PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[LaP]

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. 

 

As a previously said for offline non competitive games i will take 1080p30 over 720p60 any day of the week without any hesitation. The only genre i mwould take 720p60 over 1080p30 is racing games, fighting games and the online part of a fps (and only if it is ccompetitive enough which exclude about half of the fps games easily).

[Athernar]

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. 

 

I wouldn't call Titanfall's engine Source personally, it may have originated from Source but they've introduced enough cruft to diverge the two significantly.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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. 

Obviously it's a heavily modified engine but the reason they went for it was to be able to hit 60fps. Unfortunately it seems that even at barely more than 720p it's struggling. As you say, the Source engine really isn't very demanding so the lack of performance is somewhat surprising.

[LaP]

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. 

 

Honestly i think i had a Radeon 7000 and a Duron 1000 when i bought Half Life 2 ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R100#RV100

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Duron_microprocessors

 

It did not run great but it did run on it ...

[1337ish]

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. 

 

Have you lost the plot??? Remember CoD and BF4 had framerate issues on launch until patches came out, in fact its pretty common for framerate patches later on.

[Lord Method Man]

Have you lost the plot??? Remember CoD and BF4 had framerate issues on launch until patches came out, in fact its pretty common for framerate patches later on.

 

Yes of course, perish the thought that they would actually finish the game prior to release.

[McKay]

Yes of course, perish the thought that they would actually finish the game prior to release.

 

That idea died in 2005.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Have you lost the plot??? Remember CoD and BF4 had framerate issues on launch until patches came out, in fact its pretty common for framerate patches later on.

I was referring to a console game being released at one resolution and being patched to another. The developers are talking about getting it up to 960p or 1080p, which would mean doubling the resolution in a patch. That suggests to me the game was seriously rushed.

[trooper11]

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!

 

You made it sound like some new revelation.  This very thread contains the images of MGS5 that clearly show the differences, so having more screenshots doesn't change that fact.  I mean maybe if you wanted to start an MGS5 thread to contain all the screenshots that is one thing, but I just thought the first set of screenshots were pretty conclusive.

 

But hey, its not my thread, so post all the screenshots you want.

 

 

 

Sounds like when my kids are all Jello because they don't have the best of the best.. so they come up with lame excuses as to why it's not really that great.  

To some.. higher res, higher graphics trump playing on outdated, lower end, less graphically powered devices.  

 

Yeah, people just need to accept reality and stop working so hard to make excuses about an inferior option overall. Again, like jealous kids.

 

 

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. 

 

 

It just offers more reason to think the X1 is very very weak.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It just offers more reason to think the X1 is very very weak.

The thing is, most developers don't go to that sort of effort after launch because publishers aren't willing to fund it. It could be that EA believes it will get more sales by patching the game but it's rather out of character for the company; there is also the possibility that Microsoft is behind it, providing funding and developers to optimise the game. Microsoft has a lot more to gain by improving Titanfall on the XB1 than EA does, as right now it stands as a testament to the XB1's poor performance. Either that or EA knew the game was a mess at release and was under pressure not to delay it.

 

Whichever way you look at it Titanfall was released in a poor state.

[XorpiZ]

 

It just offers more reason to think the X1 is very very weak.

 

No, it doesn't. There's much more than resolution and frame-rate, when it comes to graphics.

 

I get why some people desperately want to discuss resolution and frame-rate, but neither defines particularely well how a game looks. I'm quite sure that Crysis 3 (or whatever game is setting the standard these days) looks better in 720p, than Mario Party does in 1080p.

 

If the devs behind Titanfall wanted 1080p/60 they could've easily achieved it. It's just a matter of cutting the right corners. It seems like people are unaware of this, which honestly surprises me, considering the technical nature of Neowin.

 

Now, there's no doubting that the PS4 is stronger than the XB1. It's also most likely easier to develop for, since the whole ESRAM-thing on the XB1 is harder to utilize. But focusing solely on resolution/framerate as a means of judging the graphical fidelity of a game is wrong in so many ways.

[theyarecomingforyou]

No, it doesn't. There's much more than resolution and frame-rate, when it comes to graphics.

 

I get why some people desperately want to discuss resolution and frame-rate, but neither defines particularely well how a game looks. I'm quite sure that Crysis 3 (or whatever game is setting the standard these days) looks better in 720p, than Mario Party does in 1080p.

