You're making a rather bold statement stating it as if it will always be the case or even is currently.
These are differences i didn't expect
- Thread starter MosquitoSmasher
- Start date
You're making a rather bold statement stating it as if it will always be the case or even is currently.
The differences between console hardware are overblown. MS has a different memory architecture and once devs have some time making use of it we'll see resolution parity. Until now it has been a race for devs to have launch titles ready for two brand new consoles. Not concerned about it at all.
At first when I saw these comparisons I was pretty shocked also, until I saw the video comparisons. Looking at the zoomed in pictures from a corner of the screen, yes differences are apparent, but go to the website, watch the side by side comparison videos and you will see the difference is much less apparent in resolution and jaggies in most cases. Plus COD is unoptimized, period.
The problem with this argument is you might be getting best version of multiplat games (sometimes), but you are missing out on a lot of console exclusives such as Killer Insinct 3, Halo, Infamous, Forza, DR3 etc. I am a PC guy also, but dont plan on missing out on the exclusives. Plus I prefer to play online on consoles. The experience is more enjoyable and I hate using keyboard and mouse (using controller against opponents with mouse is not even an option)
Agreed. I'm a PC gamer, and most of my games obviously are on pc, but when it comes to mp gaming, I enjoy myself more on console. So, sp multiplats I play on pc, mp games on console and pc depending on type of game, and pc/console for their different exclusives.
I expect to see 720p to 900p or 900p to 1080p regularly throughout the gen, or in rarer cases framerate, lighting/shading, or other effects. If that's not a big deal to you then no problem.
Disclaimer: Buy the system with the games you want.
Absolutely no reason to make comparisons with launch titles. Devs are rushing these games out the door, not optimizing and taking their time (which comes later).
The only smart thing you can do if you're on the fence like me, is wait 6 months and see what things look like then. Even a year if you can hold out. I sure can, got plenty of 360/PS3/PC titles to play while I watch things develop.
Personally I still find it shameful for devs to release anything LESS than 60FPS 1080p on these next gen titles. Guess the bottom line is always $$$$.
The only smart thing you can do if you're on the fence like me, is wait 6 months and see what things look like then. Even a year if you can hold out. I sure can, got plenty of 360/PS3/PC titles to play while I watch things develop.
Personally I still find it shameful for devs to release anything LESS than 60FPS 1080p on these next gen titles. Guess the bottom line is always $$$$.
What's the rush? Ain't no must have games, and ain't no games that won't be available in a year's time.
pcgames.de have tested Fifa14 installation from disk.
Partial installation - ready to play:
PS4: 1.31 min
Xbox: 5:28 min
Complete install:
PS4: 8:28 min
Xbox: 12:20 min
--
Strange, both systems have same speed BD-Rom and HDD, so I don't know why the XB1 is 4 minutes slower. :-/
Were confused why it didn't scale, if it were only memory-speeds, but according to Eurogamer, Fifa are 9GB on PS4 and 8GB on XBO.
So it might be a combination of different installer optimization and GDDR5
Partial installation - ready to play:
PS4: 1.31 min
Xbox: 5:28 min
Complete install:
PS4: 8:28 min
Xbox: 12:20 min
--
Strange, both systems have same speed BD-Rom and HDD, so I don't know why the XB1 is 4 minutes slower. :-/
Were confused why it didn't scale, if it were only memory-speeds, but according to Eurogamer, Fifa are 9GB on PS4 and 8GB on XBO.
So it might be a combination of different installer optimization and GDDR5
Last edited:
Depends, you should try gaming on my seven year old PC, that's not the best version of any game. There's thousands of pc's like that.
(laughing)
Even on many more recent PCs. I retract what I've said about it not being worth it...considering the PS4 is only $400 bucks, and can run BF4 at settings that a 400-600 PC can't...it's a pretty good deal.
I will post the video once it gets released
They are building a PC in the exact range you stated and are going to compare to next gen.
1600x900 is a low resolution PC wise and all high settings with FXAA @ 60FPS is going to extremely easy to achieve in that price range.
I will post the video once it gets released
They are building a PC in the exact range you stated and are going to compare to next gen.
1600x900 is a low resolution PC wise and all high settings with FXAA @ 60FPS is going to extremely easy to achieve in that price range.
Love to see it in that price range at solid 60 fps. I mean, the OS alone is over 1oo bucks. My pc is pretty bare bones, and even that would take over $600 to build from scratch.
Well the PS4 version is far from a solid 60fps from what I have played. We shall see how it turns out.
