PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[trooper11]

  On 17/03/2014 at 19:28, trooper11 said:

Yeah, I've kept my eye on that one.  I was surprised they didnt include an X1 release since its coming to so many other consoles, but maybe that will change. 

 

As it is, I'll either get it on the pc or ps4.

Well it turns out it is coming to the X1 as well, so that's good to know.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

  Quote

1080p on Xbox One will get easier over time, assures Microsoft hardware boss

Expect "fairly large improvements" to graphics as devs master the GPU and ESRAM

Posted on Wednesday 19-Mar-2014 12:04 PM GMT   By Edwin Evans-Thirlwell, Deputy Editor for OXM

 

Xbox director of development Boyd Multerer "fully expects" more game developers to achieve native 1080p on Xbox One as time goes by - it's a question of tweaking performance to suit the console's GPU and ESRAM setup in particular.

 

"I fully expect that to happen," he told us, as part of a gargantuan technical chat you'll read in issue 110 of OXM UK, on sale now. "The [graphics processing units] are really complicated beasts this time around."

 

Improvements resulting from software optimisation are par for the course with any piece of gaming hardware, naturally. As you may recall from our report on backwards compatibility, the Xbox 360 and Xbox One employ completely different processing architecture, which means that developers must discard or build on their old techniques.

 

 

"The hardware is basically baked, and what comes next is people discovering better software techniques to take advantage of it, especially in the ordering of the data so it flows through all the caches correctly, and I think there's a lot of opportunity there," said Multerer. Of the Xbox One's ESRAM - a slab of super-fast RAM that works in tandem with the console's eight GB of DDR3 RAM - he added that "this is where tuning your data set becomes super important."

 

The creators of the Xbox One launch titles didn't have much opportunity to fine-tune their work with a view to improving visual fidelity, according to Multerer. "Once these engines - the engine developers like Frostbyte and those guys - they really wrap their heads around this particular GPU architecture, then all of the titles coming out of that studio will take advantage of it and get better."

 

Multerer says we can look forward to "fairly large improvements in GPU output as people really tune these data sets now to get maximum use out of their GPUs". Resolution isn't the be-all and end-all, however. "Part of it is learning how to tune, part of it is I think a very legitimate question of quality of pixels versus number of pixels, and of course both are interesting."

 

Pick up the new issue to read all these arguments in full, plus Multerer's thoughts on the Xbox One's indie portfolio, the online DRM policy reversal and plenty more.

 

http://www.totalxbox.com/73607/1080p-on-xbox-one-will-get-easier-over-time-assures-microsoft-hardware-boss/

[trooper11]

Certainly an obvious point that developers will get more out of a console over time.

I guess it has to be said now since so many online seem to have forgotten that is even possible.

[Hedon]

  On 19/03/2014 at 18:05, trooper11 said:

Certainly an obvious point that developers will get more out of a console over time.

I guess it has to be said now since so many online seem to have forgotten that is even possible.

I look at the first games that came out on Xbox 360, then I look at the games that came out 9 years later. Graphics, size, fps...all dramatically improved with time and effort. Just like what happened with Xbox original and PS2. I mean, God of War 2 on PS2 compared to the very first titles on PS2? OMG...God of War 2 could have been mistaken as a PS3 title at the time.

[George P Global Moderator]

Today is also the DX12 news, iirc, so add that to the software update bit about what he's talking about.  For games that are, for example, 1080p but 30fps and not 60fps, software optimization is something that can up the framerate without a doubt.    Likewise if you have 900p at 60fps and want to get to 1080p then same applies.  

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

  Quote

This is an absolutely beautiful game - and a strong performer. Across a general run of play, inFamous: Second Son spends most of its time north of 30fps.

 

  Quote

There's been some discussion about the performance of the game, particularly in terms of a fluctuating frame-rate, and what quickly becomes evident is that Sucker Punch has opted to continue the strategy it used on its PlayStation 3 titles: a solid v-sync working in combination with a completely unlocked frame-rate. The difference here is that while the previous titles in the series would frequently drop beneath the 30fps threshold, it takes a mass of action and GPU-intensive post-processing effects to truly impact inFamous: Second Son's performance. Bearing in mind the high levels of detail, and the overall complexity of the rendering pipeline, that's a stunning achievement.

