You are assuming more pixels means "better looking". That's not the case with BF4 (haven't seen a good side by side yet for CoD). Link to DF's CoD side by side?
Face Off Preview : NFS Rivals ( One & PS4)
- Thread starter Variance
- Start date
- Status
You are assuming more pixels means "better looking". That's not the case with BF4 (haven't seen a good side by side yet for CoD). Link to DF's CoD side by side?
Under the right conditions, most people can see the difference between 900p and 1080p in motion. According to sales and metrics so far, there are quite a few people interested in price/performance, no matter how many times you run in circles denying it.
More irrelevant Leadbetter "balance/efficiency" talk. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean it looks better, but that GPU gap can be put towards framerate or other effects if desired. And don't forget GPGPU.
PS4 multiplats are not "yielding a blurrier image with more pixels". You're literally making things up trying to imply your subjective impressions must mean there's some kind of technical advantage.
You said: "According to you we should be seeing 50% visual advantage...we don't." You're literally accusing me of saying what you just said in your previous post. I've never "promised dramatically improved visuals". Even more false accusations and name calling.
All display panes do is resize an image on the screen or place images next to or on top of each other, and RAM latency has little to no effect on game performance. Display panes "massaging" the IQ? You must be joking, or crazy.
You seem to have serious problems with reality. Your typing is increasingly incoherent, illogical, nasty, and full of baseless accusations. You're wrong on popularity metrics, specs, whether most people can tell a difference, and "blurrier images". Pretty much your entire post has no bearing on tech reality or what most people interested in gaming consoles perceive, think, or value.
Last edited:
Technical graphics isn't the same thing as visuals. BF4, for instance, has clearer art assets on X1 despite lower resolution. If a game looks cleaner, clearer, and sharper at lower res, that's an advantage for visuals over the alternative. I play games, not the cases they came in.
Only if one of said conditions is that all else is held exactly the same and ppl view their large screen HDTV's from a couple feet away and just so happen to have an identical setup side by side with the PS4 version playing the exact same scene in lock step. "Under the right conditions..."
Price per flop has nothing to do with discerning how the two versions compare visually. You are just inserting unrelated bulls*** to invent sticking points where you can't muster up anything to counter what I posted. This thread has nothing to do with sales or price. It's about X1 vs PS4's version of NFS (and about addressing the claims you've made on tangential topics, like how "most" multiplat games look dramatically better on PS4 supposedly).
That was MS's engineers, not Leadbetter. So yes, do tell us all how you know more about the X1 hardware than they do. You can tell them how SHAPE was designed primarily for Kinect since evidently they are wholly unaware of your wisdom on the matter. derp.
It could if it weren't for the fact that the X1 has a much better scaler setup in its display plane tech. PS4 has no such flexibility like the pair of display planes does on X1. Hence, it eats up GPU cycles to do things like dynamic res scaling or adjusting color depth and contrast per pixel on the fly whereas its completely 100% free on X1 (as far as GPU is concerned). If DICE could have added this purpoted "sharpening effect" to make the PS4 version look as clear as the lower res X1 version, they would have. Oh wait, no..I forgot they are all
BF4 did.
I said the differences were minimal and represent basically versions at parity. You then claimed that was a rare exception and that nearly all other games were showing very large differences. They aren't.
Not even remotely close. Stop showing how ignorant you are of the X1 hardware. It's very unbecoming. Maybe try drip feeding your ignorant FUD over the course of a few weeks. Much more palatable that way.
Yup, you sure are clueless. Wow.
Or I actually read the patent, MSR's related research paper, dev docs, and DF interview on the topic before replying. So there's that.
We won't know until XB1 version is out, but many people that saw the game in action on both consoles felt that it looked and ran better on PS4.
Based on those 2 high res video files that were large downloads, I thought it looked better on PS4 as well.
Those ppl at the event weren't looking at side by sides in person. They were spending hrs with one version, then much later in the day playing the other version totally remote from the initial experience. With being told about res differences it doesn't surprise me one bit ppl would be predisposed to that opinion under those conditions. It's likely more confirmation bias than anything else. That's the point of high quality DF screencaps after all. I felt the vids favored X1 notably, even with HBAO off and crushed blacks.
And I and many others thought the vids favored PS4. It's not a "fact" that the XB1 nor PS4 looked better, what we do know, is that people have differing opinions on which looked better based on the vids....and we have early recounts from gamers that also felt PS4 looked better.
Because it ties into the larger debate surrounding claims about X1 being "weak" and PS4 being "god-like" while in reality both are pretty on par in terms of what they display on screen (in games at least). We were told even launch games would show dramatically better visuals on PS4, with vastly better framerates, vastly better IQ, much more visual fx...some even claiming larger worlds with much better textures, physics, and lighting. We were told 50% better looking games. We see none of these things. Looking at exclusives, RYSE looks every inch the graphical showcase as KZ, if not moreso.
