PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[trooper11]

Well that dynamic resolution scaling sounds like a reasonable technique if its used wisely. 

 

It sounds like something that console game developers might start using more and more as the years go on. I mean if it can be done in a way that is not very noticeable during actual game play, it sounds like a good idea, especially if it means tighter frame rates.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

If the frame-rate is indeed dipping on PS4, I wonder why they didn't include dynamic scaling in that version too.

Because its 1080/60 in MP which is the competitive part of the game. Sure they could have done dynamic for SP, but it might have been trickier to split the game into dynamic AND native for the sake of a few dips in SP.

It's strange as the MP for Xbox One is capped at 1360x1080, its only SP that is dynamic, suggesting MP is harder to keep at 60. Yet its SP that has the PS4 dips, not MP.

[BajiRav]

Well that dynamic resolution scaling sounds like a reasonable technique if its used wisely. 

 

It sounds like something that console game developers might start using more and more as the years go on. I mean if it can be done in a way that is not very noticeable during actual game play, it sounds like a good idea, especially if it means tighter frame rates.

Dynamic resolution isn't exactly new.

[vcfan]

GTA V 1080p 30fps on ps4 and xbox one

 

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/52341/gtav-ign-delivers-new-details-first-person-experience

 

Alongside the new First Person mode, Grand Theft Auto V for PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC features hundreds of additions and enhancements including 1080p resolution at 30FPS on PS4 and Xbox One (4K compatible on PC).

[vcfan]

Performance Analysis: Multiplayer on Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
 

Right off the bat, we can confirm that while we do see the Xbox One version creeping to a full 1920x1080 resolution in the campaign's less taxing scenes, the same is not true of multiplayer. When pixel-counting screenshots gleaned from all 13 available stages, the 1360x1080 resolution is a constant fixture. Even with non-intensive, small maps featuring no players on-screen, the Xbox One refuses to increase its native frame-buffer dynamically based on load. Meanwhile, the PS4 remains locked at full 1080p, just like its campaign counterpart.

On record in our Xbox One video, we hit a lowest 56fps on the opening Instinct stage test - kicking in just as a shader effect disrupts the screen. Paired with that are a few torn frames, with the upper 33 per cent of the screen cut in each case. However, much like the Xbox One's campaign mode we rarely see many drops below the 60fps line at all, and v-sync is almost always intact barring exceptional moments.

With PlayStation 4 operating at full 1080p, we had suspicions going in that multiplayer would be a more robust experience than its 50-60fps campaign offering - and that proves to be quite true. A lurch down to the low 50s is the absolute worst we have on record, occurring during the Detroit level in this case. This is one of only two likewise dips across hours of test footage, with both coinciding with kill-cam replays rather than actual gameplay.

If competitive multiplayer is your calling, Advanced Warfare has you well covered on both platforms - each servicing gameplay with a strong 60fps delivery that only occasionally flakes out. In the Xbox One's case this is due to a shader effect, and on PS4, it's from alpha buffers overlapping during a kill-cam replay. In both cases, gameplay is not impacted, with each console handing in a broadly like-for-like experience.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysis

strange its not at least dynamic in mp. mp is significantly less demanding than the SP visually, with simpler and less geometry and effects. it must have been a last minute implementation and it didnt make the cut. framerate doesnt seem like a problem in mp, which is good.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Performance Analysis: Multiplayer on Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysis

strange its not at least dynamic in mp. mp is significantly less demanding than the SP visually, with simpler and less geometry and effects. it must have been a last minute implementation and it didnt make the cut. framerate doesnt seem like a problem in mp, which is good.

 

MP is still the most difficult out of the two overall, especially to achieve 1080/60.

 

It's the reason Killzone adopted the tech it did also.

[George P Global Moderator]

They're probably playing it safe, rather give you a smooth framerate than worry about a minor resolution difference.    With all the running around and action going on in a MP session no ones going to notice, or stand still to try and notice IMO. 

[vcfan]

MP is still the most difficult out of the two overall, especially to achieve 1080/60.

 

It's the reason Killzone adopted the tech it did also.

 

but killzone sp was around 30fps. they used that tech to try to get mp as close to 60fps as they possibly could. I also don't know if things in killzone mp are as dialed down as CODs are compared to the sp.

[Ironman273]

 

And then here's the thing: whether you want to complain about lower resolution or drops in frame rate, if you were shown the whole video without comparison it'd be virtually impossible to tell which is the "inferior" system.

