PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Um someone already claimed it was true, hence my question.

 

I have no idea who the expert is here, so I ask. 

 

If people are going to claim something of a technical nature, dont be shocked when someone asks for clarification.

 

I must be missing a post somewhere or wires are being crossed. AB said that RAGE/id5 was demanding and had issues at launch (and even longer on PC for that matter if we really want to pick on it).

 

More to the point, why are we even talking about id? They aren't making Wolf :laugh:

 

On top of that, it's a cross gen title which probably isn't making full use of the X1/PS4. Unless MachineGames have a much larger studio than say EA/DICE, then I don't see how they could be getting the most out of it. Perhaps the reason they're hitting 1080/60 is because the game isn't even much of an upgrade? Look at Thief for another example. Small team and issues all over the place including PC.

 

I don't see anyone discounting genres as benchmarks besides sports :blink: Although I'm sure there is probably more which we haven't discussed, when people want to see the graphical capabilites they usually look to FPS/TPS or open world type games for testament.

[trooper11]

I must be missing a post somewhere or wires are being crossed. AB said that RAGE/id5 was demanding and had issues at launch (and even longer on PC for that matter if we really want to pick on it).

 

More to the point, why are we even talking about id? They aren't making Wolf :laugh:

 

On top of that, it's a cross gen title which probably isn't making full use of the X1/PS4. Unless MachineGames have a much larger studio than say EA/DICE, then I don't see how they could be getting the most out of it. Perhaps the reason they're hitting 1080/60 is because the game isn't even much of an upgrade? Look at Thief for another example. Small team and issues all over the place including PC.

 

I don't see anyone discounting genres as benchmarks besides sports :blink: Although I'm sure there is probably more which we haven't discussed, when people want to see the graphical capabilites they usually look to FPS/TPS or open world type games for testament.

 

Look for Lord Method Man's post, that is what sparked my question.

 

As far as discounting genres, lots of people have done that when talking about the racing genre or sports.  Those are typically the genres where people will make valid points about how they can be less demanding then say an open world title.  Heck, fighting games are also titles that are less demanding.

 

This all started becuase the question of what games can run at 1080p/60 on the new consoles was brought up over and over, and my point has been that if you just worry about those two numbers, your not going to get the full picture.  If an X1 or PS4 game runs at 1080p/60, that wont be enough.  People will still say something if the visual effects are poor, etc.  Same applies to a game running at 720p or 900p.  The res and frame rate are important to the overall look of a game, but they do not define a game on their own.  The whole visual package is what matters to a gamer when they sit down to play. 

 

Beyond that, when someone wants to decide which version of a game to guy (PS4 or X1), looking at just the res and frame rate difference may not be enough.  I would say that most of the time this gen it has been a good indicator, but its also possible that is not always the case.  I just think the whole black and white nature of this discussion is a problem.

[Hedon]

I must be missing a post somewhere or wires are being crossed. AB said that RAGE/id5 was demanding and had issues at launch (and even longer on PC for that matter if we really want to pick on it).

 

This is what sparked the debate:

 

 

I wouldn't put much stock in an id title running at 60 fps, they did the same thing with Rage and they accomplished it by using Nintendo 64 quality textures on most environments.

 

But it really doesn't matter. The 1080p list on the Xbox One continues to grow, so it will end up being a non-issue. What we will see down the road most likely is that both consoles will be putting out the same res/fps games...but the PS4 will still perform/look better even at the same res/fps. It's a given. The PS4 is more powerful, period. There is no debating that. 1000hp >  900hp.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Look for Lord Method Man's post, that is what sparked my question.

 

As far as discounting genres, lots of people have done that when talking about the racing genre or sports.  Those are typically the genres where people will make valid points about how they can be less demanding then say an open world title.  Heck, fighting games are also titles that are less demanding.

 

This all started becuase the question of what games can run at 1080p/60 on the new consoles was brought up over and over, and my point has been that if you just worry about those two numbers, your not going to get the full picture.  If an X1 or PS4 game runs at 1080p/60, that wont be enough.  People will still say something if the visual effects are poor, etc.  Same applies to a game running at 720p or 900p.  The res and frame rate are important to the overall look of a game, but they do not define a game on their own.  The whole visual package is what matters to a gamer when they sit down to play. 

 

Beyond that, when someone wants to decide which version of a game to guy (PS4 or X1), looking at just the res and frame rate difference may not be enough.  I would say that most of the time this gen it has been a good indicator, but its also possible that is not always the case.  I just think the whole black and white nature of this discussion is a problem.

