Assassins creed unity 900p 30fps on xbox1 and ps4

[Mcmasters]

They made a console which was never designed to compete against the ps4. It's a multifunction box that sacrificed graphical prowress for guaranteed multitasking and things like "snapping".

Not supposed to compete with the 4? That. Makes. No. Sense.
Seriously. Think about your comment for a moment. Of course they built a machine to compete with the 4. And it's not sacrificing visual fidelity. Where do you get this stuff? Visual fidelity is excellent ON both consoles. The 4 has a slight edge in res and frames, sometimes. That's it....

I'm not going to continue this. Later...

 

[kb]

Not supposed to compete with the 4? That. Makes. No. Sense.
Seriously. Think about your comment for a moment. Of course they built a machine to compete with the 4. And it's not sacrificing visual fidelity. Where do you get this stuff? Visual fidelity is excellent ON both consoles. The 4 has a slight edge in res and frames, sometimes. That's it....

I'm not going to continue this. Later...

Well at least its not supposed to compete against a box that was designed first and fore most to be a games console, and secondly to be a media box.

Its clear from the decisions Microsoft made (DDR3, etc) that they wanted media features, multitasking and features such as 'snapping' to be a big deal on the XB1. It seems like the PS4 went the other direction, it was about games first and media second. Hence you can see the different decisions that were made by the companies (GDDR5 vs DDR3, etc).

This all lead to the entire eSRAM situation, which took up die space, and therefore CU's. This was a decision made years ago to guarantee the supply of 8GB of ram.

Visual fiedelity is great on both consoles, but one has a undeniable lead and comes out ontop for 99% of comparisons. That 'slight edge' you talk about is actually 40%, combined with games that usually have a higher average framerate (BF4, etc) and you can see which box is clearly more powerful. Anyone who wants to say the 'gap is closing' or the XB1 will 'catch up' is deluding themselves. It has nothing to do with 'dev tools, SDK's or DX12' and everything to do with the fact that both are mid range PC's, the XB1 just happens to be a low mid range.

 

[Viktor]

Another broken record thread. Somehow a weaker console will continue to close the gap while the more powerful one has just given up. k Who cares if the X1 isn't as powerful as the PS4. It will still have great games and experiences on it. Oh no my 10 year old engine Call of Duty's resolution is 100 pixels less than the PS4 version!!

 

[Frozpot]

actually, this "trumpeting" has more to do with this ridiculous thread. even though we are still in the first year, we are to believe that this console has been abruptly maxed out just because the XB1 gets ONE of very few other games performing on the same level as a PS4 game from a 3rd party, which happens to be at a very low performance level for some reason.

so my debate here is if XB1 is to last a full generation but gets maxed out in under a single year, how can a more capable console also performing on that scale be maxed out, also? you get people running with this information, yet neither console - especially the PS4, hasn't even been tamed yet, let alone on the same scale from a hardware standpoint facts earlier.

I never said the PS4 is maxed out. In fact, I said they will both improve. I also didn't dispute the 40% advantage. The only thing I'm saying is that 40 % doesn't amount to some massive difference that demands people bringing it up all the time.

And it's not just this one game (which is actually premature to say they will be the same just because the rez and framefrate are the same- I fully expect the PS4 to have some kind of edge). If we keep things recent, we can look to Destiny and Shadow of Mordor. Forza and Drive Club- although aside from DriveClub's lighting model, I find Forza Horizon more technically impressive (considering physics, open world, and its own pretty impressive lighting model).

Even Metro, which is 900 vs 1080. If that's where that 40% goes, then cool, but it's not a huge difference on screen.

I'm not dogging the PS4, just the notion that it's some great powerhouse that will leave the X1 in the dust at some point. What I DO know it's that this its not a new conversation, and I am done with it. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Mcmasters]

Another broken record thread. Somehow a weaker console will continue to close the gap while the more powerful one has just given up. k Who cares if the X1 isn't as powerful as the PS4. It will still have great games and experiences on it. Oh no my 10 year old engine Call of Duty's resolution is 100 pixels less than the PS4 version!!

I actually agree kind of agree with you there Vik. I don't know if the gap will fully close, and I can accept that the four has a slight graphical edge, but for someone to tout the One will somehow become stagnant in performance and visual fidelity is just a ridiculous idea. I can't get behind that.

Like I've said before, I can live without 100 more pixels or 30 frames more per second because there's a lot more important things my system has that more then makes up for it.

