NFS Xbox One VS PS4 comparison video

[Flynn]

It literally takes double the performance to run something at 1080P vs 720P, all else being equal. I would call double the resolution more than "somewhat meaningful." Also from reports the frame rate is also worse on the 720P X1 version.

No, the reports are conssiten - the PS4 version ahs worse perf. How much worse is the only thing in question.

BTW with BF4 not only is it running 56% higher resolution on PS4 but also at a consistently higher frame rate (according to DF, 2-4fps during cut scenes and "well above that" during gameplay). Is that a meaningful performance gap to you? Curious.

No. After watching the two in all the videos I've seen, and in the pic comparisons - the difference between BF4 on X1 and PS4 is not meaningful. The X1 version's color vibrancy and sharper textures is more noticable to the layman than the more pronounced aliasing is due to X1's lower reoslution... so any time a layman can look at both and not tell the difference, or actually arguably prefer the suposed inferior version, yeah, that's not meaningful. Not at all.

How do you get "par for the course" when so far this game looks like the exception? DF has not done an analysis on this yet but let's just assume NFS is equal. So we have three multiplatform games that have been compared, only one of which is equal so far. That would mean this title would be the exception by definition.

We just disagree. See, you're looking at the numbers and seeing a clear vioctory for the PS4. I'm looking at the actual gameplay footage, and there just isn't a meaningful edge - not on ANY of the titles which have been compared.

Therefore, I'm not only perfectly rational to say this is par for the course, but I'm correct in saying so.

Next up is Assassin's Creed. All of the same insiders who got the BF4 and COD delta right are saying that the X1 version also looks worse and runs less than 1080P, and given that Ubi Soft continues to only show off the PS4 version I'm guessing Ubi Soft is the next "lazy dev."

If the delta is what we've seen so far between COD and BF4, it's negligable, and not meaningful at all.

BTW I'm curious about what you think of the latest Forza shots that MS has released. Beyond3D analysis shows that the gameplay is actually 720P but the UI is 1080P. Is that technically a 1080P game?

I haven't seen or heard of this being true, but if the game renders to a 720p back buffer, then obviously that's not a 1080p native title. When I've played Forza 5, it looked like native 1080p to me, but admitedly I didn't do any thorough analysis, and I haven't asked anyone in Turn 10 whether or not it is, but with all the things we've said about it being native 1080p, I'd think that would be disingenuous and misleading if it is in fact rendering native 720p for the primary rendering and rendering 1080p only for the UI.

...but this is exactly the point. When a game has true 1080p UI, and a nicely rendered 720p image with anti-aliasing, etc. and it's upscaled super well to 1080p - then the lines between 720p and 1080p begin to soften... and at that point, if you can't tell with your naked eye, does it matter? Of course not... and that's the advantage of having multiple planes to render to which have their own unique hardware scalers associated with each.

 

[Flynn]

Taking the exception (this game running 1080p 30 on both) and claiming it's the rule, against the other evidence (most other games running at lower res and framerate) is rather unreasonable.

"The rule" in this case is simply that the games look virtually identical, and any differences aren't meaningful.

That most certainly is par for the course, even if the numbers would imply otherwise.

I actually think it's quite unreasonable to hear people making sweeping claims that PS4 games (or X1 games for that matter) look meaningfully better or worse. They're outputting final image quality that's indiscernable to the layman, and in some cases even imperceptable by industry vets.

 

[consolewarz]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-now-battlefield-4

Watch both 2gb files. It's a lot different seeing the games in motion than peeping at still shots. It's very easy to tell the difference, "virtually indistinguishable" is ridiculous.

PS4 will have ~50% more hardware power for the entire gen. It's very reasonable to assume most games will take advantage of it. This game isn't one of them, though.

But it doesn't matter how much forum posters and "game reviewers" cover their ears and proclaim they can't tell the difference or that it's irrelevant, most consumers aren't listening.

 

[Qbert]

I've seen those vids, and yeah BF4 looks better in PS4.