 

Well fighting games definitely need to hit 60fps, and it needs to be locked at too. This is especially true if you want your game to be a contender in FGC. Going over would cause issues and anything less is unacceptable. It's a different ball game compared to other genres where it's only a preference. Racing games again are usually preferred at 60 but it's not unheard of for it be lower. So yeah fighting games are less demanding in some areas but not in FPS, which is why they never usually look more than "cartoonish" or deviate from 2D planes.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree, it's not all about res/frames but if they are identical in other departments, then it will probably be a deciding factor for some including myself. I won't outright just go for the 1080/60 options every time though if there are benefits in other ways though. Be it DLC, extra features, modes, characters etc etc.

 

I'm still lost on AB/LMM and yourself discussion but I just wanted to share that I don't think it will be pushing the hardware to it's limits even at 1080/60 on PS4/X1. If it were id creating something on PS4/X1 only then that'd definitely be something to take notice of. A small team like MachineGames isn't going to be on that level though, especially not spread out over consoles.

[trooper11]

As for the rest of your post, I agree, it's not all about res/frames but if they are identical in other departments, then it will probably be a deciding factor for some including myself. I won't outright just go for the 1080/60 options every time though if there are benefits in other ways though. Be it DLC, extra features, modes, characters etc etc.

One thing we have seen this gen is that often everything else is not equal. So just knowing res and framerate might not be enough. Consider the fact that some multiplatform titles are farmed out to seperate teams for each console. It adds another layer of variables we have no clue about.

I agree that if we know all things are equal, then of course res and framerate would be deciding factor in the visuals department.

I'm still lost on AB/LMM and yourself discussion but I just wanted to share that I don't think it will be pushing the hardware to it's limits even at 1080/60 on PS4/X1. If it were id creating something on PS4/X1 only then that'd definitely be something to take notice of. A small team like MachineGames isn't going to be on that level though, especially not spread out over consoles.

I could quote LMM's post again, but you can look back at my reply to him if you want. He made a claim that the id engine that is being used in the new Wolfenstein game indicates that the game is no powerhouse visually and therefore is not something that should be held up as evidence of anything. I had no reason to doubt the claim, so I asked my question.

As far as AB goes, I have no idea why he decided to attack me as if I made some kind of fanboy remark. So not sure what that was all about.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I could quote LMM's post again, but you can look back at my reply to him if you want. He made a claim that the id engine that is being used in the new Wolfenstein game indicates that the game is no powerhouse visually and therefore is not something that should be held up as evidence of anything. I had no reason to doubt the claim, so I asked my question.

As far as AB goes, I have no idea why he decided to attack me as if I made some kind of fanboy remark. So not sure what that was all about.

 

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinions of engines. There are others in the GH who dismiss id5 too. Personally I think the engine is demanding when pushed but I doubt Wolf will be.

 

As for the F word, let's stay away from that area (Y) I'm going to bed so you boys play nice while I'm not around :P

[XorpiZ]

According to Digital Foundry, the XB1 version of Strider is better looking than on the PS4:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-strider-next-gen-face-off

 

Both of them are running 1080p/60, but the XB1 has anisotropic texture filtering - the PS4 doesn't.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Enabling anisotropic fitlering in a game like Crysis 3 has a negligible performance impact. I'm surprised that it isn't enabled in the PS4 version of Strider.

[BajiRav]

I find the notion that driving games such as Forza Motorspot are somehow less demanding laughable. Forza simulates a lot of engine, transmission, tire, suspension etc. in every frame and that doesn't come free.
If it wasn't demanding, they wouldn't need to build a separate photo mode or restrict number of cars on the track.
 

Well that's good, but unfortunately until release you're going to see the "but is it native or upscaled" comments...

 

I do hope so but is it confirmed as native though?

 
Why would there be even a question if its native? Every sub-1080p game will be upscaled on a 1080p display and it makes no sense for them to say that when they are being questioned about frame resolution.
 
This is just desperate now.

[BajiRav]

According to Digital Foundry, the XB1 version of Strider is better looking than on the PS4:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-strider-next-gen-face-off

 

Both of them are running 1080p/60, but the XB1 has anisotropic texture filtering - the PS4 doesn't.

Seem to be true for old gen as well. Xbox > Playstation but PS4 seems to be a bug.

[XorpiZ]

Seem to be true for old gen as well. Xbox > Playstation but PS4 seems to be a bug.