 

[aliengoat]

cmon we havent yet seen what the X1 is capable of yet, when halo 5 comes out than we can talk about its true powers.

 

[Dno69]

Another broken record thread. Somehow a weaker console w
ill continue to close the gap while the more powerful one has just given up. k Who cares if the X1 isn't as powerful as the PS4. It will still have great games and experiences on it. Oh no my 10 year old engine Call of Duty's resolution is 100 pixels less than the PS4 version!!

No one on the Xbox side is saying that.

Yet Shawn is saying that X1 is maxed out after its first year. But no one calls him out.

 

[DriedMangoes]

No one on the Xbox side is saying that.

Yet Shawn is saying that X1 is maxed out after its first year. But no one calls him out.

If I'm understanding correctly, I think he means eventually the X1 will reach its peak sooner than PS4 will because it has a "bigger" glass to work with (better hardware) but I think the analogy doesn't tell us the whole story because X1 has the Cloud and I'm not sure how that would integrate games just yet.

 

[starseeker]

MS have stopped talking about the cloud for a long time...

Just saying. If cloud is as good as some people think, MS certainly not let people know....

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

MS have stopped talking about the cloud for a long time...

Just saying. If cloud is as good as some people think, MS certainly not let people know....

MS can talk about the cloud until the cows come home, people will continue to be sceptical until they're playing a cloud powered game in front of them.
They have demonstrated what the cloud can do months ago when they showed the building getting blasted to pieces whilst the PC that wasn't cloud enabled came to a stand still, very impressive but it didn't make any waves with the naysayers.
Also the cloud powered drivatars in Forza 5/ Horizon 2 are a great demonstration of how the Cloud can improve a gaming experience.
Who knows what the cloud will bring to the X1/PC but it's going to be a long gen and I'm optimistic it will play a crucial role in game development in the coming years. I certainly wouldn't bet against MS bringing something special to the table though.

 

[starseeker]

Which is why MS need to make a proper game that use cloud that is game changing.

The reception of the demo was cold because it wasn't on actual X1 hardware. People were speculating it will be shown in E3, but it never came, & MS had stopped talking about the clouds since.

You can't expect people to be excited about something when there is no new info on it.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

I never said the PS4 is maxed out. In fact, I said they will both improve. I also didn't dispute the 40% advantage. The only thing I'm saying is that 40 % doesn't amount to some massive difference that demands people bringing it up all the time.

And it's not just this one game (which is actually premature to say they will be the same just because the rez and framefrate are the same- I fully expect the PS4 to have some kind of edge). If we keep things recent, we can look to Destiny and Shadow of Mordor. Forza and Drive Club- although aside from DriveClub's lighting model, I find Forza Horizon more technically impressive (considering physics, open world, and its own pretty impressive lighting model).

Even Metro, which is 900 vs 1080. If that's where that 40% goes, then cool, but it's not a huge difference on screen.

I'm not dogging the PS4, just the notion that it's some great powerhouse that will leave the X1 in the dust at some point. What I DO know it's that this its not a new conversation, and I am done with it. Thank you for the discussion.

I was directing that last post at the thread in particular, not you. I was simply elaborating where the "trumpeting" had originated. the thread is ridiculous and thus entertained the fact that ONE game out of very, very few others from an enormous library meant that XB1 was some how performing equally on the PS4's level even though we clearly know by every other game that this wasn't true. it basically led to the fact that either the PS4 had already been maxed out in under a year or it's aledged advantage was so small that it was simply nonexistent based on a one 3rd party spin.

I guess my point is if the PS4 (a more capable console) is maxed out already, then that must also mean that the XB1 is most certainly maxed out then since it is a much weaker platform. but, how is this even possible if the XB1 is to last a few more years UNLESS it managed to get AHEAD of the more capable console? I mean, it would have to in order to continue pumping out better looking games throughout the rest of this generation, right?

do you see where I am going with this? this thread is ridiculous, and the sources earlier only confirms the ignorance.

moreover, the 40% comes from the actual GPU to GPU comparison rather than total, potential performance of the platform itself and nothing more, but that's another tale. the GPGPU might as well be a CPU but more generalised. in other words, you don't have to use it towards res, FPS or even graphics; third party has only chosen to use it this way as their games are scattered across multiple platforms and thus a game play standard must be held. first and second party don't adhere to these rules, and so this is where you'll see the difference in game play mechanics. refer back to post 305 for clarification.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

If I'm understanding correctly, I think he means eventually the X1 will reach its peak sooner than PS4 will because it has a "bigger" glass to work with (better hardware) but I think the analogy doesn't tell us the whole story because X1 has the Cloud and I'm not sure how that would integrate games just yet.