 

 

 

  Quote

Also worthy of note is the implementation of state-of-the-art anti-aliasing, believed to be a variant of SMAA T2X, as found in Crysis 3. This is one of the best post-process anti-aliasing techniques we've seen, combining a new take on MLAA with a temporal element. Edge-smoothing is phenomenal, and while there is some ghosting, it is not any kind of real distraction during gameplay.

 

  Quote

Certainly, the game is a visual feast. Similar to Guerrilla Games' latest work, inFamous operates with a materials-based deferred renderer, which not only allows for a multitude of dynamic light-sources, but also lights the scene according to the physical properties of the objects present - for example, reflectivity and the roughness. An energy-conserving model like the one used here treats light as energy, calculating how light spreads across the surface over the material according to its physical properties. The results can be absolutely beautiful to behold - reflections in particular (what looks like an expert blend of pre-baked and full real-time) can look sublime.

 

 

 

  Quote

We've only just scratched the surface of inFamous: Second Son right now. Indeed, the video above constitutes the entire amount of time we've spent with the game thus far - but what's clear is that as a technological statement, this is exceptionally strong stuff, especially bearing in mind that this is a first-gen PlayStation 4 title.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-infamous-second-son-performance-analysis

 

Shots fired ND.

[trooper11]

I can attest to just how great Infamous looks and runs.  I haven't noticed any drops yet, and the visual polish all around is great.   That makes the whole open world-ish gameplay all the more satisfying.

 

 

It proves to me that 30fps can and does work fine in a game. 

[George P Global Moderator]

  On 22/03/2014 at 17:42, trooper11 said:

I can attest to just how great Infamous looks and runs.  I haven't noticed any drops yet, and the visual polish all around is great.   That makes the whole open world-ish gameplay all the more satisfying.

 

 

It proves to me that 30fps can and does work fine in a game. 

 

People go on about frame rate but it does depend on the game type.  First person shooters make more sense at 60fps, as do racing games.  Fighting games can do either way IMO, and let alone any 3rd person games, those work fine at under 60fps because the overall gameplay is slower, things like AC, TR, and so on.   It really is up to the developer as to what they feel is the right number for their game.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Konami were open about this game from the start, but here it is anyway, Ground Zeros DF - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-face-off

 

  Quote

The resolution details stand as the most dramatic difference though, with Konami happily making public the specifics of each version ahead of release. From our pixel counts, we can confirm that the PS4 does indeed push out a 1920x1080 framebuffer as promised, while on Xbox One we have just a 1280x720 window with which to work. For a game that embarks on a crusade for open-world stealth action, the lower resolution on Microsoft's platform does affect visibility when lining up long-range shots - just as it does across Battlefield 4's sandbox areas.

 

 

 

  Quote

Onto more good news; the Fox Engine is already cementing its reputation as an engine built for rock-steady performance. Not only is it designed to hit 60fps with v-sync on PS4 and Xbox One, but the overhead so high that not a single frame is dropped during our tests. What we're left with is an absolute lock on that number from start to finish, giving us a monotone 16ms reading in our frame-time analysis, ensuring an entirely consistent experience. This entitles Ground Zeroes to the fastest turn-around for a frame to appear on-screen following the player's input - a sublimely responsive game on whichever of these consoles you might own.

 

 

 

  Quote

Outside of the resolution disparity, differences between the PS4 and Xbox One mostly fall into a category of subtle curiosities. Object quality is identical, and asset streaming operates in the exact same way - where geometry, foliage and shadows are drawn from the same distance. Normal map quality is a complete match here too, and ditto for the accuracy of shadows and ambient occlusion. Microsoft's platform does, however, set itself apart with a more aggressive full-screen motion blur. This is somewhat bizarre given that it's entirely unique to this version, though only a difference that comes to light when comparing still shots.

 

 

 

  Quote

But the king of the roost is most certainly the PS4 version, with its slick 1080p presentation marking a clear lead over the maximum 720p possible on Xbox One. The atmospheric rendering for skies is also a welcomed, if subtle extra on PS4 - the ramifications of which aren't fully fleshed out for single area demonstrated here. With no PC version in sight for the moment, this is clearly the way to brace yourself for the full Phantom Pain package due late next year.

 

 

[McKay]

Maximum possible on the X1? I call sloppy coding and lack of experience. The only difference between the 360 and the X1 version is 30/60FPS. They're saying they could only squeeze twice as much power out of the X1 as they could the 360?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

  On 23/03/2014 at 14:49, McKay said:

Maximum possible on the X1? I call sloppy coding and lack of experience. The only difference between the 360 and the X1 version is 30/60FPS. They're saying they could only squeeze twice as much power out of the X1 as they could the 360?

