PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[notchinese]

I bought both consoles so I could play console exclusives, but on God's gaming platform of choice 1080p is laughably low

[theyarecomingforyou]

First, you cannot compare sitting ~8-10' away from your TV to sitting less than 2' from your 1600p IPS displays. You can claim you can tell the difference all you want, but the reality is science says you can't. And anyone who says otherwise is seeing differences that aren't actually there or have far better than perfect vision (extremely rare).

 

I won't get into ears, cause that's not a part of this discussion. The study of vision seems pretty straightforward and there have been several tests (similar to sound tests) that demonstrate people commonly cannot tell the difference between higher resolutions and lower resolutions and often get them wrong. I recall there being a video where they had people play games on three identical PC's and they weren't told that these weren't PS4, X1 and Console and they still all found differences and thought ones looked better and worse despite them all being on the exact same setup.

 

People who are looking for a difference will find one.

You can't just claim 'science'. If it was that simple then TV manufacturers wouldn't all use separate systems to tell you the optimum resolution and distance. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between various shades of a colour yet that doesn't mean there isn't a difference - side-by-side comparisons reveal the difference. However, it's not simply about resolution - the lower resolution on the XB1 is usually combined with lower quality visuals due to the performance limitations. The reality is the difference IS noticeable, as pointed out so many times:

 

 

GameSpot recently made an Xbox One-PS4 graphics comparison of the Destiny beta, which you can watch above. But Eurogamer's Digital Foundry decided to delve into the technical aspects of the games and created a complete breakdown of Destiny's graphics on the two consoles. In the beta, the group acknowledges that the PS4 version does have noticeably better detail in the environments, but that the Xbox beta has virtually equivalent quality elsewhere: "Put side-by-side, the Xbox One produces slightly fuzzier detailing on these elements, though the actual quality of textures--and filtering--is a complete match between the two."

Source: Gamespot

 

 

The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of Need for Speed: Rivals compared. The native 1080p visuals are stand-out regardless of platform, but Sony's hardware sets itself apart with some more refined effects-work.

Source: Eurogamer

 

 

Lords Of The Fallen: Moving on, the visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar, apart from a reduction in shadow quality and light glow on Xbox One. Shadow resolution is reduced significantly in comparison to the PS4 version, producing noticeable chunkiness in many scenes.

Source: Eurogamer

 

Dynasty Warriors 8 Empires Visual Analysis: PS4 Trumps Xbox One With Better AA And Image Quality

Source: GamingBolt

 

Battlefield 4: While in motion PS4 is "clearly the superior of the two", it's "not quite the knock-out smash we'd expected based on the raw metrics".

 

It concluded: "Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that, in this near-finalised state, the PS4 offers a superior experience on several fronts.

Source: DigitalSpy

 

There is a difference between 900p and 1080p - put them side-by-side and you can see it. Just because people can't always pick that out doesn't mean it isn't there. In motion it seems sharper. That's evident on PC, where if you run a game at a non-native resolution it appears slightly blurry. The consoles hide that by rendering the UI natively but there is a difference. Further, when you factor in other differences in fidelity the difference becomes more apparent.

 

If your argument is that they're so close you can't tell them apart I would argue that's wrong, as evidence by the countless reviews demonstrating otherwise. If your argument is that it doesn't matter I would point out that it's subjective - to some people it does matter.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

As for the rest of the factors I agree, those things are far more important than resolution. But this discussion time and time again falls back on the 44% more pixels the PS4 has when practically every other parameter we can measure matters more than that 44% difference in pixels. I am just trying to put this statistic in the coffin because it's irrelevant. The PS4 could drop that 44% increase in pixels and probably better looking visuals as a result. That is of course unless the 44% more pixels is a negligible difference in how much power they have to render the lighting and other effects in-game.

 

If that's the case, the resolution difference is even more moot because it's not evidence of any real greater power if reducing resolution doesn't provide any significant return.

you are not really making sense.  what is it that you are trying to prove here?

