models, texturing, effects.

      Look at GTAV remastered…… everyone told me it looked gorgeous and it does, but Sunset Overdrive smokes GTAV in the graphics department. Just like Ryse smokes everything and these are 900p games.

      The whole resolution thing was lube to use to rape the gaming community.

    • tplarkin7

      I’m glad that resolution and frame rate has become a top issue because it has never been talked about until this generation. Developers always treated them as “nice to have” in the past. They would sell games at 24 fps that dip to 12 fps. Special effects loose their luster. However, I agree that there’s no innovation graphically, of late. But, I don’t think it’s tied to the resolution debate. Developers have been slow to innovate. I also agree that video game journalists have failed their readers. They are not professional, and don’t understand that a fundamental aspect of video game development is to innovate.

    • Lennox

      “I’m glad that resolution and frame rate has become a top issue because it has never been talked about until this generation.”
      That’s because a lot of the people demanding a certain resolution and frame rate didn’t know what it was until this generation.

    • tplarkin7

      Lennox, Thank God that they know now! But, I understand that a market demand for a certain arbitrary number can hurt the industry.

    • theduckofdeath

      Resolution, frame rate, a d flicker have been issues of contention since the late 1980s. Genesis, SNES and arcade games introduced them. EGM was always a technical and scoop grabbing mag (Quartermain) and would have full specs on consoles. Next came pixelation and later, aliasing, pop-in, stutter and screen tearing. All graphical artifacts are jarring and detract from the overall experience.

      There have to be trade-offs, yes. Each console is locked and will see only marginal improvements. If a game can’t hit 1080p on a particular console(s), devs shouldn’t kill themselves trying. Sixty fps is pretty much a pipedream at this point. A shame, because the identical game at 60 vs 30 fps is something to see. Base gameplay should not suffer too much — that is more a function of the audience. People’s inability to accept new of more challenging game mechanics is the true problem.

    • tplarkin7

      deadlyduck, I agree with you that the devs should have the freedom to push the limits as they see fit. One game that stands out as a bad framerate/amazing effects is Deus Ex: Invisible War (Xbox 1). That game came out a year before Half-Life 2 and was revolutionary. Graphics never before seen on console, but the frame rate was hideous. I still loved the game, but cursed the frustrating frame rate.

  • Dangerousjo 1985

    Well I have a pretty simple question for the Dev , has he created a game for xb1 using Dx12, if he hasn’t ,then why tell us what dx12 capabilities are when he really doesn’t know..

    • Mark

      Just do some homework on him and his company. He knows what he’s saying. Working with Mantle (Nitrous Engine running it) and DX12. He’s actually making a game for PC and current gen, per his website (StarDock). The game will probably be like the Star Swarm tech demo. His point about DX12 and Mantle, is they focus more on CPU cores doing balanced work. Seems like resolution is different than this. Besides, Quantum Break will be another grafix benchmark game for Xbox.

  • Mark

    When it comes to Xbox 1, Low Level to the Metal /= parallelized code (DX12). People keep assuming stuff. Because of the way DX12 will be used for programming (paralell), the X1 will see a substantial boost in graphics, not just HIGHER FRAMES.


Copyright © 2009-2017 All Rights Reserved.