 

The actual engine is definitely anything but sloppy. Seems rather versatile and hits a good FPS across multiple platforms. Read this quote again from above

 

  Quote

Onto more good news; the Fox Engine is already cementing its reputation as an engine built for rock-steady performance. Not only is it designed to hit 60fps with v-sync on PS4 and Xbox One, but the overhead so high that not a single frame is dropped during our tests. What we're left with is an absolute lock on that number from start to finish, giving us a monotone 16ms reading in our frame-time analysis, ensuring an entirely consistent experience. This entitles Ground Zeroes to the fastest turn-around for a frame to appear on-screen following the player's input - a sublimely responsive game on whichever of these consoles you might own.

 

 

 

Seems like on the XB1 they simply wanted a solid 60FPS and weren't able to get the resolution higher without hampering that. By all means for the next part of the game I expect higher than 720p, but they're not exactly the first developer to have to prioritize one thing on the XB1 at the cost of something else. As shoddy as 720p is, would you not rather that than another Tomb Raider situation? No ones saying twice the amount of power of anything, its most likely a case of say 900p ran at 50FPS at one point, and to Konami, that's not acceptable for this title.

 

If it is simply down to the programming environment, SDK, and MS' operating system not being mature enough, then that is hardly their fault anyway, it's Microsoft's. 

[McKay]

I didn't say they said it, Im saying their work shows. They were only able to get twice as much out of the X1 as they did the 360. It shows. They look identical and it just runs at a higher FPS. If they weren't able to hit 60FPS at even 900p its sloppy. Other devs were able to do much better, games like Battlefield 4, even though they run at the same resolution, the X1 versions looks worlds apart from the 360 version, and runs at twice the FPS. I expected this in truth with most of his work being on Playstation, and the few that came on Xbox were mostly HD remakes of old games. 

[trooper11]

I have to say that the screenshots we saw earlier that clearly showed a striking difference between the X1 and ps4 while also showing very little difference between the 360 and the X1 versions made me scratch my head regarding  Ground Zero. 

 

I get that the ps4 is more powerful, but that game makes it seem like the X1 isn't much more powerful than the 360.  I know the frame rate is higher and that is good, but its surprising that all they could do is really up the frame rate and not offer any other 'wow' factor.

 

But hey, maybe it really is about poor sdks/drivers/etc. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Found two of the ugliest screenshots of the game, the resolution differences quite clear to see

 

 

 

Another two

 

 

[trooper11]

  On 24/03/2014 at 09:41, Audioboxer said:

 

Found two of the ugliest screenshots of the game, the resolution differences quite clear to see

 

 

I don't think anyone has said they weren't clearly different.  Of course, if you wish to keep hammering that point home, that's fine.

 

Again, the bigger story is how little the X1 and 360 versions look different. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

  On 24/03/2014 at 13:14, trooper11 said:

I don't think anyone has said they weren't clearly different.  Of course, if you wish to keep hammering that point home, that's fine.

 

Again, the bigger story is how little the X1 and 360 versions look different. 

 

Am I not allowed to comment on new pictures because on some random page before I've already said something similar with older pictures? I wasn't even talking to anyone!

[MikeChipshop Member]

  On 24/03/2014 at 09:41, Audioboxer said:

Found two of the ugliest screenshots of the game, the resolution differences quite clear to see

Bejesus that looks terrible on both platforms!

[Hedon]

  On 24/03/2014 at 03:51, trooper11 said:

I have to say that the screenshots we saw earlier that clearly showed a striking difference between the X1 and ps4 while also showing very little difference between the 360 and the X1 versions made me scratch my head regarding  Ground Zero. 

 

I get that the ps4 is more powerful, but that game makes it seem like the X1 isn't much more powerful than the 360.  I know the frame rate is higher and that is good, but its surprising that all they could do is really up the frame rate and not offer any other 'wow' factor.

 

But hey, maybe it really is about poor sdks/drivers/etc. 

As noted by the dev himself, the game was designed and built for the previous gen consoles. It's ported crap for both the PS4 and X1.

[Lord Method Man]

  On 24/03/2014 at 14:53, Anthony Tosie said:

I wasn't aware sticking with one generation was the only option available to people. Does a person's previous-generation console(s) spontaneously combust when he or she gets an Xbox One and/or PlayStation 4?

