PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[theyarecomingforyou]

Still the X1 is performing better and at times 50% better.

That's true, though the PS4 version is running at a substantially higher resolution. The developers chose to do it that way and it's clear they should have opted for 900p on PS4 as well. It's a questionable decision. Both versions are way off the 1080p @ 30fps minimum expected of next-gen consoles.

 

My point and my quote and the article and the video stands. You can paint it in any light you like.

You were the one trying to paint it as a decisive win for the XB1 when it isn't. I've openly stated that both versions are not up to scratch.

[Hedon]

That's true, though the PS4 version is running at a substantially higher resolution. The developers chose to do it that way and it's clear they should have opted for 900p on PS4 as well. It's a questionable decision. Both versions are way off the 1080p @ 30fps minimum expected of next-gen consoles.

Can't argue with that. Not to mention with the X1 running between 900p and 1080p they should have just left it at 900 the whole way and lock the FPS at 30 so it is 100% of the time.

[Polonium]

According to EG and DF the Xbox One rarely if at all ever hits 1080p with it's dynamic resolution so it is no wonder that it can hit 30fps more frequently. 

[Hedon]

You were the one trying to paint it as a decisive win for the XB1 when it isn't.

False

According to EG and DF the Xbox One rarely if at all ever hits 1080p with it's dynamic resolution so it is no wonder that it can hit 30fps more frequently.

If you think all the cutscenes are rare or if at all then you are right.

[Polonium]

Ah, come on... cutscenes? I'm talking about gameplay. You know, the bit that matters.

[Hedon]

Ah, come on... cutscenes? I'm talking about gameplay. You know, the bit that matters.

Dang now cutscenes don't matter? Why am I never kept in the loop on this stuff???

[Ironman273]

Dang now cutscenes don't matter? Why am I never kept in the loop on this stuff???

[Polonium]

Bugger me, if we'd (read: PS fans) had said that about cut scenes in the last generation it would have been ripped apart.

 

Now cut scenes matter, right? 

 

Unbelievable. Fact of the matter is - 99% of all games run and look better on PS this generation. The odd game runs better on Xbox and is usually down to the fact it's sub HD - The Witcher just happens to have slightly better fps (which I'm sure will be rectified in upcoming patches) and suddenly the fact it's got 1080p in cuft scenes means its the winner by a country mile and we should all hail MS for what they've done to the Xbox?

 

Give me a break.

[Hedon]

Bugger me, if we'd (read: PS fans) had said that about cut scenes in the last generation it would have been ripped apart.

 

Now cut scenes matter, right? 

 

Unbelievable. Fact of the matter is - 99% of all games run and look better on PS this generation. The odd game runs better on Xbox and is usually down to the fact it's sub HD - The Witcher just happens to have slightly better fps (which I'm sure will be rectified in upcoming patches) and suddenly the fact it's got 1080p in cuft scenes means its the winner by a country mile and we should all hail MS for what they've done to the Xbox?

 

Give me a break.

 

If you want to put words in people's mouths, sure. In my experience, cut scenes always mattered. Game play always mattered. Performance always mattered. Indie games always mattered. It mattered on every console I have been playing on since 1972.

 

Luckily, I am a part of that "we'd" you mentioned. I was (and am) a PS fan long before owning both consoles, that is for sure. IMO, both consoles rock this gen and I am loving the games. Unfortunately, and this is my fault, I got my hopes up for mind blowing graphics...and when I mean mind blowing, I was picturing a new generation that was really 3 generations ahead of the last gen. I was hoping for better than PC quality.

 

Us multi-console fans want BOTH consoles to rock THE BEST that they can. If we can get more and more improvements on the PS4 res and fps and Xbox One res and fps, that is great news for all gamers.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Bugger me, if we'd (read: PS fans) had said that about cut scenes in the last generation it would have been ripped apart.

 

Now cut scenes matter, right? 

 

Unbelievable. Fact of the matter is - 99% of all games run and look better on PS this generation. The odd game runs better on Xbox and is usually down to the fact it's sub HD - The Witcher just happens to have slightly better fps (which I'm sure will be rectified in upcoming patches) and suddenly the fact it's got 1080p in cuft scenes means its the winner by a country mile and we should all hail MS for what they've done to the Xbox?

 

Give me a break.

Exactly. The issue here isn't that the XB1 runs this game much better, it's that the developer decided to run the PS4 at a higher resolution. That muddies the comparison, as the visual fidelity is not equal. This game doesn't alter the undeniable trend that the PS4 runs most games better.

 

PS - I'd point out that the cutscenes do matter, though they represent a very small percentage of the game. They have to be considered in context.

[Hedon]

This game doesn't alter the undeniable trend that the PS4 runs most games better.

 

As it should. The PS4 is "X" times more powerful than the X1. But as we can see here, the tablet CPU's on these consoles are huge bottlenecks. We could put a billion gig o ram or 16gb video cards in these things, but when you have a cpu that was designed to really run candy crush at blazing speeds on an iPad, there is literally only so much that you can do.

