Microsoft Has Increased Xbox One's GPU Frequency

[Someone Somewhere]

And how the hell do you know if he’s developing anything for the xbox one anyway?

It's a big enough market that you'd basically have to be mad to ignore it.

 

[HyperionLight]

And how the hell do you know if he’s developing anything for the xbox one anyway?

It's a big enough market that you'd basically have to be mad to ignore it.

Maybe they are or maybe aren’t (as in id Software), but Carmack himself said he wasn’t that much interested in the next gen of consoles and what he was more interested was AR (augmented reality) and oculus rift. (Still funny how he’s so into oculus rift, but doesn’t even think of giving a chance to the second generation of kinect)

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/id-softwares-john-carmack-excited-nextgen/

Even though they (may) have the kits there’s no real reason to believe they are doing anything with them and even less likely is that they are doing anything with kinect seeing as they never made a game that even remotely utilized the tech.

I know I might be totally wrong and this is all conjecture, and if I am then I apologize to him and to everyone here in advance, but until I see some real evidence…. well who’s to tell he’s not just making assumptions based on old tech?

Doom 4 was intended for PC and ps360 and was rebooted a couple of times already; the new Wolfenstein is being made by an external studio. So the only game they released in the last 9 years (besides Rage) was the Doom 3 BFG edition which in itself (imho) was more of Carmack’s test ground for the oculus rift… and even that didn’t turn out as planned.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/oculus-rift-backers-offered-refund-as-doom-3-bfg-edition-fails-to-make-launch-6405489

Well ok there’s Quake Live too, but I’m not too sure if that’s in the same category as Doom 3 BFG and Rage.

I still admire Carmack as he knows more about 3d programming than I ever will, but for him to be so negative about a technology that’s not even out yet...?!

 

[Sakkura]

The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift, the Kinect... not so much.

 

[bernardblack]

I don't get it. Their 7790 chip is an off-the-shelf PC component, with 2 CU's disabled, for overheard (otherwise, it would have 898 stream processors, or whatever the standard bonaire 7790 has). The PC 7790's ship at 1ghz, if anything, they down-clocked it to 853mhz. What's wrong with running the native 1ghz and further seal the gap?

 

[stevejnb]

The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift, the Kinect... not so much.

While I see some potential for each one to result in a "paradigm shift" you've got to be either crazy or biased to think that something like the Oculus Rift is more likely than Kinect type devices - not just Kinect, but that type of device in general - to result in a paradigm shift.

VR helmets are nothing new whether you're talking about the slew of actually quite functional - if pricey - VR helmets that were around in the 90's for the PC, or Nintendo's failed Virtual Boy. Neat devices, but relatively large, clunky headsets, all of which had both the boon and the detriment of cutting you off from reality. This is a boon because, well, it's cool to be in your little bubble world getting a great gaming/movie experience. It's a detriment because you're in a little bubble world being cut off from those around you, limiting sociability and interaction, being able to gauge what's happening. Oculus Rift - like VR helmets inherently do and will continue to do - results in a disconnect from what's going on around you. This may be an utter dream for a niche market and basement dwellers and my nephews, but most of the world doesn't have a secluded room that they go into like some sordid private study where they "get their game on." People watch movies with other people, people oftentimes play games socially, they play them on the go, they play them in odd locations. Oculus Rift - and VR helmets in general - are conducive to none of these things. I have zero doubt these things will have a market, but the very nature of the technology immediately disqualifies it from being something that most people would like to use regularly. Something like Google Glass has *far* more chance to cause a paradigm shift than some reality-cut-off device like Oculus Rift.

Contrast this to Kinect type devices. These are things which have the potential to become part of how we interact with technology in every single walk of life, in almost every setting. Visual and audio sensors that make technology detect and react to your gestures, your voice, and your very presence, which have the potential to be extremely portable (Microsoft has a patent on a pendant Kinect that hangs around one's neck). This will allow us to interact with technology in ways we've only seen in science fiction movies.

Oculus Rift is cool and will likely have a strong gaming and media application and following, but the very cut-off nature of VR helmets will bar it and items like it from becoming a truly widespread thing. Kinect type devices on the other hand - they are the infancy of a new way of interacting with computing devices. To think otherwise is wishful thinking and a needless peeing contest.

If you doubt me, ask yourself this... Once both types of devices are made vastly more portable, which is going to be something you're more likely to use in every walk of your life from wake-up to sleep - a device that cuts you off from reality in order to deliver a more immersive media experience, or a device that makes all the computers/smart devices around you respond to your gestures, voice, and presence, and allows you to control smart devices with those things? If you honestly think it's the former, you're nuts.