Now Sony fanboys have backpedaled and are championing minutia as being a truly demonstrative difference on par with what the hordes had claimed. The fact ppl can subjectively favor the X1 version at all in these games is rather telling. It should have been no contest. Now we hear the lazy devs argument coming out of the wood works.
Any tiny, remote difference that is only viewable under the most extreme and unlikely conditions somehow represents the true nature of how these consoles compare, representative of typical experiences in general...so long as it favors PS4. Any suggestions of absolutely ANY advantages for the X1 version are met with conspiracy theories about money hatz, 'lazy dev' arguments or other disingenuous nonsense. The prospect that both versions might have their own advantages and still both be on par overall doesn't fit with the claims made since January, hence it is an unacceptable compromise with reality.
Nobody said "lazy devs", "godlike" or "dramatically improved" on this thread or even forum in relation to PS4/XB1 hardware. You're like a madman with a flamethrower in a field of strawmen. The poster claiming ESRAM latency and display pane massages will make Xbox on par or better than PS4 performance is using the phrase "championing minutia". My irony meter just exploded.
You don't need minutia to explain why PS4 has greater performance. ~50% more TF, 16 more ROPs, unified memory, and GPGPU customizations. All well documented, officially verified, and being put to use in games right now.
Reliable footage is coming out and people on this forum are clearly able to tell the difference. You can only hang on to botched pre-launch comparisons, pre-patched games running at lower res than intended, and sharpness/contrast filters for so long. Chipworks is going to make some of you very disappointed.
Disclaimer: Buy the system with the games you like.
You don't need minutia to explain why PS4 has greater performance. ~50% more TF, 16 more ROPs, unified memory, and GPGPU customizations. All well documented, officially verified, and being put to use in games right now.
Reliable footage is coming out and people on this forum are clearly able to tell the difference. You can only hang on to botched pre-launch comparisons, pre-patched games running at lower res than intended, and sharpness/contrast filters for so long. Chipworks is going to make some of you very disappointed.
Disclaimer: Buy the system with the games you like.
Last edited:
The bold has been a feature of AMD cards' scaler block since it was introduced with the 6000 series and costs nothing.
Quite a few hardware features are shared between PS4 and XB1 since they're based on the same AMD GCN architecture, yeah.
I saw a distinct difference in these two pics: X1 looks a little gritty and muddy, not as clear 
Could be the screen shot though. Looks like PS4 shot was focusing purely on the car, as you can see the blurred background. Then X1 looks like non-focused shot.
Could be the screen shot though. Looks like PS4 shot was focusing purely on the car, as you can see the blurred background. Then X1 looks like non-focused shot.
By the way, this game looks really interesting and the reviews are positive. I've already got Forza on the way but may pick this up at some point.
Most rational people have been saying that both consoles would be more closer together in fidelity compared to PS3 and 360. I wouldn't put so much stock in what some rabid fanboys say....especially considering that nonsensensical comments have been coming from both sides.
It's a fun racing game. Making me wish Driveclub wasn't delayed.
The hardware diff between PS4 and XB1 is greater than the hardware diff between 360 and PS3. Although it's harder to compare PS3 and 360 because they're very different architectures, unlike PS4/XB1 which are very similar.
Most PS3/360 multiplats tended to be identical save for a small amount of resolution, maybe a bit better AA, vsync/triple buffering on or off, or a tiny bit extra framerate. This gen we'll be seeing larger differences than that in most multiplats.
Of course you can just call names and hand wave about "rational people" while ignoring all the evidence.
The hardware diff between PS4 and XB1 is greater than the hardware diff between 360 and PS3. Although it's harder to compare PS3 and 360 because they're very different architectures, unlike PS4/XB1 which are very similar.
Most PS3/360 multiplats tended to be identical save for a small amount of resolution, maybe a bit better AA, vsync/triple buffering on or off, or a tiny bit extra framerate. This gen we'll be seeing larger differences than that in most multiplats.
Of course you can just call names and hand wave about "rational people" while ignoring all the evidence.
Last edited:
Nowhere else to put this at the moment so..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis
Anandtech is one of the most respected tech sites on the net. He does a decent analysis of the PS4 and XB1 hardware. I'm not sure how useful his youtube footage is for comparisons, though.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis
Anandtech is one of the most respected tech sites on the net. He does a decent analysis of the PS4 and XB1 hardware. I'm not sure how useful his youtube footage is for comparisons, though.
The game looks like a slightly prettier current gen game. I rented it on PS4 and the jaggies and shimmering trees are disappointing. I can only imagine that it's worse on X1.
Yeah it doesn't look very next gen, more like a current gen up-port. Since the PC version is reportedly capped at 30 fps it's almost certainly engine or netcode related. It's just not designed to run higher than 30, not because "lazy devs".
Then why did you say that Battlefield 4 uses better art assets on Xbox One? That's a very clear contradiction.
- Status