 

xbox HAS to drop the resolution to have the same graphics quality.   ps4 does not.   it can achieve the graphics developers are aiming for without having to drop the resolution.   that is the difference.   

trying to brush it off, like it is completely immaterial is just

yes it might not be hugely noticeable in some games...  but that is not the point.   

 

are you so butt hurt over the fact xbox is weaker, that you have to justify it to yourself and others that it does not matter? it does. not in every case obviously...

 

go back and reread dirty larrys post.   and reread it again if you don't understand it.

[Emn1ty]

You can't just claim 'science'. If it was that simple then TV manufacturers wouldn't all use separate systems to tell you the optimum resolution and distance. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between various shades of a colour yet that doesn't mean there isn't a difference - side-by-side comparisons reveal the difference. However, it's not simply about resolution - the lower resolution on the XB1 is usually combined with lower quality visuals due to the performance limitations. The reality is the difference IS noticeable, as pointed out so many times:

 

Source: Gamespot

 

Source: Eurogamer

 

Source: Eurogamer

 

Source: GamingBolt

 

Source: DigitalSpy

 

There is a difference between 900p and 1080p - put them side-by-side and you can see it. Just because people can't always pick that out doesn't mean it isn't there. In motion it seems sharper. That's evident on PC, where if you run a game at a non-native resolution it appears slightly blurry. The consoles hide that by rendering the UI natively but there is a difference. Further, when you factor in other differences in fidelity the difference becomes more apparent.

 

If your argument is that they're so close you can't tell them apart I would argue that's wrong, as evidence by the countless reviews demonstrating otherwise. If your argument is that it doesn't matter I would point out that it's subjective - to some people it does matter.

 

Quote

 

GameSpot recently made an Xbox One-PS4 graphics comparison of the Destiny beta, which you can watch above. But Eurogamer's Digital Foundry decided to delve into the technical aspects of the games and created a complete breakdown of Destiny's graphics on the two consoles. In the beta, the group acknowledges that the PS4 version does have noticeably better detail in the environments, but that the Xbox beta has virtually equivalent quality elsewhere: "Put side-by-side, the Xbox One produces slightly fuzzier detailing on these elements, though the actual quality of textures--and filtering--is a complete match between the two."

Source: Gamespot

 

Quote

Battlefield 4: While in motion PS4 is "clearly the superior of the two", it's "not quite the knock-out smash we'd expected based on the raw metrics".

 

It concluded: "Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that, in this near-finalised state, the PS4 offers a superior experience on several fronts.

Source: DigitalSpy

 

 

Not to mention most of these aren't dealing with just resolution. It does not matter if you can see the differences side-by-side because nobody is going to be playing the same game on both consoles simultaneously.

 

I am not denying there is a difference, I'm trying to demonstrate that the difference is a pointless one because it's not noticeable until you do the above (a side-by-side comparison) or it's pointed out to you. Which means, to me at the very least, that the PS4 could look even better if it also dropped its resolution to 900p assuming the performance gain from the resolution drop increased the fidelity of the effects, lighting, etc.

 

And regardless of it mattering or not on a personal level, it's proven that even with 20/20 vision and sitting at the normal viewing distances most everyone sits at (assuming 55" TV and distance of ~8-12' from the TV) you are not going to notice a real difference between 900p and 1080p.

 

Even one of your articles admits that the numbers appeared to show a bigger difference than they perceived. Because numbers can sometimes poorly represent the reality. Not because the number is inadequate, but because people just can't comprehend how it applies very well due to the abstract nature.

 

 

you are not really making sense.  what is it that you are trying to prove here?

 

xbox HAS to drop the resolution to have the same graphics quality.   ps4 does not.   it can achieve the graphics developers are aiming for without having to drop the resolution.   that is the difference.   

trying to brush it off, like it is completely immaterial is just

yes it might not be hugely noticeable in some games...  but that is not the point.   