 

Most likely. But it's just another nail in the coffin regarding the ridiculous claim that "Xbox one can't run 1080p/60".

[truthfax]

Game engines are typically run on the CPU, not the GPU. We're not usually talking about the CPU when we talk about graphics performance. Some simulation or physics can be done on the GPU (GPGPU) although PS4 has better hardware for that task.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable and appropriate question to ask if it's 1080p native or upscaled.

 

As for this Wolfenstein game, it's running on an engine that runs at 60 fps and either slows down instead of dropping frames, or scales the resolution. We could see either of those things occur more often on the Xbox version, if they both run at "1080p 60". Also it looks like a pretty last-gen game from the footage, probably not pushing the hardware much.

 

Both consoles are going to struggle to do 1080p 60 at very high image quality in demanding games like Witcher 3, I wouldn't expect that to happen for either console. No matter how many driver updates they get, the raw hardware (sub 2 TF) isn't quite up to the task. Of course 1080p 60 is possible with enough compromises in visual effects and poly count, etc. but then you're looking at low settings rather than very high.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I find the notion that driving games such as Forza Motorspot are somehow less demanding laughable. Forza simulates a lot of engine, transmission, tire, suspension etc. in every frame and that doesn't come free.

If it wasn't demanding, they wouldn't need to build a separate photo mode or restrict number of cars on the track.

Why would there be even a question if its native? Every sub-1080p game will be upscaled on a 1080p display and it makes no sense for them to say that when they are being questioned about frame resolution.

This is just desperate now.

You already have literally hundreds of posts on the web, Neowin included, to support evidence as to why racing games are typically less intensive. Those things you listed to do with physics will run off the CPU, its the graphical side of things that racing games can scale back on if they aren't open world. Low res backgrounds, crowds, scenery (trees), on the fly LOD, short view distances. Forza 5 even had "downgrades" since E3, crowds changed to 2nd cutouts, and the infamous Gran Turismo 2D trees. Although that was more to do with builds running on a devkit PCs versus real hardware scale backs (why would such changes like the crowds/buildings and lighting happen if they were running on the XB1 at E3?). Forza 5 also doesn't do taxing graphical changes with weather and night racing, the weather changes in GT5/6 produced alpha particle issues (low res water/snow spray), and then night racing you need to have pretty taxing lighting changes.

How on earth do you think GT5/6 reach 1280x1080 on the PS3 at 60FPS and still have amazing looking premium cars? Its not magic its due to what I've listed. Some genres of games are simply less taxing, or can at least hide things others can't. Would you expect a strict corridor FPS to be less taxing than an open world FPS? Of course you would. As would you expect a linear track racer to be less intensive than an open world/drive anywhere you want racing game?

Here's the low down on Titanfall, confirmed its not 1080p https://twitter.com/VinceZampella/status/438715090129281024

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

All I have ever seen on this topic are random posts on forums, sorta like the one you just wrote. It's not exactly useful as evidence.

 

Did you just tell me pictures of a game aren't evidence?  :s

[XorpiZ]

Did you just tell me pictures of a game aren't evidence?  :s

 

Of course I didn't tell you that. I told you, that there are lots of posts claiming that "racing games are much less demanding" from random people on forums.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Of course I didn't tell you that. I told you, that there are lots of posts claiming that "racing games are much less demanding" from random people on forums.

 

You take a snippet out of my whole post to make it look like I didn't back up my argument with evidence, compare my post to these posts other people apparently make that say "racing games are much less demanding!!!" and then get angry at me for questioning you prodding my apparent lack of evidence/comparison to other people with no evidence.

[XorpiZ]

You take a snippet out of my whole post to make it look like I didn't back up my argument with evidence, compare my post to these posts other people apparently make that say "racing games are much less demanding!!!" and then get angry at me for questioning you prodding my apparent lack of evidence/comparison to other people with no evidence.

 

There was no evidence in your post. You're claiming that racing games are "less intensive" than other games - the "evidence" you used to back up that claim was that some stuff was removed from Forza 5. 

 

If you think that a racing game is less demanding or intensive than other games, that's your prerogative, but it's a bit hollow to use the old "there are hundreds of posts, so it's true" argument.

 

Now, with that settled, let's get back on topic. It's sad about Titanfall, but not that unexpected, I guess.

 

edit:

Besides, I'd prefer a stable 900/60, than 1080p/30-45

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There was no evidence in your post. You're claiming that racing games are "less intensive" than other games - the "evidence" you used to back up that claim was that some stuff was removed from Forza 5. 