 

[CasualGamer]

BTW I'm curious about what you think of the latest Forza shots that MS has released. Beyond3D analysis shows that the gameplay is actually 720P but the UI is 1080P. Is that technically a 1080P game?

Wth..smh if this is true

 

[Z A C K]

Shocker, I can't tell the difference.

 

[consolewarz]

BTW I'm curious about what you think of the latest Forza shots that MS has released. Beyond3D analysis shows that the gameplay is actually 720P but the UI is 1080P. Is that technically a 1080P game?

Seems really unlikely, honestly. If it was 720p it would have much higher IQ than it does.

 

[Viktor]

Polygon (referring to COD) - "hold a gun to my head, I'm not sure I could tell which one was sharper, but the frame rate was obviously better on X1" ....

Yep, par for the course.

Numbers aside, the end result is still virtually indiscernable, even with a large resolution gap (which will only shrink over time).

BF4 looks the same on both. COD looks the same (with clearly better perf on X1). NFS looks identical.

Yep, par for the course.

lol

 

[Flynn]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-now-battlefield-4

Watch both 2gb files. It's a lot different seeing the games in motion than peeping at still shots. It's very easy to tell the difference, "virtually indistinguishable" is ridiculous.

PS4 will have ~50% more hardware power for the entire gen. It's very reasonable to assume most games will take advantage of it. This game isn't one of them, though.

But it doesn't matter how much forum posters and "game reviewers" cover their ears and proclaim they can't tell the difference or that it's irrelevant, most consumers aren't listening.

You're right about this. The vast, vast majority of consumers don't give a rats ass about reviews, resolution, or nerdy online forums where people argue about trivial differences which don't matter to them.

As for how reasonable it is to assume that most games will take advantage of the extra horsepower, I'd say that's likely true - but the difference will still be negligable, just as it has been for every bit of media that's been released so far.

Par for the course, my friends... par for the course.

 

[sharkboy1200]

I don't know, X1 version looked fancier at times I guess but it's all a crap shoot because they both look awesome. It's like choosing between two crackers. Both have peanut butter spread on them, but one of them happen to have a little cracker crumb poured on top. Not the big stuff, the little particles that don't make a difference. That's what this is for anyone confused. Glad I could clear it up.

 

[Z A C K]

I don't know, X1 version looked fancier at times I guess but it's all a crap shoot because they both look awesome. It's like choosing between two crackers. Both have peanut butter spread on them, but one of them happen to have a little cracker crumb poured on top. Not the big stuff, the little particles that don't make a difference. That's what this is for anyone confused. Glad I could clear it up.

I choose this Kracker:

 

[Hissatsu]

EA capped Need For Speed: The run @ 30 fps on pc's. They only uncapped it months later in a patch. What possible reason could they have had to cap a pc game at 30 fps in the first place?

It's obvious they didn't try very hard in nfs rivals. I even watched a video a few days ago with one of the devs talking about the game and he said they wanted to make sure the current gen versions didn't get out done so they made everything the same across the board. It's obvious that the ps4 version should look better but it doesn't and it's damn sure not because the xb1 is equal in performance.



And why the hell does Most wanted look better on my pc than the run does.

 

[sharkboy1200]

I choose this Kracker:

Racist!

 

[CHROMExSKULL]

So I was tempted to get this game this week but held off, seems like it might be more frustrating then fun. For those of you that have had some more time with it now how is it?

 

[Oblong]

The game touts itself as an arcade racer but don't let that fool you into thinking it's easy. It can be a bit overwhelming at times and they don't really give you much in the way of training wheels to get going. I've found the cop side to be more enjoyable than the street racer. On the street racer side you can be doing parts of a mission then suddenly find yourself in a hot pursuit only to get busted and lose all your earnings...frustrating.

That said, the game is pure crack begging you to "let me try one more time". I rarely feel my losses are anything but a result of my own actions rather than some cheap AI. The learning curve for me has been a good 5-6 hours before I felt comfortable enough with my surroundings, objectives, and driving to become adept enough to win more easily. I hope the game doesn't ramp up too much as a move through the chapters as I've got my hands full just bronzing events. Not even going to think about gold.