[theyarecomingforyou]

As it should. The PS4 is "X" times more powerful than the X1. But as we can see here, the tablet CPU's on these consoles are huge bottlenecks. We could put a billion gig o ram or 16gb video cards in these things, but when you have a cpu that was designed to really run candy crush at blazing speeds on an iPad, there is literally only so much that you can do.

Absolutely. It was a mistake for both companies to go with such weak CPUs, which were antiquated on release. Nintendo did a similar thing with the Wii U. There was absolutely no futureproofing. The GPU's weren't much better, running substantially lower clockspeeds than PC hardware of the time. That's why I believe that consoles need multiple SKUs with varying specs, as already they're being pushed to their limit. Optimisation and technologies like DX12 will help but there's only so much they can do.

 

It would be interesting if a company like Google or Apple made a play for the gaming market, as that could have pretty dramatic consequences. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to stop playing it safe.

[LaP]

As it should. The PS4 is "X" times more powerful than the X1. But as we can see here, the tablet CPU's on these consoles are huge bottlenecks. We could put a billion gig o ram or 16gb video cards in these things, but when you have a cpu that was designed to really run candy crush at blazing speeds on an iPad, there is literally only so much that you can do.

 

I'm not sure only the CPU is the bottleneck. Honestly the CPU in my PC is really old. It's a Core i5 750. I think it will be 6 years old this fall. It doesn't prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with the settings at ultra in most of the games. I was surprised to see that i can set about half the settings in Witcher 3 to ultra and still get a better fps than the xbox one and ps4 at 1080.

 

I have a 970 but still i can't believe my cpu is more powerful than the cpu in those consoles and it's not a bottleneck big enough to prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with better gfx quality than next gen consoles.

 

I'm afraid the gpu in those consoles is kind of weak too.

 

I expected to upgrade my PC when the next gen consoles were released cause i was sure my then 5 years old (now close to 6 years old) PC would not be able to run new games made for those consoles. I was surprised to realize i just needed a simple gpu upgrade. With the money i got from selling sold my old gpu and the free games i got with the new gpu it was a rather inexpensive upgrade to be honest.

[LaP]

 

 

It would be interesting if a company like Google or Apple made a play for the gaming market, as that could have pretty dramatic consequences. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to stop playing it safe.

 

Valve might try with the SteamBox. Looks like the project is dead right now but we might be surprised at e3.

 

For me it doesn't really matter anymore. My PC desk is in my sitting room close to my TV and i now run an HDMI cable from my PC to my TV and i'm playing most of my Steam games using my 360 controller

[George P Global Moderator]

I'm not sure only the CPU is the bottleneck. Honestly the CPU in my PC is really old. It's a Core i5 750. I think it will be 6 years old this fall. It doesn't prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with the settings at ultra in most of the games. I was surprised to see that i can set about half the settings in Witcher 3 to ultra and still get a better fps than the xbox one and ps4 at 1080.

 

I have a 970 but still i can't believe my cpu is more powerful than the cpu in those consoles and it's not a bottleneck big enough to prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with better gfx quality than next gen consoles.

 

I'm afraid the gpu in those consoles is kind of weak too.

 

I expected to upgrade my PC when the next gen consoles were released cause i was sure my then 5 years old (now close to 6 years old) PC would not be able to run new games made for those consoles. I was surprised to realize i just needed a simple gpu upgrade. With the money i got from selling sold my old gpu and the free games i got with the new gpu it was a rather inexpensive upgrade to be honest.

 

 

I think the difference here is that you have a 970 which, is way more powerful  than the GPUs in the two consoles, combined.  So the ability of your GPU, specially for games that don't rely heavily on the CPU, will run good, though like you said, you're going in and changing some of the settings lower.   Like I've been saying for a while, 1080p isn't really that high a goal, specially not for current PC hardware.  Who's to say how long you'll be fine with that old i5?  I have a old i7 920 and a HD7870 and I'm seeing signs of it's age being shown right now.  Maybe if I had a 970 or 980 it'd be less of an issue.  Still, if I'm going to spend that much on a GPU I'd like to upgrade the rest of my system as well.

[Luc2k]

I'm not sure only the CPU is the bottleneck. Honestly the CPU in my PC is really old. It's a Core i5 750. I think it will be 6 years old this fall. It doesn't prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with the settings at ultra in most of the games. I was surprised to see that i can set about half the settings in Witcher 3 to ultra and still get a better fps than the xbox one and ps4 at 1080.

 

I have a 970 but still i can't believe my cpu is more powerful than the cpu in those consoles and it's not a bottleneck big enough to prevent me from running games at 1080p50 with better gfx quality than next gen consoles.

 

I'm afraid the gpu in those consoles is kind of weak too.

 

I expected to upgrade my PC when the next gen consoles were released cause i was sure my then 5 years old (now close to 6 years old) PC would not be able to run new games made for those consoles. I was surprised to realize i just needed a simple gpu upgrade. With the money i got from selling sold my old gpu and the free games i got with the new gpu it was a rather inexpensive upgrade to be honest.