 

As I've repeatedly said, it's silly to get into these arguments so early in the generation when developers have spent so little time learning each console's architecture. Look at the graphical quality of games released at the beginning of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 4's life cycles compared to their current games -- they looked like slightly-to-moderately upgraded games from the previous generation.

 

If the current differences in resolution impact your gameplay experience that much, then buy a top-tier PC and stop worrying about it. If these are deal-breaking issues, then that's truly the only option available, because both consoles will always be drastically behind a top-tier PC. Otherwise it's just an argument about brand loyalty and trying to annoy someone who has a different preference than you.

 

Then what are you doing in this thread? It has a very specific topic that is unrelated to gameplay, etc. Coming in just to comment about how you think its 'silly' seems like threadcrapping. If the discussion doesn't interest you then simply do not participate.

[NeoWind]

Imagine If steve jobs still alive to announce a new gaming console. It's not hyperbole to claim that PS4 is build for 1080p/30fps in mind.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

^ Funnily enough one of the things Sony did manage to do right with the PS3 was user replaceable storage. They really could have added insult to injury on top of the PS3 price with milking the goat like manufacturers do with hard drive/flash memory. 

 

Then they go and do what they did with the Vita  :pinch:

[theyarecomingforyou]

Anyway, getting back on topic. I hadn't seen this posted:

 

Titanfall On Xbox One Struggles with Framerate Despite 792p Resolution

 

  Quote

The Xbox One version of Titanfall hasn't been able to nail down the 60 FPS sweet spot like many were expecting. Giant Bomb's Jeff Gerstmann has noticed some unfortunate framerate drops when playing the game, which he noted in his pre-review:

 

"The frame rate in Titanfall is uneven on the Xbox One and though it's usually fine, it can get downright nasty in specific situations. In one Last Titan Standing match?where every player spawns in a robot suit?several players crammed their mechs into a tight area and began duking it out, and the frame rate dived down to what must have been single digits per second. Even out in wider areas, the game feels a little hitchy from time to time, and there's noticeable tearing throughout."

 

I experienced similar issues during the beta, hoping that the final version would flesh everything out. It appears Respawn wasn't able to address the issue in time for launch.

 

What makes this particularly alarming is that the Xbox One version runs at a 792p resolution. It's not much more demanding than 720p, the resolution the Xbox 360 was able to run games like Call of Duty at during last gen without missing a beat.

 

To make matters worse, Titanfall isn't a very visually striking game. Yes, it is presented well, but underneath its polish is a game that runs on the 10-year old Source Engine. It's not a graphical showcase by any means.

Source: CraveOnline

 

I know there is talk of post-release optimisation that will supposedly improve the resolution and framerate but this sort of thing is pretty much unprecedented in console gaming. It appears the game was rushed in order to give Microsoft an exclusive title to promote for the XB1. 

[Hedon]

  On 24/03/2014 at 19:11, theyarecomingforyou said:

Anyway, getting back on topic. I hadn't seen this posted:

 

Titanfall On Xbox One Struggles with Framerate Despite 792p Resolution

 

Source: CraveOnline

 

I know there is talk of post-release optimisation that will supposedly improve the resolution and framerate but this sort of thing is pretty much unprecedented in console gaming. It appears the game was rushed in order to give Microsoft an exclusive title to promote for the XB1. 

Yeah, I suspect TF2 will probably nail the 1080p and 60fps without issue. Outside of that, the game is awesome. Granted,it's not a looker and it's not 1080p.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Back on topic please

 

The reason for this topic has been made clear. If it doesn't interest you, don't post. So far I think most have been happy to keep the discussion in a dedicated place, which minimzes the negative effect it was having on the forum before. If and when it becomes irrelevant we can unpin or close the topic. Until then it will collate all the discussion, indepth or not, from members and external sources.

[McKay]

  On 24/03/2014 at 19:11, theyarecomingforyou said:

Anyway, getting back on topic. I hadn't seen this posted:

 

Titanfall On Xbox One Struggles with Framerate Despite 792p Resolution

 

Source: CraveOnline

 

I know there is talk of post-release optimisation that will supposedly improve the resolution and framerate but this sort of thing is pretty much unprecedented in console gaming. It appears the game was rushed in order to give Microsoft an exclusive title to promote for the XB1. 

 

Frankly Im surprised considering its the Source Engine. My old laptop was a toaster with a 512MB AMD 5650M and could run Left 4 Dead 2, Portal 2, etc and any other Source game at 1080 on max settings and keep 30FPS.