I think for cloud to be standard across games, so must your connection. for example, if your catalogue consist of a thousand games, every single one of those games must be connected to the cloud. that's a lot of servers and traffic constantly running. if cloud is offline, the performance of the game falls off drastically, which is why I can't see this compensating for the lack of hardware performance in the XB1 this generation. the connection is not robust enough right now nor is it standard. online may benefit from it a little, but that's as far as i see it going this gen.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

....It has nothing to do with 'dev tools, SDK's or DX12' and everything to do with the fact that both are mid range PC's, the XB1 just happens to be a low mid range.

Actually you are right to a point.
Dev tools, improved SDK's do contribute. They will not 'close the gap' in a pure theoretical hardware sense but they will assist developers in exploiting the system to reach similar results.
Anybody saying that those tools will not make a difference or a negligible one is naive. Nobody here develops for both the Xb1 and/or PS4 so we really can't call it like that.
To me the only real deciding factor on this entire issue will be the first party developers and how they leverage the power from each console. Sony has the undeniable hardware advantage and with that said I'm eager to see what their 1st party studios can accomplish. The Xb1 is the weaker system and my interest is no less peaked by how devs like 343 industries are going to make the console shine considering the hardware deficiency.

 

[CasualGamer]

The One is like a Corolla and the ps4 is a riced out Civic with a spoiler, K&N filter and big exhaust tip, still an economy car but just a little quicker. The pc is the v8 Camaro/Mustang sitting by laughing at both

 

[Mcmasters]

Why talk about it anymore? They've done that. They've shown examples of it spoke ad nauseum on the topic. Now it's showtime. Be patient.

 

[Mcmasters]

Actually you are right to a point.
Dev tools, improved SDK's do contribute. They will not 'close the gap' in a pure theoretical hardware sense but they will assist developers in exploiting the system to reach similar results.
Anybody saying that those tools will not make a difference or a negligible one is naive. Nobody here develops for both the Xb1 and/or PS4 so we really can't call it like that.
To me the only real deciding factor on this entire issue will be the first party developers and how they leverage the power from each console. Sony has the undeniable hardware advantage and with that said I'm eager to see what their 1st party studios can accomplish. The Xb1 is the weaker system and my interest is no less peaked by how devs like 343 industries are going to make the console shine considering the hardware deficiency.

Well, most seem to be speaking on what we've heard about the One's hardware. But there has to be things we just don't know about it. Otherwise, what else could explain what we've seen thus far? And we'll certainly see things improve as things move forward. But as it stands, I can see the One keeping up very well throughout this gen concerning visual fidelity. The res and frames may continue to be the same though. But I'm more then convinced it's very capable and will do more than fine in the years.

Plus I just prefer the games, controller and live. Not to mention it's where my friends play.

 

[Flynn]

if that isn't a significant feat for a PlayStation platform, then you tell me what is?

I'll tell you a far more significant feat...

Releasing hardware a year before a competitor, and when the competitor finally launches their hardware is more expensive, and less performant ... To the tune of Madden only running at HALF the frame rate.

That's a feat.

 

[Viktor]

Another feat is that console catching up in sales with year less on the market.

 

[Dno69]

If I'm understanding correctly, I think he means eventually the X1 will reach its peak sooner than PS4 will because it has a "bigger" glass to work with (better hardware) but I think the analogy doesn't tell us the whole story because X1 has the Cloud and I'm not sure how that would integrate games just yet.

Yup you're right. I totally misread Shawns post. or didn't read it all the way through.

 

[Flynn]

if you mean NOW, then no. it is, however, inevitable that the actual hardware will reach a point where it will cease to perform on a level to which it was never designed to. it is THIS POINT where the more capable system will continue to advance. that's not hype, its logic regardless to how you choose to take it.

That's not true at all.

Last Gen, the 360 was the superior system, but a drive to improve visuals and work through the hardware deficiencies of the PS3 led to gorgeous games, and a SMALLER gap. The generation started with 360 doubling PS3's performance (Madden, 60fps on 360, 30fps on PS3).

The systems are so close this Gen, we wont see the kind of behavior you're talking about.

 

[Flynn]

Another feat is that console catching up in sales with year less on the market.