Both MS and Sony went with APUs which are nowhere near discrete parts in performance, however they are the two most powerful APUs ever made and they take a lot less space, use less power and release less heat than similar or more powerful discrete parts would. They probably cost a lot less too.

[FloatingFatMan]

It would be interesting if a company like Google or Apple made a play for the gaming market, as that could have pretty dramatic consequences. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to stop playing it safe.

 

The age of the dedicated games console is slowly passing into history.  More versatile machines like the PC are the way of the future.

[spenser.d]

The age of the dedicated games console is slowly passing into history. More versatile machines like the PC are the way of the future.

And here I thought this generation of dedicated consoles was selling faster than the previous. Seems alive and flourishing to me.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The age of the dedicated games console is slowly passing into history.  More versatile machines like the PC are the way of the future.

 

The PS4 is selling better than the PS2 

 

As I even posted today as well, only 1.3m of the 4m sales of The Witcher 3 are on PC. Vastly outnumbered on console. The stats don't lie, console gaming is flourishing more than ever. People scoffed at CDPR saying a console version of The Witcher 3 was needed to recoup the costs and make a decent profit. Eat your hats now if you scoffed at that. The gap between PC and console is big as it is (with Witcher sales), let alone the fact console games sell for a much higher price than PC games (even taking into account publisher/retail/Sony & MS fees). These boxes under the TV make good money, and in return can help some PC games come to fruition. Shoddy PC ports aside, looking at any Ubisoft game/Dark Souls....

[FloatingFatMan]

And here I thought this generation of dedicated consoles was selling faster than the previous. Seems alive and flourishing to me.

 

Have you looked inside this generation of consoles? They ARE PC's.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Have you looked inside this generation of consoles? They ARE PC's.

They always have been, besides Sony going nuts on CELL.

It's more about an OS dedicated solely to gaming and not a multitasking behemoth that Windows is. Hence how lower to midrange hardware can tow the line for a satisfying gaming experience on the big screen. That and the abundance of slickly tied in social features that make it easy to play with and make friends.

It's simple, cheap and it works. Makes a lot of casual gamers lives a lot less daunting than investing in a gaming PC, setting it up, dealing with Windows and playing spec wars to get games to run. You pop a disc in and it works. No graphics card driver updates, configuration menus, tweaking, etc. Sure, castrated gaming for those that sail through all of those things, but for many others simply an easy way to play a game.

[BajiRav]

The age of the dedicated games console is slowly passing into history.  More versatile machines like the PC are the way of the future.

It's actually the PC that is fading into the background. You don't need PC anymore if your livelihood doesn't depend on it. A mobile phone/tablet does everything most people need out of a PC. I would say consoles will survive this hyperbole just like they did for XB1/PS4 (there was similar commentary late last generation).

[FloatingFatMan]

You forgot that the XB1 runs 3 operating systems.. XBox, Windows, and a tiny OS that manages interoperability between the two. It IS a PC in all but actual name and will be even more so once they put Windows 10 on it.

It's actually the PC that is fading into the background. You don't need PC anymore if your livelihood doesn't depend on it. A mobile phone/tablet does everything most people need out of a PC. I would say consoles will survive this hyperbole just like they did for XB1/PS4 (there was similar commentary late last generation).

 

Tablets are PC's too, you know.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You forgot that the XB1 runs 3 operating systems.. XBox, Windows, and a tiny OS that manages interoperability between the two. It IS a PC in all but actual name and will be even more so once they put Windows 10 on it.

They're trying something more ambitious with the One, but even that didn't come with ease. Juggling the resources to run all parts of the OS led to Kinect for example initially eating up processing power even if you weren't using it. Using Snap was initially laggy and prone to crashing. Multitasking requires a lot of resource management, which can eat into games performance.

Stereotypically though a consoles OS gives developers incredibly low overheads hence how the modest hardware can be fully used to push out good looking titles. A PC with the specs of a 360 would never in this world be able to run the titles we seen last generation. Another example is how hard it was for Sony to retroactively patch in the XMB menu in-game. The consoles are created with such fine lines regarding multitasking to allow game devs to use every ounce of power.

PCs aren't, due to their open source nature and abundance of multitasking that has to be taken into account. Sure you can close every running app and tweak the OS to prioritise, but that's one of the many things casual gamers don't want to put up with, just insert a disc and have the same experience as their friends.

Heck even me as I've gotten older have migrated to consoles. I grew up building PCs from a young age but have neglected my PC specs in favour of just buying console games and playing on the big screen. The PC is now a dedicated Neowin browser

[BajiRav]

You forgot that the XB1 runs 3 operating systems.. XBox, Windows, and a tiny OS that manages interoperability between the two. It IS a PC in all but actual name and will be even more so once they put Windows 10 on it.

 

Tablets are PC's too, you know.

My microwave is technically a PC but that's not the point.