PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[nosense]

Of course a game with 1/3rd the resolution size on Xbox 1 is going to have the better framerate.

MATH...

 

Stable framerate anytime over high res. Especially when it comes to twitch shooter.

[Polonium]

Its hardly an unstable frame rate though is it? BF4 was more than playable on Xbox one so I'm told and that dropped the same amount if not more frames.

[wakjak]

MATH...

 

Stable framerate anytime over high res. Especially when it comes to twitch shooter.

edited post. 1/3rd less resolution.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Witcher 3 dev: higher resolution on XB1 "would require much bigger change" than DX12

 

900 vs 1080p for ps4. The game is the same.

 

I think any resolution changes would require a much bigger change from Microsoft than dx12 upgrade to be honest.

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Bacon_is_life/status/582465076952711168

[Showan]

https://twitter.com/Bacon_is_life/status/582465076952711168

 

 

Demanding games gonna demad     

 

But on a serious note, If the game is demanding, it's gonna need some juice on the hardware side as well as the software side...

 

As long as fps are stable it's all good with me...

 

I've been alternating my open world games...

 

I got Shadow of Mordor on PS4... Got Dragonage on the One, so it looks like Witcher 3 for the PS4 it is...

[LaP]

I think i'll need to upgrade my PC this fall for Witcher 3 XD. Or maybe i'll wait next year for 4k with playable fps to be more realistic i have a big backlog of games to play anyway.

[Guest]

I think i'll need to upgrade my PC this fall for Witcher 3 XD. Or maybe i'll wait next year for 4k with playable fps to be more realistic i have a big backlog of games to play anyway.

 

Or just wait a year or so for them to get their crap together and release an improved edition. Happened with both TW1 and TW2.

[LaP]

Or just wait a year or so for them to get their crap together and release an improved edition. Happened with both TW1 and TW2.

 

Yeah good idea lol

 

I actually own the improved version of both W1 and W2 I always buy games cheap today anyway like the GOTY version at 30$,

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

As a starting point, both consoles get the basics right. There are no drawbacks on the resolution front: this is a true 1920x1080 game on PS4, and a pixel count reveals it's the very same situation on Xbox One, with both backed by FXAA anti-aliasing. It's an interesting result given the console's trend of adopting lower native resolutions than PS4 to secure a smooth frame-rate, or to achieve parity in graphical features. However, Dark Souls 2's lock at 1080p plants it in the upper echelons of multi-format releases so far, at least in terms of visuals.

 

 

Xbox One pays a persistent price for matching the PS4's visual standard. Both formats target 60fps and engage v-sync at all times, but Microsoft's platform suffers the greater drops between the two in each scene of our frame-rate analysis. The Forest of Fallen Giants area is a good example, where a barrage of enemies causes a read-out of between 40-50fps on Xbox One, while PS4 operates within the 50-60fps range. Even while uncontested beneath the giant, arching trees of Things Betwixt, a regular margin of 10fps exists between the two - PS4 operating at a near perfect 60fps, while Xbox stutters along at 50fps.

 

Unfortunately this has the knock-on effect of making combat sluggish on Xbox One. In one example, an encounter with The Last Giant boss gives us our lowest drop, a record tumble to 36fps cued by a batch of floating souls. The PS4 goes entirely unruffled by the effect here, and it's fair to say the smoother controller response makes it easier to tackle a lingering knight after this boss battle's finished. Sony's machine does not produce a perfect 60fps of course, but it is a consistently better performer - and in a game that demands pinpoint timing for rolls and ripostes, the smoother frame-rate can make a difference.

 

 

 

From Software has described the Dark Souls 2 engine in terms of its viability for this generation, but it's now clear that PS4 hands in results closest to the developer's intention. Within the console bracket, it's no doubt the best version to date, while Xbox One claims second place in the running owing to its less stable frame-rate. By bullishly matching Sony's platform point-for-point across all graphical settings, Xbox One places Dark Souls 2's visual presentation above its playability to a certain extent. However, compared to the 20-30fps performance of last-gen releases it 's still a fulsome upgrade for owners of Microsoft's console.

 

 

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dark-souls-2-performance-analysis

 

More Souls 

[Showan]

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dark-souls-2-performance-analysis

 

More Souls 

 

 

 

Well.. The PS4 definitely holds up better...  

 

But the way it reads, you would think that the One version is unplayable...  

 

Yes the PS4 has more under the hood. Can't change the hardware.

 

I just hate the way Eurogamer exaggerates their analysis.  Game looks and runs perfectly fine on both.

[vcfan]

https://twitter.com/Bacon_is_life/status/582465076952711168

 

[LaP]

Well.. The PS4 definitely holds up better...  

 

But the way it reads, you would think that the One version is unplayable...  

 

Yes the PS4 has more under the hood. Can't change the hardware.

 

I just hate the way Eurogamer exaggerates their analysis.  Game looks and runs perfectly fine on both.

Lowest fps of 36 is perfectly playable specially for a game like a souls game.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 

 

That's GameFAQs level butthurt. I also forgot the PS3 version of The Witcher 2 was focussed on more... oh wait.

[vcfan]

That's Neogaf level butthurt.

fixed

[+Asmodai MVC]

Lowest fps of 36 is perfectly playable specially for a game like a souls game.