 

[Sakkura]

I don't get it. Their 7790 chip is an off-the-shelf PC component, with 2 CU's disabled, for overheard (otherwise, it would have 898 stream processors, or whatever the standard bonaire 7790 has). The PC 7790's ship at 1ghz, if anything, they down-clocked it to 853mhz. What's wrong with running the native 1ghz and further seal the gap?

Nice necro. Anyway, the reason they run it at lower clocks is twofold: In the consoles, the GPU is built into an APU, so there is more heat generation in a small area. And consoles are much more difficult to keep cool than desktop PCs. So clocks MUST be lower.

 

[Sakkura]

While I see some potential for each one to result in a "paradigm shift" you've got to be either crazy or biased to think that something like the Oculus Rift is more likely than Kinect type devices - not just Kinect, but that type of device in general - to result in a paradigm shift.

VR helmets are nothing new whether you're talking about the slew of actually quite functional - if pricey - VR helmets that were around in the 90's for the PC, or Nintendo's failed Virtual Boy. Neat devices, but relatively large, clunky headsets, all of which had both the boon and the detriment of cutting you off from reality. This is a boon because, well, it's cool to be in your little bubble world getting a great gaming/movie experience. It's a detriment because you're in a little bubble world being cut off from those around you, limiting sociability and interaction, being able to gauge what's happening. Oculus Rift - like VR helmets inherently do and will continue to do - results in a disconnect from what's going on around you. This may be an utter dream for a niche market and basement dwellers and my nephews, but most of the world doesn't have a secluded room that they go into like some sordid private study where they "get their game on." People watch movies with other people, people oftentimes play games socially, they play them on the go, they play them in odd locations. Oculus Rift - and VR helmets in general - are conducive to none of these things. I have zero doubt these things will have a market, but the very nature of the technology immediately disqualifies it from being something that most people would like to use regularly. Something like Google Glass has *far* more chance to cause a paradigm shift than some reality-cut-off device like Oculus Rift.

Contrast this to Kinect type devices. These are things which have the potential to become part of how we interact with technology in every single walk of life, in almost every setting. Visual and audio sensors that make technology detect and react to your gestures, your voice, and your very presence, which have the potential to be extremely portable (Microsoft has a patent on a pendant Kinect that hangs around one's neck). This will allow us to interact with technology in ways we've only seen in science fiction movies.

Oculus Rift is cool and will likely have a strong gaming and media application and following, but the very cut-off nature of VR helmets will bar it and items like it from becoming a truly widespread thing. Kinect type devices on the other hand - they are the infancy of a new way of interacting with computing devices. To think otherwise is wishful thinking and a needless peeing contest.

If you doubt me, ask yourself this... Once both types of devices are made vastly more portable, which is going to be something you're more likely to use in every walk of your life from wake-up to sleep - a device that cuts you off from reality in order to deliver a more immersive media experience, or a device that makes all the computers/smart devices around you respond to your gestures, voice, and presence, and allows you to control smart devices with those things? If you honestly think it's the former, you're nuts.

The Oculus Rift IS something new. It's the first head-mounted VR device that works properly and is affordable. You cannot compare it to the ones from the 90s; it's like comparing an iPad or Android tablet to the crappy tablets they had back then.

The kinect, on the other hand, is old news. The Xbox 360 had it, and all it did was give people another reason to laugh at Microsoft.

As for a mobile kinect, that's not possible. The Xbone is not portable, so the kinect will not be mobile either. Simple.

 

[stevejnb]

The Oculus Rift IS something new. It's the first head-mounted VR device that works properly and is affordable. You cannot compare it to the ones from the 90s; it's like comparing an iPad or Android tablet to the crappy tablets they had back then.

The kinect, on the other hand, is old news. The Xbox 360 had it, and all it did was give people another reason to laugh at Microsoft.

As for a mobile kinect, that's not possible. The Xbone is not portable, so the kinect will not be mobile either. Simple.

Ok, I'll bite.

First, those 90's VR helmets worked just fine. Actually, quite the ride, and MechWarrior 2 was *awesome* in one of those 90's headsets. The price is the only point you've got here, because this is not new commercial technology at all. Making an existing technology cheaper does not make it a new technology.

Mobile Kinect is not possible... Hrm. You did notice that I used the term "Kinect type devices," right? Now, aside from the fact that MS actually has a patent for a micro-Kinect that hangs around your neck and outputs a projected display onto a surface that you can interact with, you do realize there is a laptop out there that actually uses a version of this technology for control at this very moment, right? Heck, Tom's even reported on it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hp-envy-leap-motion-laptop,24309.html

This is just an early step in making motion control portable, but it's quite telling about your deep insights on this subject that you say that this is "impossible" when it's already out.