A MUCH larger feat is pushing the distant number one console leader to last place, and tying them for a generation of sales.

 

[Flynn]

Not supposed to compete with the 4? That. Makes. No. Sense.
Seriously. Think about your comment for a moment. Of course they built a machine to compete with the 4. And it's not sacrificing visual fidelity. Where do you get this stuff? Visual fidelity is excellent ON both consoles. The 4 has a slight edge in res and frames, sometimes. That's it....

I'm not going to continue this. Later...

Yeah, he's obviously factually incorrect. Obviously the 1 was built to compete with the 4... It was just also built to be more, and that shows. The way I use my One in the living room just trumps anything PS4 could ever do. It's not built to compete on that level, so it never will be able to.

But the reverse is simply not true. X1 (as a game console) easily stacks up against PS4, and actually vastly outperforms it in terms of services, agile improvements, and AAA games library. PS4 just hasn't been able to keep up there.

 

[starseeker]

Its nice to talk about the past. In the past, I had flat belly, can do 100 push ups &........

in the past....

 

[Ketto]

lol.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

That's not true at all.

Last Gen, the 360 was the superior system, but a drive to improve visuals and work through the hardware deficiencies of the PS3 led to gorgeous games, and a SMALLER gap. The generation started with 360 doubling PS3's performance (Madden, 60fps on 360, 30fps on PS3).

The systems are so close this Gen, we wont see the kind of behavior you're talking about.

flynn!

you do know I haven't forgotten about our little bet, right ?

regarding last gen. the 360 was not the more capable system per se. sure, it's GPU was more capable than the PS3 just like it's CPU is more capable than the PS4, but what you obviously overlooked was the capability of the second processor (Cell). unlike the CPU in the 360, Cell was sort of a general purpose processor in a sense. it acted as more of an assistant for the GPU/RSX. basically put, it did tasks that you would normally use the GPU for. because of the alien type hardware, it was difficult to tame, not to mention it's separate pools of memory. hence the edge you saw throughout the console's life cycle from 3rd party.

the GPGPU in the PS4 kinda works the same. it is acting as the Cell.

 

[kb]

But the reverse is simply not true. X1 (as a game console) easily stacks up against PS4, and actually vastly outperforms it in terms of services, agile improvements, and AAA games library. PS4 just hasn't been able to keep up there.

Holy crap man, buzz words overload, do you work in marketing for Microsoft or something because you just said mostly nothing in a whole lot of words.

The majority of AAA games at this point are going to be multi plat and we already know that pretty much all multi platform games run and look better on the ps4, logically we can therefore say that they are better on the ps4 (if we associate graphics with goodness). So I really don't know why you think they are better on the xb1 (it's your choice).

Don't faslely think this gen and last gen are equivalent whilst you have made it clear in the past you are not s technical person at least try and understand. Last gens power difference was mainly rectified by using the cell to preprocess data for the gpu, the xb1 has no such luxury.

Purely from a technical stand point the xb1 cannot compete and never will be able to. Hell from a paper at gdc recently testing on gpgpu showed that the ps4 was leading (in artificial tests) via a wider margin then the pure paper specs.

You didn't mention anything that wasn't either subjective or wrong, then again I'm used to that from you by now.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

A MUCH larger feat is pushing the distant number one console leader to last place, and tying them for a generation of sales.

1. $200 more expensive in a declining economy

2. difficult to code for

3. a full year late to the race and 1 1/2 in others leading to an 8mill gap

4. marketing was minimal and even vague from a consumers' pov

despite all of this, they managed to catch their closest competitor and push them into last place, and they are still in last place today. MS were given a huge pot, and they loss every penny. i'm sorry, but to let a competitor come back from a beating like that and take you completely out of the game only shows who the novice really is.

 

[Dno69]

so far it seems like multiplatform games are behind the curve in terms of visuals compared to the exclusives.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

I'll tell you a far more significant feat...

Releasing hardware a year before a competitor, and when the competitor finally launches their hardware is more expensive, and less performant ... To the tune of Madden only running at HALF the frame rate.

That's a feat.

I find this amusing. so because Sony went with a complex architecture it meant that it was feeble or that 3rd party wasn't willing to spend the money to tame it to another platform with a larger user base and a simpler design?

i'll say this, and you can take it how you want:

although the 360 had great looking games, albeit not as great as their closest competitor's 1st party, the environments were completely dead when compared to the PS3. so all that complexity you're downplaying of the system has lead to some complex games when the hardware was taken advantage of.