That's true but the issue isn't so much what the lowest is but how much it changes.  A consistent 30fps can play better than a game that constantly jumping between 40 and 60... especially in a game where timing can be critical, catching a spike or drop at the wrong time could mean your death.

[George P Global Moderator]

That's true but the issue isn't so much what the lowest is but how much it changes.  A consistent 30fps can play better than a game that constantly jumping between 40 and 60... especially in a game where timing can be critical, catching a spike or drop at the wrong time could mean your death.

Had they just locked it at 30 then people would complain more. That lowest frame of 36 probably hits with a lot on the screen, still is it's a dip and then it goes back up, we're talking a second jump here.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Had they just locked it at 30 then people would complain more. That lowest frame of 36 probably hits with a lot on the screen, still is it's a dip and then it goes back up, we're talking a second jump here.

 

It's not quite a second, watch the video on the last page.

[George P Global Moderator]

It's not quite a second, watch the video on the last page.

 

 

My point still stands, it's better than locking it at 30.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

My point still stands, it's better than locking it at 30.

 

True, but some may wonder was it better to do 900p and hit 60 locked (or the same as PS4).

[George P Global Moderator]

True, but some may wonder was it better to do 900p and hit 60 locked (or the same as PS4).

 

As long as the dips don't effect game play then it's fine.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

As long as the dips don't effect game play then it's fine.

 

From the article and my post (but if Souls fans can make it through Blighttown they can make it through anything! )

 

Unfortunately this has the knock-on effect of making combat sluggish on Xbox One. In one example, an encounter with The Last Giant boss gives us our lowest drop, a record tumble to 36fps cued by a batch of floating souls. The PS4 goes entirely unruffled by the effect here, and it's fair to say the smoother controller response makes it easier to tackle a lingering knight after this boss battle's finished. Sony's machine does not produce a perfect 60fps of course, but it is a consistently better performer - and in a game that demands pinpoint timing for rolls and ripostes, the smoother frame-rate can make a difference.

 

[George P Global Moderator]

From the article and my post (but if Souls fans can make it through Blighttown they can make it through anything! )

 

No doubt that smoother is better but I'm looking at it as not breaking completely, sub-30 type lag.

[XorpiZ]

https://twitter.com/Bacon_is_life/status/582465076952711168

 

Keep in mind he hasn't even tried DX12, so in reality he has absolutely no idea. Which he also admits fully.

[George P Global Moderator]

I can't speak to how much DX12 will help on the Xbox One, even though it uses a low level'ish API version of DX11 right now, it still has differences from what I've seen.  I think in games where hitting a smooth 60 frames is hard today it'll be easier with DX12, the changes to the API on the CPU side specifically are what help with better frame rates. 

 

Only time will tell but I expect a game that's doing 1080p and has a frame rate that goes from 60 down to 35-40 should get a smoother 50-60 rage after using DX12, the more CPU cores the better DX12 works compared to DX11.  

[+Asmodai MVC]

I can't speak to how much DX12 will help on the Xbox One, even though it uses a low level'ish API version of DX11 right now, it still has differences from what I've seen.  I think in games where hitting a smooth 60 frames is hard today it'll be easier with DX12, the changes to the API on the CPU side specifically are what help with better frame rates. 

 

Only time will tell but I expect a game that's doing 1080p and has a frame rate that goes from 60 down to 35-40 should get a smoother 50-60 rage after using DX12, the more CPU cores the better DX12 works compared to DX11.  

 

XBox One isn't going to see much of a boost from DX12, especially on the CPU side.  You don't honestly think MS released a console with 8 CPU cores where that was largely constrained to a single core like DX11 on PCs do you?  Xbox One already has low level APIs so developers can take full advantage of the multicore CPU.  What DX12 does is bring those "low level" changes to PCs in a generic form that can be used by multiple different GPUs from multiple different vendors (The Xbox One version of the API is closely tied to the specific Xbox One hardware)

 

The DX12 update for the Xbox One is supposed to being a new ESRAM API to help developers (I'm not sure why that update is part of DX12 since PC GPUs don't have ESRAM to need such an API... unless that's coming with "designed for DX12" GPUs later this year).    It's rumored that the ESRAM update boost performance by 15% but that's in synthetic benchmarks so real world will likely be slightly less.

 

I expect the Xbox One DX12 update will improve performance a bit but if the game is hitting 30fps it will be less than a 5fps boost so it's not going to be a night and day difference.  If the game can get to 50fps then maybe the update will allow it to hit 60fps or maybe it will even out some of the peaks on valleys in the performance but it's not going to bring a game that's 30fps to 60fps (unless it was hitting 50+ but the developer capped it at a solid 30 since they couldn't get all the way to 60).  Also it's not going to increase the resolution at all.  900p games aren't going to suddenly go 1080p as that's a much larger jump.

 

Again DX12 is more intended to bring Xbox One style APIs to PCs not boost the XBox One.  MS has been refining the Xbox One low level APIs since launch not waiting for a new DX version in order to better compete with Sony who launched with a DX12/Mantle/Vulkan style low level API called GNM (they also have a high level DX11-like API called GNMX).