Lastly, concerning your overwhelming insight, you do realize that the applications I was suggesting went far, far beyond the XBOX and gaming, right? Do yourself a favour and google "novel applications of Kinect" and you'll find dozens of articles ranging from artists, medical facilities, sports training facilities, and even the military putting it to use in strange ways. But heck, this isn't even what I'm thinking of - I'm thinking of the potential that is staring us right in the face, in our living room. Take a page out of Star Trek's book and walk into your room, say "computer, Mozart's The Magic Flute, act two, play." Or sit in your chair and control your computer by waving your finger. Or heck, why stop at computers - with more and more devices becoming "smart," this type of technology has applications to everything from automobiles to toaster ovens.

Now, my serious question for you at the end... If you think the Oculus Rift is going to be some massive game changer beyond a niche in gaming and media, could you explain to me how this technology - which was commercially available about 15 years ago already - is going to be used in many walks of life? As in, your office, your kitchen, your car, your living room, family gatherings, parties, you name it? Because I can give you pretty easy answers for each for Kinect, but all I can see for the VR helmets is relatively isolated settings.

Again, don't get me wrong, I think Oculus Rift is very neat and I'd like to have one for what it's good for, but... The idea that it has the potential to be the game changer that Kinect type devices are is just ludicrous.

 

[Sakkura]

First, those 90's VR helmets worked just fine.

...

Mobile Kinect is not possible... Hrm. You did notice that I used the term "Kinect type devices," right? Now, aside from the fact that MS actually has a patent for a micro-Kinect that hangs around your neck and outputs a projected display onto a surface that you can interact with, you do realize there is a laptop out there that actually uses a version of this technology for control at this very moment, right? Heck, Tom's even reported on it.

No, those 90s VR helmets were awful, terrible, and useless. Just like tablets were before the iPad arrived. The category of device is not new, but it's the first time it's been anywhere near usable in practice.

As for not-Kinect-Kinect, that makes no sense. The Kinect is a paradigm shift because devices that are not the Kinect are this and that... what? The Kinect is the Kinect. Things that are not the Kinect are not the Kinect. Don't give the Kinect credit for something other devices are doing.

 

[stevejnb]

No, those 90s VR helmets were awful, terrible, and useless. Just like tablets were before the iPad arrived. The category of device is not new, but it's the first time it's been anywhere near usable in practice.

As for not-Kinect-Kinect, that makes no sense. The Kinect is a paradigm shift because devices that are not the Kinect are this and that... what? The Kinect is the Kinect. Things that are not the Kinect are not the Kinect. Don't give the Kinect credit for something other devices are doing.

Your first paragraph shows outright ignorance of how these devices worked. Again, I used them quite a bit in MechWarrior 2... Fluid and accurate head tracking, visuals were crisp, no stutter - they worked well. They were useable in practice, because I actually used them and I know they worked well. The problem with these devices wasn't functionality, but rather a combination of price and lack of dev support - probably because of price. You're telling me that something I have personally experienced is not true - and I'm sorry, you're going to have to do a lot better to convince me of that.

Funny that you mention the iPad in your second paragraph... People constantly give the iPad credit for kick-starting the popularity of tablets. After the release of the first iPad it would have been perfectly reasonable to say "iPad like devices are going to be a big deal in a few years." Go figure, that is now true, and the iPad is in no small part responsible for this - it was the kickstarter. For motion tracking cameras that let you interact with computing devices, Kinect is that kickstarter - it really is the iPad of this class of device. As these devices gain in popularity, I think it's entirely justified to give credit to Kinect for this popularity - it's the device that got people thinking and talking about this class of device and that got companies willing to invest. If, ten to fifteen years from now our computer wakes up when we walk in the room and does what we tell it to, we can say "thanks to the Kinect for starting this up" just like I now say "thanks to the iPad for kickstarting things and getting us to the point where good Windows tablets are around." Kinect is the iPad of this class of device.

I argue with a lot of people that I think are wrong on here, but they have good arguments and relatively solid positions. In your case, I can't help but think you're just unwilling to admit that you're pretty far off the mark and just have a grudge against MS or something. You offered no answers to my question about how VR helmets, your positions are basically assertions with little to no argument behind them... Give me some reasons for what you're saying.

I stand by my assertion. VR helmets will be a neat niche product that, probably because of the Oculus Rift, will have a solid niche market. Things like AR - augmented reality - such as the Google Glass stand to have far more of an impact on daily life if you're thinking headsets. Kinect type devices - with the Kinect being the iPad of that type of device - are likely going to be a big deal in many walks of life in the future.

 

[Sakkura]

The old VR helmets were utter crap. That's just a fact. I'm sure some people used the old shitty tablets too, that doesn't mean they were any good either.

And no, the Kinect is not the kickstarter of a type of device it does not belong to. The Kinect is not Google Glass. The Kinect is not mobile. The Kinect is nothing new, and it is already largely a failure.

As for dismissing my assertions... you immediately go on to make assertions of your own.