 

are you so butt hurt over the fact xbox is weaker, that you have to justify it to yourself and others that it does not matter? it does. not in every case obviously...

 

go back and reread dirty larrys post.   and reread it again if you don't understand it.

 

What I'm trying to prove is that using the statement '44% more pixels' is just completely misrepresenting the truth of things.

 

Ok, sure. It hits the target 1080p. But does that matter? Does the difference between 900p and 1080p actually mean something? This is what I'm trying to point out and yet people keep sticking to the 'but 1080p is what we want cause it's native...' etc, etc.

 

So why not remove ourselves from this whole ideology that 1080p is the best and only result that can be delivered this generation? Who set that standard? Why is it even required? Or are we just going to blindly continue demanding something because we simply want it?

 

What you are failing to see here is that I'm questioning the basis of this who 1080p craze. If the consoles could do it I'd be fine with it, but trying to blow the truth out of proportion is just idiotic. If you want to say I'm butt hurt over the XB1 being weaker then I can come right back around that people are so damned proud of the PS4 being able to check off 1080p gaming that you refuse to admit that there may not be any practical difference between 900p and 1080p. We can argue bias all we want but that's just a red herring and leads us nowhere.

 

I'm brushing it off because it's irrelevant. If I'd found that the difference of 1080p and 900p was completely noticeable at normal viewing distances on TV's then I'd agree it's unacceptable. But there's a finite level of detail human eyes can perceive and this falls below that in the standard conditions of playing games on consoles. So unless you can prove that our eyes can perceive more detail than is currently presented by the scientific community I don't see why people are so adamant to insist that the difference actually matters.

 

And again, for my apparent X1 bias I still stand by the claim that if the PS4's games were 900p, the developers would get far more out of their games than they are. Perhaps without the pressure to hit 1080p developers would be better able to optimize their games and make them look the best they can regardless of what resolution they are being rendered at. I could care less about proving which console is more powerful than the other. This is a discussion about resolution and framerate. So that's what I'm discussing. And to me, it seems the resolution part of this discussion is pointless outside the hearsay of who can and cannot tell the difference while ignoring what facts there are about what we as human beings can and cannot see.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 + 1 = 2, but it's misrepresenting the truth 

 

Resolution is simple maths, it doesn't lie, it doesn't misrepresent, it is what it is. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

Not to mention most of these aren't dealing with just resolution. It does not matter if you can see the differences side-by-side because nobody is going to be playing the same game on both consoles simultaneously.

 

I am not denying there is a difference, I'm trying to demonstrate that the difference is a pointless one because it's not noticeable until you do the above (a side-by-side comparison) or it's pointed out to you. Which means, to me at the very least, that the PS4 could look even better if it also dropped its resolution to 900p assuming the performance gain from the resolution drop increased the fidelity of the effects, lighting, etc.

 

And regardless of it mattering or not on a personal level, it's proven that even with 20/20 vision and sitting at the normal viewing distances most everyone sits at (assuming 55" TV and distance of ~8-12' from the TV) you are not going to notice a real difference between 900p and 1080p.

 

Even one of your articles admits that the numbers appeared to show a bigger difference than they perceived. Because numbers can sometimes poorly represent the reality. Not because the number is inadequate, but because people just can't comprehend how it applies very well due to the abstract nature.

The sources I listed demonstrate that the PS4 has better quality visuals, which is the point that I've been making all along. The resolution is simply one factor in that. Everything else you said is just noise.

 

What I'm trying to prove is that using the statement '44% more pixels' is just completely misrepresenting the truth of things.

 

Ok, sure. It hits the target 1080p. But does that matter? Does the difference between 900p and 1080p actually mean something? This is what I'm trying to point out and yet people keep sticking to the 'but 1080p is what we want cause it's native...' etc, etc.

 

So why not remove ourselves from this whole ideology that 1080p is the best and only result that can be delivered this generation? Who set that standard? Why is it even required? Or are we just going to blindly continue demanding something because we simply want it?