 

If you think that a racing game is less demanding or intensive than other games, that's your prerogative, but it's a bit hollow to use the old "there are hundreds of posts, so it's true" argument.

 

Now, with that settled, let's get back on topic. It's sad about Titanfall, but not that unexpected, I guess.

 

No, my evidence based around the fact that track racers scale back in a lot of areas, and I presented evidence from both Forza 5 and GT5/6. Forza 5 "removing" stuff is simply a good example of how what they originally showed could not be scaled realistically onto a console for 1080/60FPS. It provides evidence for the argument that racers running at high resolutions and 60FPS, whether it's Forza or GT, historically have cutbacks to get there. "Hundreds of posts" refers to the fact the cutbacks on scenery, buildings, tracks, weather, are all well documented on the web, and they are. Why don't you have a stroll into Neowins GT5 official topic and look at all the screencaps of 2D trees and flat scenery.

[XorpiZ]

No, my evidence based around the fact that track racers scale back in a lot of areas, and I presented evidence from both Forza 5 and GT5/6. Forza 5 "removing" stuff is simply a good example of how what they originally showed could not be scaled realistically onto a console for 1080/60FPS. It provides evidence for the argument that racers running at high resolutions and 60FPS, whether it's Forza or GT, historically have cutbacks to get there. "Hundreds of posts" refers to the fact the cutbacks on scenery, buildings, tracks, weather, are all well documented on the web, and they are. Why don't you have a stroll into Neowins GT5 official topic and look at all the screencaps of 2D trees and flat scenery.

 

All console-games have cutbacks to reach 1080p/60, but I still fail to see the reasoning behind that they need to remove stuff - so that makes the games less intensive. There's a logical flaw there. I'd assume it was quite obvious.

 

If you really feel, that there's evidence, that racing games are "less intensive", feel free to post it. But "the majority says so", it's not exactly evidence. I'm well aware that GT5/GT6 and most other games (regardless of genre) makes compromises to reach a specific resolution, but that's true for all (almost) games.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

All console-games have cutbacks to reach 1080p/60, but I still fail to see the reasoning behind that they need to remove stuff - so that makes the games less intensive. There's a logical flaw there. I'd assume it was quite obvious.

 

If you really feel, that there's evidence, that racing games are "less intensive", feel free to post it. But "the majority says so", it's not exactly evidence. I'm well aware that GT5/GT6 and most other games (regardless of genre) makes compromises to reach a specific resolution, but that's true for all (almost) games.

 

I have already posted evidence, multiple times, I've spoke about many of the areas racing games can cut back in that either go unnoticed due to the focus being on the cars, or are "accepted" as a means to an end to reach 60FPS.

 

The only thing I'll leave you with is you're arguing against my popular argument about racing games being less intensive than other genres, so do you believe a plateau exists between all games and genres? There is none that are less intensive than others? By nature that is simply false, it cannot be true, not every genre of gaming requires the same CPU/GPU requirements as the others. Else we would have Rayman Legends, a 2D platformer doing 1080p/60FPS on a PS3/Xbox 360 and GTA5 doing exactly the same. Now I know you don't really believe that (no ones that silly), but I have to put that question towards you considering your adamant reaction against the argument of racing games being lower on the ladder than many other genres. They have to sit somewhere on that ladder, as the ladder exists.

 

And don't be fixated on "removing stuff", it's mostly scaling back as seen by 2d crowds/trees/buildings and pre-baked lighting. Sometimes scenery is removed, there's evidence of that on the previous page, but it's usually a downgrade as opposed to removing.

[BajiRav]

You already have literally hundreds of posts on the web, Neowin included, to support evidence as to why racing games are typically less intensive. Those things you listed to do with physics will run off the CPU, its the graphical side of things that racing games can scale back on if they aren't open world. Low res backgrounds, crowds, scenery (trees), on the fly LOD, short view distances. Forza 5 even had "downgrades" since E3, crowds changed to 2nd cutouts, and the infamous Gran Turismo 2D trees. Although that was more to do with builds running on a devkit PCs versus real hardware scale backs (why would such changes like the crowds/buildings and lighting happen if they were running on the XB1 at E3?). Forza 5 also doesn't do taxing graphical changes with weather and night racing, the weather changes in GT5/6 produced alpha particle issues (low res water/snow spray), and then night racing you need to have pretty taxing lighting changes.