I've owned quite a few titles in the NFS series - Most Wanted and Hot Pursuit shined, as does this one. Underground and The Run were trash to me if that helps you tell where I'm coming from.

 

[Hammerclaw]

Irritating as SonyNumberOneGuy can be, it's happened before. During the PS2 Xbox era a lot of games were capped so the much more capable Xbox's version didn't eclipse the PS2 copy of the game. No developer will jeopardize sales on one console by favoring the other with a significantly better version of a game.

 

[Intellivision]

You're right about this. The vast, vast majority of consumers don't give a rats ass about reviews, resolution, or nerdy online forums where people argue about trivial differences which don't matter to them.

Totally right.

The biggest and most popular franchise is Call of Duty. A game with decent (if unspectacular visuals) and a resolution of about 1,000 x 600 (possibly the lowest resolution in current gen gaming). Yet:

a. Nobody cared
b. Nobody even knew about this until a game site (probably DF?) did an analysis on it
c. After many gamers know the new info, they still don't care and still buy it

 

[Hammerclaw]

Totally right.

The biggest and most popular franchise is Call of Duty. A game with decent (if unspectacular visuals) and a resolution of about 1,000 x 600 (possibly the lowest resolution in current gen gaming). Yet:

a. Nobody cared
b. Nobody even knew about this until a game site (probably DF?) did an analysis on it
c. After many gamers know the new info, they still don't care and still buy it

Is true. Most gamers--including yours truly--play games on monitors that don't do full justice to 360/ps3 graphics, so judging games by what's in this thread ain't no nevermind to them.

 

[consolewarz]

Did it hurt someone's feelings to point out the obvious reality that NFS: Rivals performance was capped on PS4 and PC?

Last I checked gamers care about price/performance, especially when it comes to multiplatform games that run identical otherwise like CoD.

 

[Flynn]

Exactly.

pS4's graphical edge means nothing and buys Sony nothing for the vast, vast majority of gamers... Not to mention, the delta will only shrink over time.

What people will care about are the differences that actually do matter. Some people love voice commands and TV integration. That's a real, tangible difference. Some people prefer the controller on X1. That's a meaningful difference... And most of all, people care about what games are actually on each console... And X1 beats PS4 on games right now.

So yeah, I wouldn't want to trade places with Sony.

 

[kb]

So the fact that the xb1 drops far more frames and is at a consistently (sometimes upto 20fps) lower framerate doesn't matter now? I'm sure if it was the other way around Flynn would be acting like he is , I'm sure of it. I guess some people haven't gotten past the denial stage.

 

[Ketto]

So the fact that the xb1 drops far more frames and is at a consistently (sometimes upto 20fps) lower framerate doesn't matter now? I'm sure if it was the other way around Flynn would be acting like he is , I'm sure of it. I guess some people haven't gotten past the denial stage.

It's par for the course for fanboys of both platforms. Last generation these small differences were a huge deal to Xbox fanboys and weren't a big deal to PS fanboys. Now these differences are a huge deal to PS fanboys and not a big deal to Xbox fanboys. You can pretty much find at least 20 posts on TXB by some people at how much the difference is, and turn around and read that these differences don't matter.

Like I've been saying for a while now, PS/Xbox and their fanboys have switched places in almost every way from last generation.

 

[consolewarz]

Most PS3/360 multiplat differences were relatively smaller than what we're seeing now. I agree there's hypocrisy and flip fopping on both the neogaf and txb sides, though. I own a 360/PS3 and bought whatever ran better or had interesting exclusive content. There's great exclusives on both systems worth playing.

pS4's graphical edge means nothing

Don't pretend multiplatform games and price/performance aren't important - they clearly are according to social media metrics and sales. Xbox does have some casual appeal but it needs a price drop first.

The graphical difference will shrink a bit in terms of devs getting past ESRAM bottlenecks, will stay the same in terms of raw GPU power and 16/32 ROP limits, but will widen in terms of GPGPU and unified memory.