It matters when it results in better quality visuals. In virtually every comparison the PS4 looks as good, if not better - in some cases the differences are substantial. Developers target 1080p because displaying non-native resolutions results in reduced image quality. They're aren't just doing it for a laugh or to make games look worse, surprisingly enough.

 

I'm brushing it off because it's irrelevant. If I'd found that the difference of 1080p and 900p was completely noticeable at normal viewing distances on TV's then I'd agree it's unacceptable. But there's a finite level of detail human eyes can perceive and this falls below that in the standard conditions of playing games on consoles. So unless you can prove that our eyes can perceive more detail than is currently presented by the scientific community I don't see why people are so adamant to insist that the difference actually matters.

You say that and yet countless comparisons demonstrate that there is a difference and that it is noticeable. How many times have we heard claims that the human eye can only see 24fps or 48fps? Plenty, yet other research has shown that fighter pilots can identify an image at 220fps. It's important to look at scientific research in context - you might find it hard to tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps yet that doesn't mean you can't perceive a single frame at 220fps. So just because you might not be able to point to which one is higher quality it doesn't mean that you don't perceive the difference.

 

At the end of the day there is a difference, it is discernible and it does matter to many people. If you aren't concerned or do not consider it important then that's great but image quality is very important to me and that's one of the reasons I'm not interested in either console. As an nVidia user I use DSR to downscale games from 3620x2263 to 2560x1600 and it makes the image considerably sharper; having to upscale from a lower resolution will obviously produce the opposite result. So don't claim Science

[Hedon]

 

Quote

Source: Gamespot

 

Quote

Source: DigitalSpy

 

 

Not to mention most of these aren't dealing with just resolution. It does not matter if you can see the differences side-by-side because nobody is going to be playing the same game on both consoles simultaneously.

 

I am not denying there is a difference, I'm trying to demonstrate that the difference is a pointless one because it's not noticeable until you do the above (a side-by-side comparison) or it's pointed out to you. Which means, to me at the very least, that the PS4 could look even better if it also dropped its resolution to 900p assuming the performance gain from the resolution drop increased the fidelity of the effects, lighting, etc.

 

And regardless of it mattering or not on a personal level, it's proven that even with 20/20 vision and sitting at the normal viewing distances most everyone sits at (assuming 55" TV and distance of ~8-12' from the TV) you are not going to notice a real difference between 900p and 1080p.

 

Even one of your articles admits that the numbers appeared to show a bigger difference than they perceived. Because numbers can sometimes poorly represent the reality. Not because the number is inadequate, but because people just can't comprehend how it applies very well due to the abstract nature.

 

 

 

What I'm trying to prove is that using the statement '44% more pixels' is just completely misrepresenting the truth of things.

 

Ok, sure. It hits the target 1080p. But does that matter? Does the difference between 900p and 1080p actually mean something? This is what I'm trying to point out and yet people keep sticking to the 'but 1080p is what we want cause it's native...' etc, etc.

 

So why not remove ourselves from this whole ideology that 1080p is the best and only result that can be delivered this generation? Who set that standard? Why is it even required? Or are we just going to blindly continue demanding something because we simply want it?

 

What you are failing to see here is that I'm questioning the basis of this who 1080p craze. If the consoles could do it I'd be fine with it, but trying to blow the truth out of proportion is just idiotic. If you want to say I'm butt hurt over the XB1 being weaker then I can come right back around that people are so damned proud of the PS4 being able to check off 1080p gaming that you refuse to admit that there may not be any practical difference between 900p and 1080p. We can argue bias all we want but that's just a red herring and leads us nowhere.

 

I'm brushing it off because it's irrelevant. If I'd found that the difference of 1080p and 900p was completely noticeable at normal viewing distances on TV's then I'd agree it's unacceptable. But there's a finite level of detail human eyes can perceive and this falls below that in the standard conditions of playing games on consoles. So unless you can prove that our eyes can perceive more detail than is currently presented by the scientific community I don't see why people are so adamant to insist that the difference actually matters.