Of course, but Titanfall is widely regarded as being an average looking game - it was never going to be a looker. Therefore to only run at 792p and struggle to maintain 60fps is very disappointing. When taken with all the other games struggling to hit 1080p @ 60fps on the XB1 it forms a pattern.

 

Watch_Dogs will only run at 30fps (sub 1080p), The Witcher 3 will only run at 30fps (sub 1080p), Assassin's Creed 4 was 30fps (sub 1080p) and Ryse was 30fps (sub 1080p). I think it's pretty clear that the XB1 is underpowered.

[George P Global Moderator]

Or maybe the rush to release with unfinished SDK/software and little time to better use the hardware means the games aren't up to it yet?   If power was the lone factor in all this then NO GAMES would hit 1080p@60fps, yet we all know full well that they are.    In many cases where these multiplatform games also have a 360 version I'm betting that the developers just did a small port since coding between the 360 and XB1 is similar even though one is x86 and the other is PPC, CPU aside we're talking the same DX API that sits between the two.

 

I see them have very little optimizations in place, and little time to do any, specially if you want to go on and on about how "complex" managing the esram can be.   Which will change with updated SDK tools to take care of the heavy lifting really,   Everyone should remember that this is a business, cost and time factor into things and even more so for something that's multiplatform.   Ryse developers already said, a few times, that they could've chosen to make the game 1080p and 60fps, though 3rd person games play just fine at sub 60fps rates regardless, but they didn't want to.  They felt 900p with added effects in other areas made for a better game, and gameplay aside the game looks great for something that's not 1080p, but lets not let that get in the way of things, it's all about the raw numbers and not how something looks on screen in the end.

 

Those comparison MGS5 screenshots are a let down, on both systems, nothing as good as I expected after that E3 demo, I hope the final game does a better job of things.

[XorpiZ]

Of course, but Titanfall is widely regarded as being an average looking game - it was never going to be a looker. Therefore to only run at 792p and struggle to maintain 60fps is very disappointing. When taken with all the other games struggling to hit 1080p @ 60fps on the XB1 it forms a pattern.

 

Watch_Dogs will only run at 30fps (sub 1080p), The Witcher 3 will only run at 30fps (sub 1080p), Assassin's Creed 4 was 30fps (sub 1080p) and Ryse was 30fps (sub 1080p). I think it's pretty clear that the XB1 is underpowered.

 

I never claimed otherwise. You should read my post again, instead of jumping to conclusions, as you did as few pages back.

 

edit:

The XB1 isn't underpowered, but less powerful than the PS4. There's a huge difference.

[XorpiZ]

 Ryse developers already said, a few times, that they could've chosen to make the game 1080p and 60fps, though 3rd person games play just fine at sub 60fps rates regardless, but they didn't want to.  They felt 900p with added effects in other areas made for a better game, and gameplay aside the game looks great for something that's not 1080p, but lets not let that get in the way of things, it's all about the raw numbers and not how something looks on screen in the end.

 

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. For some reason, it seems like a game in 1080p/60 is by definition better looking than a game in 900p/60, no matter what. It's sorta like saying that a car with 1000 BHP is always faster than a car with 900BHP.

[Dane]

I never claimed otherwise. You should read my post again, instead of jumping to conclusions, as you did as few pages back.

edit:

The XB1 isn't underpowered, but less powerful than the PS4. There's a huge difference.

I think the xbox one is under powered. The last play station I've owned was a PS2. I've been a microsoft fan buy since. Microsoft really blew it this time. X1 was marketed as "next gen". It can't even compete with the PS4.

I had my pre order the day I could. Then cancelled it. It's not worth it.

For anyone that says it can.

Show me three exact games that run 1080/60 on both.

Games that are coming out later are 1080 on PS4. But good old X1, nope! Might as well buy them for the 360. what's the point of paying for a system that practically only does old gen stuff? They dropped the ball.

[XorpiZ]

I think the xbox one is under powered. The last play station I've owned was a PS2. I've been a microsoft fan buy since. 

Show me three exact games that run 1080/60 on both.

Games that are coming out later are 1080 on PS4. But good old X1, nope! Might as well buy them for the 360. what's the point of paying for a system that practically only does old gen stuff? They dropped the ball.

 

You're confusing resolution with fidelity. 

 

Forza 5, NBA and Wolfenstein (just 3 examples) are all running 1080p/60.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Or maybe the rush to release with unfinished SDK/software and little time to better use the hardware means the games aren't up to it yet?   If power was the lone factor in all this then NO GAMES would hit 1080p@60fps, yet we all know full well that they are.