[vcfan]

Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Unity
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-assassins-creed-unity-performance-analysis

 

However, our tests with Assassin's Creed Unity reveal something very different from the multi-platform norm. Visually it appears identical on both consoles, but in the majority of scenarios that challenge the game's 30fps cap, our tests reveal that it is the Xbox One that takes the lead

 

 

Certainly, from a visual perspective, Assassin's Creed Unity finally brings the series into the new generation, and the results are stunning. The new engine delivers a massive upgrade over last year's instalment, boasting significant improvements in levels of geometry detail on the characters and environments, more complex texturing, and new lighting and shader models that work beautifully in helping to create an almost photo-realistic look to the game

 

 

Assassin's Creed Unity falls short of the performance standard set by last year's Black Flag, featuring considerably more variable frame-rates under load on both consoles. Given the immense graphical upgrade on offer, this isn't so surprising, but what comes as a bit of a shock is that the Xbox One version frequently out-performs the PS4 game in more detail-rich areas, such as locations littered with NPCs in the packed Parisian streets. The opening clip in our video below perfectly demonstrates the difference between the two consoles. Wading through dozens of NPCs in a crowded square, performance drops down to around 20fps for a sustained duration on the PS4 while the Xbox One achieves a 5fps lead. In a later gameplay test traversing the rooftops, we see frame rates regularly fluctuate between 25-30fps across both consoles, but here the Xbox One game sticks more closely to the upper end of that spectrum than its Sony equivalent.

 

 

It's worth pointing out that performance is still a major issue on Microsoft's system in busy scenes loaded with NPCs and environmental detail, but the less severe drops in frame-rate mean that the gameplay isn't impacted to the same degree as it is on the PS4. Controls feel tangibly more responsive, and the judder - although still a problem - isn't quite as jarring.

 

 

Outside of more open areas, Assassin's Creed Unity manages to deliver a consistent 30fps on both consoles for prolonged periods of time,

 

 

Cut-scenes are the one area where the Sony platform hands in a consistent performance advantage over its counterpart when the game fails to hit its 30fps target.

 

 

Barring a few glitches here and there, overall image quality looks like a match between both PS4 and Xbox One. A 900p resolution is confirmed, while anti-aliasing, NPC count and other factors that may impact performance appear to be a complete match.

 

[123456789A]

Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Unity

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-assassins-creed-unity-performance-analysis

 

B-b-b-but...

 

the PS4...

 

the GDDR5...

 

the blast processing

 

Conspiracy, Microsoft paid them!

[LaP]

 

And then here's the thing: whether you want to complain about lower resolution or drops in frame rate, if you were shown the whole video without comparison it'd be virtually impossible to tell which is the "inferior" system.

 

Compressed Youtube video watched most of the time on crappy 200$ PC monitor FTW.

[BajiRav]

 

XBO CPU is about 10% faster than PS4 but has 20% more frames! Power of the cloud is real folks.

 

B-b-b-but...
 
the PS4...
 
the GDDR5...
 
the blast processing
 
Conspiracy, Microsoft paid them!

 

Where is the parity PS4 fans were complaining about? Looks like MS wasted their money.

[trooper11]

Its interesting that the guys over at Eurogamer found that Unity is a much more visually demanding game then Black Flag.   That could help explain why they ended up choosing a lower resolution this time around.

 

Still, the frame rate drops are hard to take. I wonder if they simply tried to do too much without optimizing for the hardware being used.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It's amusing that the technical mess that is AC Unity is going to now be heralded as some sort of technical proof on the XB1 vs the PS4 hardware debate  :laugh:

 

How about the simple idea they spewed a lot of BS about making this game over 4 years, and couldn't make something technically astute in the one year timeframe since AC4? 

 

No, that's ludicrous, DF's review proves otherwise! So what about the other "20" DF articles posted in here? Using a game that can't even run at 30FPS at 900p with lots of pop-in and glitches is hardly convincing anyone of anything.

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

 

Where is the parity PS4 fans were complaining about? Looks like MS wasted their money.

 

So can we start saying that the PS4 version gimped the Xbox version? :P

 

Seriously though, this games looks an utter mess. Glad I cancelled my pre-order

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

It's amusing that the technical mess that is AC Unity is going to now be heralded as some sort of technical proof on the XB1 vs the PS4 hardware debate  :laugh:

 

How about the simple idea they spewed a lot of BS about making this game over 4 years, and couldn't make something technically astute in the one year timeframe since AC4? 