 

And again, for my apparent X1 bias I still stand by the claim that if the PS4's games were 900p, the developers would get far more out of their games than they are. Perhaps without the pressure to hit 1080p developers would be better able to optimize their games and make them look the best they can regardless of what resolution they are being rendered at. I could care less about proving which console is more powerful than the other. This is a discussion about resolution and framerate. So that's what I'm discussing. And to me, it seems the resolution part of this discussion is pointless outside the hearsay of who can and cannot tell the difference while ignoring what facts there are about what we as human beings can and cannot see.

 

Nailed it. Can't argue with this.

[wakjak]

Nailed it. Can't argue with this.

Actually it can be argued because it's plain false.

[Hedon]

Actually it can be argued because it's plain false.

Nothing false in what he posted.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Project cars at DF

 

 

 

 

At this level of potential performance, an optional 30fps cap would definitely work well - if purely for these rare excesses. Alas, while Slightly Mad Studios offers a bevy of post effects toggles, the impact these actually have on the game's performance is fairly minimal; our test above shows the boost averages at 2fps once all options are disabled. The sacrifice isn't worthwhile in our view; eye-catching extras like god rays, bloom, and screen-space effects such as water droplets add hugely to the impact of the game's weather, and the gains otherwise are small. However, if you feel the need to tinker, it's worth noting that some effects require restarting the game (after saving) in order for preferences to take effect.

 

All in all, it's fair to say Project Cars' final console build is equipped to hit 60fps in its career mode races, though the consistency of this falls hugely on its weather settings. As with our initial hands-on, heavy rain is still the cause for the most sizable drops to 50fps and lower, while races with clear skies hold much closer to the target 60fps. It's also evident Xbox One struggles to match the PS4's performance levels in most scenarios, especially with a conga line of cars in tow, where Sony's platform typically takes a firm lead.

 

Taken purely as an assault course for PS4 and Xbox One consoles to run through, results in the solo mode are also intriguing. A 60fps lock is far from guaranteed when tweaking each settings yourself, but the freedom on offer is both impressive and welcomed for a console title. Project Cars is first and foremost a force to be reckoned with in the PC space, but the commitment to getting the most out of these console editions is apparent. Quite how the console duo compare to the PC's very best settings is something we intend to cover soon, and it stands to show how closely the team has optimised the game for each platform.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-project-cars-launch-performance-analysis

 

PS4 1080p, Xbox One 900p.

[Hedon]

More from that article:

 

 

There's a sense Slightly Mad Studios is pushing each platform as hard as it can while still angling for 60fps, though to cut to the chase, neither PS4 or Xbox One gets a perfect lock on this figure. But given its suite of options, which race setups give us the best frame-rate, and where is the engine at its most fragile?

 

With the final retail release to hand, Project Cars' initial install weighs in at around 19.5GB for each console. In its default state, this precisely matches the size of the build tested in our original hands-on - though a day one 817MB patch on PS4 increases its HDD profile, and bumps the version number up to 1.01. A smaller 482MB update is also required on Xbox One, and it's impossible to play anything besides one track in solo mode until the update is finished on either platform.

 

We intend to look into Project Cars visuals in greater depth with the upcoming Face-Off, but certain points bear mention right now. Firstly, Xbox One still retains a curious advantage in texture filtering, where static screens show PS4's roads blurring over at a closer proximity. Added to that we also see the same motion blur effect on PS4 as before, with moving objects producing an unusual banding behind them - while Xbox One's blur is more refined (UPDATE 6/5/15 8:16pm: Slightly Mad says that the PS4 artifact is an additional temporal component to its anti-aliasing). Even on update 1.01, these are two areas that remain unchanged from when we last saw Project Cars in action, and similarly.

 

As for the all-crucial frame-rate metrics: the result is mostly within the 50-60fps range throughout on both platforms, with tearing helping to keep the frame-times as close to the 16.7ms target as possible.