 

[chimera201]

Man i was getting updates on this old thread, so i decided to bump in

The old VR headsets from 90's couldn't be used for long sessions. Even the Oculus Rift developer said he had motion sickness before and now it's gone
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/18/oculus-motion-sickness-is-solved-4k-not-far-away

 

[Sakkura]

I just went back and re-watched John Carmack's Quakecon 2012 keynote speech, because he talked a lot about VR. He said the VR headsets from the 90s (or even later on) "uniformly sucked really, really bad".

 

[stevejnb]

Sakkura, I've asked you twice now, and I'll ask it again more pointedly. You claimed a "paradigm shift" as a result of the Oculus Rift. Could you explain the nature of this shift, since you seem quite convinced this device is going to be a harbinger of some massive change? I've explained how Kinect type devices stand to change the way we interact with computers - a "paradigm shift," I'd say - why don't you back up your initial claim and do the same for the Oculus Rift?

But, to make a few comments...

First, is it really a huge shock that someone coming out with a VR helmet says "oh yeah, they're way better than the ones that came before." No conflict of interests there... Of course, I entirely believe that this one is better than the 90's ones, but they were still fine. But really, quoting a guy who stands to make money off of convincing people his product is the next best thing?

Second... Carmack? Really? Every time he opens his mouth half of the forum dismisses it outright. Is he even working on PCs any more?

Third... Motion sickness. Some people got it, some don't. I was logging a few hours weekly on a VR helmet in MechWarrior 2 and I never experienced motion sickness. Perhaps in fast paced games - like Carmack's Quake games - but not MechWarrior. And, heck, my girlfriend gets motion sickness when I play FPS's on a 120hz tv, along with a lot of other people. A lot of people get motion sickness watching 3d movies. Also true of 90's VR helmets. Do the first two suck along with the VR helmets too?

Simply put, I used these things a lot. They were quite good. Did either of you ever use them?

Lastly, I've made a lot of assertions and I've provided cases for a good number of them. You haven't explained your position much at all Sakkura. Do me a favour and explain the "paradigm shift" you're expecting from the Oculus Rift.

 

[Sakkura]

Sakkura, I've asked you twice now, and I'll ask it again more pointedly. You claimed a "paradigm shift" as a result of the Oculus Rift. Could you explain the nature of this shift, since you seem quite convinced this device is going to be a harbinger of some massive change?

I did not say that the Oculus Rift was going to be a paradigm shift, please stop lying about that.

 

[stevejnb]

The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift, the Kinect... not so much.

Could you please further explain your first comment then?

 

[Sakkura]

Sure, my first comment was:

That Kinect comment was my favorite part of the keynote.

I found it amusing when Carmack said "Kinect is sort of like a zero button mouse with a lot of latency on it."

 

[stevejnb]

The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift, the Kinect... not so much.

I did not say that the Oculus Rift was going to be a paradigm shift, please stop lying about that.

Could you please further explain your first comment then?

 

[stevejnb]

Sure, my first comment was:

That Kinect comment was my favorite part of the keynote.

I found it amusing when Carmack said "Kinect is sort of like a zero button mouse with a lot of latency on it."

Actually, I was more thinking the "The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift." Could you further explain this paradigm shift you suggested, which I was apparently lying about you suggesting.

 

[Sakkura]

Actually, I was more thinking the "The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift." Could you further explain this paradigm shift you suggested, which I was apparently lying about you suggesting.

I said it was a potential paradigm shift. You claimed I had said it would be paradigm shift.

 

[stevejnb]

Actually, I was more thinking the "The Oculus Rift is a potential paradigm shift." Could you further explain this paradigm shift you suggested, which I was apparently lying about you suggesting.

I said it was a potential paradigm shift. You claimed I had said it would be paradigm shift.

Barring semantic niggling, would you be so kind as to explain the type of paradigm shift you see potentially happening?

 

[Sakkura]

A lot of games being made for VR gameplay, and a substantial number of people actually buying the Oculus Rift and competing devices. 3D monitors have turned out to be too gimmicky and haven't succeeded; VR might. Kinect has been around for several years and has turned out to be too gimmicky, like 3D monitors.

 

[stevejnb]

A lot of games being made for VR gameplay, and a substantial number of people actually buying the Oculus Rift and competing devices. 3D monitors have turned out to be too gimmicky and haven't succeeded; VR might. Kinect has been around for several years and has turned out to be too gimmicky, like 3D monitors.

Ok, ignoring a bit of ignorance and generalizations concerning other technologies...

So, I'm understanding that you don't actually expect this thing to be some world changing technology and just a "successful" PC gaming peripheral?

 

[Sakkura]

It may be world changing for gamers (PC gamers in particular). I doubt it'll be world changing on the scale of, say, smartphones and tablets.

Just like 3D graphics cards were world changing for gaming in the late 90s, but wasn't that huge for non-gamers.