 

No, that's ludicrous, DF's review proves otherwise! So what about the other "20" DF articles posted in here? Using a game that can't even run at 30FPS at 900p with lots of pop-in and glitches is hardly convincing anyone of anything.

 

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, seems pretty fitting :P

[spenser.d]

It's amusing that the technical mess that is AC Unity is going to now be heralded as some sort of technical proof on the XB1 vs the PS4 hardware debate :laugh:

How about the simple idea they spewed a lot of BS about making this game over 4 years, and couldn't make something technically astute in the one year timeframe since AC4?

No, that's ludicrous, DF's review proves otherwise! So what about the other "20" DF articles posted in here? Using a game that can't even run at 30FPS at 900p with lots of pop-in and glitches is hardly convincing anyone of anything.

Even a crappy game should easily outperform on the PS4 the way you guys talk about things. The only thing amusing is your reaction.

[theyarecomingforyou]

So can we start saying that the PS4 version gimped the Xbox version? :p

I think we can safely say that Ubisoft messed up big time. Neither version is playable at those sorts of framerates, despite the game not even running at 1080p. There is no winner here - both platforms are the losers. I can understand them not being able to hit 60fps given the significant performance limitations of the consoles, especially when it comes to CPU power, but it is absolutely inexcusable to not be able to hit 30fps consistently.

 

Reports are that the PC version isn't much better, though I won't get to find out for myself until tomorrow.

[Dane]

I really hope the Division isn't too bad from them.  

[Ironman273]

Compressed Youtube video watched most of the time on crappy 200$ PC monitor FTW.

Wow. Nitpicking FTW. Let me rephrase that. If you were to watch those particular sequences on their respective consoles on a high end HD television it'd be virtually impossible to tell which is the "inferior" system.  

[Emn1ty]

Compressed Youtube video watched most of the time on crappy 200$ PC monitor FTW.

 

Even a $200 monitor would have 1920x1080p I don't really know what the "crappy monitor" really means? Quality monitors are pretty cheap these days. I can at least agree with the compression part but I doubt 1080p youtube videos are that compressed on the resolution side (unless you think everyone just watches youtube at 420p)

[LaP]

Even a $200 monitor would have 1920x1080p I don't really know what the "crappy monitor" really means? Quality monitors are pretty cheap these days. I can at least agree with the compression part but I doubt 1080p youtube videos are that compressed on the resolution side (unless you think everyone just watches youtube at 420p)

 

Even with 1080p h264 videos the difference between highly compressed and not is big. Try a 1GB 1080p h264 video and then after a 10GB 1080p h264 video. The difference is really big. You don't even need to do a side by side to see the difference. And the 10gb 1080p h264 video is still far from uncompressed image quality.

 

Unless people upload uncompressed raw video taken directly from the video buffer on youtube you wont get anything close to what you can see on the monitor/tv.

 

Also yes PC monitors might have a 1080p resolution and better but the image quality for lot of them is far from a 1 grand HDTV. Extremely crappy 150$ ish TN panels are common. The image quality of those is awful at best. Of course if you are a PC gamer and have a good quality monitor it doesn't apply to you but lot of console gamers looking at those videos on youtube have crappy awful cheap quality TN panels.

[Houtei]

lol ac unity is a badly optimized game.  IT is funny to see the reactions from ps4 people though.  We all know the ps4 is more consistently a tiny bit better.  Its funny though all the people that want to start bring up the whole BUT BUT PS4 IS 50% FASTER! thing... Anyone with a brain and that has any experience upgrading their pcs should be able to know 50% on paper translates at best to barely noticeable difference to the untrained eye (which is most people).  The only way for most people to see it is have screenshots side by side and and someone draw a big circle on it...  I dunno how many times I have upgraded my gpu to what SHOULD be 75% faster or better and go from ultra settings 1080 running at 64fps to 70fps if im lucky.  Its so complicated you just cant look at a spec sheet.  So many factors could be bottle-necking performance.  In this case ubisoft.  

 

Also yeah i cheap monitor is not going to look near as good as a $1000 monitor. Theres always a bottleneck somewhere.  I hate when i see people with  like nvidia titans and running a cheap store brand monitor they got for 150 bucks.

[LaP]

 I hate when i see people with  like nvidia titans and running a cheap store brand monitor they got for 150 bucks.

 

;)