 

The side-effect of pushing the engine to such an extreme is a bizarre one: the differential we see between PS4 and Xbox One in most races begins to disappear. With all vehicles visible ahead on Le Mans, both consoles lurk around 35fps on this circuit as we pass the stands, and frame-rates remain neck-and-neck until we cross the finish line.

 

In the end, both consoles are struggling. Just as stated before, the CPU's are the bottlenecks of these two consoles. The best experience is on the PC, as that is no surprise.

[President Devil]

More from that article:

 

 

In the end, both consoles are struggling. Just as stated before, the CPU's are the bottlenecks of these two consoles. The best experience is on the PC, as that is no surprise.

 

Yep and that turning point happened quite a lot sooner than people were expecting, especially on the Sony side, but that's what happens with low end AMD hardware and unbalanced designs.

[+Asmodai MVC]

More from that article:

 

 

In the end, both consoles are struggling. Just as stated before, the CPU's are the bottlenecks of these two consoles. The best experience is on the PC, as that is no surprise.

 

Exactly, it's no surprise. PCs outperformed the PS2/Xbox when they launched, they outperformed the PS3/Xbox 360 when they launched, and they outperform the PS4/Xbox One when they launched.  After launch the gap gets bigger and bigger because consoles remain static while PCs continue to evolve.  Why would anyone even think it would be different this time?  In any event PC performance has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[Hedon]

 In any event PC performance has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

True, but the article mentioned PC, which they will be comparing soon.

[+Asmodai MVC]

True, but the article mentioned PC, which they will be comparing soon.

Eurogamer typically includes all platforms a given game runs on in their comparisons of any given game.  If for example the game runs on last generation and this one they'll compare the last generation versions of the game to the current generation versions as well.  Clearly the Xbox One and PS4 are going to outperform the Xbox 360 and PS3 just as the PC is going to outperform the Xbox One and PS4.  Eurogamer just tries to show you exactly what those differences are but this thread is not about last gen consoles or PCs or eurogamer articles.  It's about Xbox One and PS4 and while Eurogamer articles are often cited because their digital foundry group is one of the best sources for PS4 and Xbox One performance data the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC related portions of the articles are not relevant to this topic.

[Hedon]

Eurogamer typically includes all platforms a given game runs on in their comparisons of any given game. 

Yup, exactly. Known that for awhile now.

[+Asmodai MVC]

The CPU's are the bottlenecks of these two consoles.

That's by design. Both Sony and Microsoft intentionally used comparatively weak CPUs this generation because this is the first generation of consoles with GPUs capable of GPU Compute.

The thought being that developers will offload tasks previously done on the CPU to the much more capable GPUs. To a large degree that hasn't happened yet. It can't really happen on games that still run on last gen consoles as it's a significant design change and last gen consoles can't do GPGPU. It doesn't even traditionally happen on PCs as PC developers don't typically use a single GPU to do both Graphics and Compute at the same time for core game functionality (maybe they run some OPTIONAL physics acceleration on the GPU along with the graphics or something similar)

So far though most developers are largely writing the games the same way as last generation and not using "GPU Compute" to any great extent. As more and more games are designed from the ground up for this generation things should get better. Even now many of the current gen only games were initially designed for last gen and just dropped last gen support later in development. That means their fundamental design is still fairly last gen because they likely didn't go back and rethink the whole design just bumped up the textures, polys, particles, etc. beyond what last gen cold do.

Yup, exactly. Known that for awhile now.

The point being that pointing to a Eurogamer statement of how current gen consoles are stuggling to do what PCs do is like pointing to a Eurogamer statement of how last gen consoles struggle to do the same things as current gen consoles. Most people, including Eurogamer, understand that PC is going to outperform current gen consoles just as current gen consoles are going to outperform last gen consoles. That's not new to this generation and has nothing to do with this thread.

[President Devil]

That's by design. Both Sony and Microsoft intentionally used comparatively weak CPUs this generation because this is the first generation of consoles with GPUs capable of GPU Compute.