Most of the games hitting 1080p @ 60fps aren't very demanding - racing games, sports games, etc. One one first-person shooter has been confirmed as 1080p @ 60fps on XB1 and that's Wolfenstein: The New Order, which is based on a very dated engine - if it's the same as RAGE then it doesn't even have dynamic lighting, with all shadows being pre-baked onto the textures. Even the PS3 was able to hit 1080p @ 60fps with Wipeout 3.

 

Ryse developers already said, a few times, that they could've chosen to make the game 1080p and 60fps, though 3rd person games play just fine at sub 60fps rates regardless, but they didn't want to.  They felt 900p with added effects in other areas made for a better game, and gameplay aside the game looks great for something that's not 1080p, but lets not let that get in the way of things, it's all about the raw numbers and not how something looks on screen in the end.

Ryse was 30fps and sub 1080p, so there's no way they could have got to 1080p @ 60fps without gutting the visuals. It's one thing to choose 30fps over 60fps in order to improve the visual fidelity but developers shouldn't have to also drop the resolution.

 

The XB1 isn't underpowered, but less powerful than the PS4. There's a huge difference.

I disagree. The XB1 isn't even hitting 1080p for games running at 30fps, so that speaks to a lack of performance. We've even seen XB1 exclusives running at 720p @ 30fps, which there simply is no excuse for.

[XorpiZ]

I disagree. The XB1 isn't even hitting 1080p for games running at 30fps, so that speaks to a lack of performance. We've even seen XB1 exclusives running at 720p @ 30fps, which there simply is no excuse for.

 

I'm wondering why you aren't reading what is being written to you. Resolution has next to nothing to do with how a game looks. I'd like to repeat it for you, if you so wish.

[Dane]

You're confusing resolution with fidelity. 

 

Forza 5, NBA and Wolfenstein (just 3 examples) are all running 1080p/60.

Forza 5 is only xbox one.   

 

There is a whole list on the first page or two that has a list of games compared,  ps4 out numbers 1080/60 then what the xbone one offers.

[XorpiZ]

There is a whole list on the first page or two that has a list of games compared,  ps4 out numbers 1080/60 then what the xbone one offers.

 

So? That doesn't really make your post less incorrect. XB1 is fully capable of doing 1080p/60. Claiming otherwise is bordering on ignorance.

[nitroxhotshot]

Well consoles in the past have still succeed even if they weren't the most powerful. It depends on things like price, the amount of difference, and hard to quantify things like popularity of games. Sometime a unique feature set can do it as well.

 

As far as if the X1 will end up close enough to the ps4, who knows. Some here would say its already over.

 

I think the key thing to point out here, is that the PS3 hardware was superior to the Xbox 360, however the PS3 hardware was using an custom architecture that was too hard to program for, causing all sorts of problems for devs.

 

The PS4 and XBone are both using PC architectures meaning that it's easier to program for both, and the hardware now becomes relevant.  So this generation will be slightly different to last, but time will tell - but this is why you are seeing higher res games on the PS4.

I'm wondering why you aren't reading what is being written to you. Resolution has next to nothing to do with how a game looks. I'd like to repeat it for you, if you so wish.

 

Resolution does play a fact on how a game looks - why you think all the PC gamers love maxing out the res and settings?  The higher the res, the more zoomed out it is, meaning more polygons & pixels on screen!

[McKay]

I think the key thing to point out here, is that the PS3 hardware was superior to the Xbox 360, however the PS3 hardware was using an custom architecture that was too hard to program for, causing all sorts of problems for devs.

 

It was a mixed bag last gen. The cpu in the ps3 was better than the 360, but the GPU was weaker.

[XorpiZ]

Resolution does play a fact on how a game looks - why you think all the PC gamers love maxing out the res and settings?  The higher the res, the more zoomed out it is, meaning more polygons & pixels on screen!

 

The key word here is "settings". Not resolution.

 

A game can look much better in 900p than in 1080p, depending on the settings. Using resolution to define how a game looks is wrong. The sooner people learn that, the better.

[nitroxhotshot]

The key word here is "settings". Not resolution.

 

A game can look much better in 900p than in 1080p, depending on the settings. Using resolution to define how a game looks is wrong. The sooner people learn that, the better.

 

I always put my PC games up to the highest res that the game and my pc can handle - it depends what monitor your playing on - but for 32, 42 inch TV's etc then 1080p is a much better res for the games - there is no denying that on a console a 1080p output is the optimal resolution on a HD TV.