How on earth do you think GT5/6 reach 1280x1080 on the PS3 at 60FPS and still have amazing looking premium cars? Its not magic its due to what I've listed. Some genres of games are simply less taxing, or can at least hide things others can't. Would you expect a strict corridor FPS to be less taxing than an open world FPS? Of course you would. As would you expect a linear track racer to be less intensive than an open world/drive anywhere you want racing game?

Here's the low down on Titanfall, confirmed its not 1080p https://twitter.com/VinceZampella/status/438715090129281024

 

There is no evidence besides posts like this saying there is evidence.

Are you saying physics simulation is not going to use GPGPU?

 

Here is a list of your "evidence" for FM5

- Uses only CPU for physics

- Has to downgrade visuals (which is true) for things such as crowd, buildings and trees.

- Doesn't have weather and night racing

- Is not open world

- Doesn't render cars/interior at highest IQ (the reason photo mode exists)

 

So where the heck did all the GPU power went in Xbox One or Xbox 360 or PS3 (fot GT5)? There is no evidence in this quoted post any other posts here on Neowin.

 

Besides that, LOD, low-res backgrounds, crowds, scenery , variable LOD, draw distances - everything exists on supposedly more taxing games such as Battlefield or Call of Duty.

 

I don't know anything about how GT5 does and why so I won't comment on it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There is no evidence besides posts like this saying there is evidence.

Are you saying physics simulation is not going to use GPGPU?

 

Here is a list of your "evidence" for FM5

- Uses only CPU for physics

- Has to downgrade visuals (which is true) for things such as crowd, buildings and trees.

- Doesn't have weather and night racing

- Is not open world

- Doesn't render cars/interior at highest IQ (the reason photo mode exists)

 

So where the heck did all the GPU power went in Xbox One or Xbox 360 or PS3 (fot GT5)? There is no evidence in this quoted post any other posts here on Neowin.

 

Besides that, LOD, low-res backgrounds, crowds, scenery , variable LOD, draw distances - everything exists on supposedly more taxing games such as Battlefield or Call of Duty.

 

I don't know anything about how GT5 does and why so I won't comment on it.

 

There is no evidence because of posts like mine saying there is?  :s  I'm sorry, but you guys are relentless and can have this argument if you want. I'll go back to the shadows with the rest of the internet in believing what we believe about track racing games. Next time I'll just stick to arguing pong is less demanding than Crysis.

[JonnyLH]

Shedded a single tear of disappointment at Vince's tweet around 1080.

 

Although, 900p will suit me just fine.

I have already posted evidence, multiple times, I've spoke about many of the areas racing games can cut back in that either go unnoticed due to the focus being on the cars, or are "accepted" as a means to an end to reach 60FPS.

 

The only thing I'll leave you with is you're arguing against my popular argument about racing games being less intensive than other genres, so do you believe a plateau exists between all games and genres? There is none that are less intensive than others? By nature that is simply false, it cannot be true, not every genre of gaming requires the same CPU/GPU requirements as the others. Else we would have Rayman Legends, a 2D platformer doing 1080p/60FPS on a PS3/Xbox 360 and GTA5 doing exactly the same. Now I know you don't really believe that (no ones that silly), but I have to put that question towards you considering your adamant reaction against the argument of racing games being lower on the ladder than many other genres. They have to sit somewhere on that ladder, as the ladder exists.

 

And don't be fixated on "removing stuff", it's mostly scaling back as seen by 2d crowds/trees/buildings and pre-baked lighting. Sometimes scenery is removed, there's evidence of that on the previous page, but it's usually a downgrade as opposed to removing.

You talk like this is all technical set-backs rather then the pressures of releasing on launch on a console which isn't fixed throughout the development process.

 

Come on man, look at FM2 for example. That wasn't even a launch title and it looked disgusting compared to FM3 and FM4.

[XorpiZ]

I have already posted evidence, multiple times, I've spoke about many of the areas racing games can cut back in that either go unnoticed due to the focus being on the cars, or are "accepted" as a means to an end to reach 60FPS.

 

 

No you haven't. Repeating your own postulates doesn't make it evidence.

 

 

The only thing I'll leave you with is you're arguing against my popular argument about racing games being less intensive than other genres, so do you believe a plateau exists between all games and genres? There is none that are less intensive than others?

 

 

When have I ever said that?

[watkinsx2]

I do think they will be polishing and optimising right up to the last second. Its possible they don't know what resolution it will be once patched on launch hence denying 1080p. I do think 900p is more reasonable and I would have no problem with it. I do wish, now that they have gone gold that they would state the resolution on that even if it is subject to change.