 

 

No, it's not. They'd be moronic to think it would, one because the PC as the platform with the most users hasn't adopted compute in gaming and second because using GPU compute uses up GPU time that takes away from rendering when the GPUs are already weak. Betting on Compute to replace CPU is ridiculous because making something parallelizable for a CPU doesn't instantly mean it works on a GPU, it's not easily interchangeable and GPUs even lack certain functions that require CPUs to remain in place.

[Hedon]

The point being that pointing to a Eurogamer statement of how current gen consoles are stuggling to do what PCs do is like pointing to a Eurogamer statement of how last gen consoles struggle to do the same things as current gen consoles. Most people, including Eurogamer, understand that PC is going to outperform current gen consoles just as current gen consoles are going to outperform last gen consoles. That's not new to this generation and has nothing to do with this thread.

 

Ok, thanks for sharing that with us. We understand what you find relevant and don't find relevant. I am not concerned with how you feel about Eurogamer articles and how comparisons are handled there or are represented here.

 

We have noted your opinion though.

[+Asmodai MVC]

No, it's not. They'd be moronic to think it would, one because the PC as the platform with the most users hasn't adopted compute in gaming and second because using GPU compute uses up GPU time that takes away from rendering when the GPUs are already weak. Betting on Compute to replace CPU is ridiculous because making something parallelizable for a CPU doesn't instantly mean it works on a GPU, it's not easily interchangeable and GPUs even lack certain functions that require CPUs to remain in place.

Yes, it is.  You'd be moronic to think console designers designed their consoles to compete with PCs in raw specs.  PC is NOT the platform with the most users, at least not in terms of paying gamers.  EA just released the financials and PCs make up about 20% of their sales while consoles make up around 2/3.  This is pretty consistent over every quarter displayed in the chart (with the big change being the migration from last gen to current gen consoles though the overall total stays consistently around 2/3).  Sure lots more people own PCs but they don't buy tons of games for them and developers don't target them.  Game developers target consoles not PC as consoles have several times more paying gamers and as fixed targets their easier to support.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Ok, thanks for sharing that with us. We understand what you find relevant and don't find relevant. I am not concerned with how you feel about Eurogamer articles and how comparisons are handled there or are represented here.

 

We have noted your opinion though.

It's not about what I find relevant or not relevant personally nor is it about how I "feel" about Eurogamer articles.  It about staying on topic in the thread and not having it turn into a "PC MASTER RACE" thread when the thread is about Xbox One and PS4 frame rates and resolutions which have nothing at all to do with PCs.  Staying on topic isn't my opinion or my feeling.  Unless your argument is that saying how PCs have higher performance than consoles (which is news to almost no one) IS somehow on topic in an Xbox One and PS4 frame rate and resolution thread.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

 

Leave the PC vs console comparisons out, please.

[BajiRav]

At the end of the day there is a difference, it is discernible and it does matter to many people.

There is a difference but most people can't see the difference in normal TV setups.

Case in point, KillZone:SF and Ryse:SoR. People couldn't tell ###### until the developers mentioned that both were not 1080p.

[theyarecomingforyou]

There is a difference but most people can't see the difference in normal TV setups.

Case in point, KillZone:SF and Ryse:SoR. People couldn't tell ###### until the developers mentioned that both were not 1080p.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between a car that does 45MPG and one that does 50MPG yet that doesn't mean it's not better to have the car that does 50MPG. Most people couldn't tell the difference between Blu-ray and HD-DVD yet Blu-ray won out because it was seen as the superior format. Further, I provided numerous reviews earlier where the PS4 version is noticeably better than the XB1 version - we're not talking about imperceivable differences.

 

What it comes down to is whether other differences

[Hedon]

There is a difference but most people can't see the difference in normal TV setups.

Case in point, KillZone:SF and Ryse:SoR. People couldn't tell ###### until the developers mentioned that both were not 1080p.

Well stated, and nailed it.