Were you expecting miracles from a $400 box? The Radeon 7850-7870 the PS4
is based on is still a mid-range GPU by PC standards. With Sony's huge overall loss on the PS3 they couldn't afford to take risks. Also devs usually target 30 FPS with nicer effects over 60 FPS.
Ah, yeah, I guess. Though I have neither system ordered / pre-ordered, I guess I'm a fan boy for being skeptical of anything shown on the Internet. From faulty Digital Foundry captures comparing Battlefield 4 on both systems to Call of Duty Ghosts, in fact, running at a native 720p resolution on both systems during the review cycle despite almost every single reviewer claiming a significant resolution advantage for the PS4 version, I'm going to judge these games for myself (which, again, is hard to do considering I have neither console currently on the way). Besides, I've seen what the Xbox One is capable of with both Forza 5 and Ryse, and the console is plenty capable, IMO.
Watching the unmolested videos of Battlefield 4 shows, to me at least, that both versions are virtually identical, with the Xbox One version looking more vibrant and "clear," at least IMO (though nothing like what the screen grabs noted, I'll add). Need for Speed looks virtually identical on both systems, too, with, at least according to the IGN footage (which was piss poor, I'll admit), the Xbox One version looking "clearer" in some instances. And, despite running at a lower native resolution, Call of Duty Ghosts apparently runs better on Xbox One than the PS4 version, which suffers from an occasional, stuttering frame rate.
Here is an example of the BS shown on the Internet, and thus why I'm skeptical of anything shown and / or claimed.
As I've stated multiple times before, all of this will be moot once the systems are out in full force. I believe multiplatform games will run at parity and all of the nonsense will, hopefully, be over and done with. You are not going to go wrong whether you choose an Xbox One, a Playstation 4, both or neither.
Very, very sensible and reasonable post.
Bottom line, the resolution difference we're seeing today is the biggest gap in perf we'll see this whole generation, and as time goes on - the gap will shrink or become non-existent.
After doing some comparisons between BF4 on both systems myself, I'd take the sharper more vibrant X1 version any day. The frame rate is unperceivably identical, the system features are better, and the resolution difference is just not noticeable.
Yes a lot of the pre-launch comparisons are botched, and youtube videos are poor for telling tech differences due to compression. As more reliable post-launch footage is released it will be much easier to tell. No, most multiplat games won't run "at parity" or "identically". The hardware specs make that clear.
Contrast/color/brightness filters are no technical advantage when you can get the same effect on PS4/PC by messing with your TV settings. It's straw grasping. Contrast filters can't get rid of jaggies and mosaic patterns which are more abundant at 720p.
The performance difference will shrink on multiplatform titles, but only to the extent software allows. There's still enough hardware for games to go from 720p to 900p, or 900p to 1080p, or add ~50% more framerate, or add better lighting/shading/AA/effects. That's a greater difference than with most PS3/360 multiplats.
When/if multiplat devs start picking up on PS4's GPGPU and unified memory advantages, that will be a further distinction. Look at the GPGPU smoke and particle effects on Infamous 2nd Son for example.
Disclaimer: Buy the system with the games you like.
Contrast/color/brightness filters are no technical advantage when you can get the same effect on PS4/PC by messing with your TV settings. It's straw grasping. Contrast filters can't get rid of jaggies and mosaic patterns which are more abundant at 720p.
The performance difference will shrink on multiplatform titles, but only to the extent software allows. There's still enough hardware for games to go from 720p to 900p, or 900p to 1080p, or add ~50% more framerate, or add better lighting/shading/AA/effects. That's a greater difference than with most PS3/360 multiplats.
When/if multiplat devs start picking up on PS4's GPGPU and unified memory advantages, that will be a further distinction. Look at the GPGPU smoke and particle effects on Infamous 2nd Son for example.
Disclaimer: Buy the system with the games you like.
I hear what you're saying, but I feel it's way, way too early to say definitively, just one day after the Xbox One's launch and only a week into the PS4's life, what either system is and isn't capable of. To me, these are video games. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that some people are so emotionally invested in *video games* has me scratching my head. I don't count pixels. I don't have tools that allow me to count frames. I use my eyes just like the majority of the gaming public, I presume, and the multiplatform games compared to date, in my eyes, are either very, very close to one another or are virtually identical; if what we've seen thus far is an indication of the 50% power advantage that would be "immediately noticeable at launch" in favor of the PS4, then color me unimpressed. Yeah, the Xbox One loses the paper specs; we get that. However, if, in fact, the system is more nuanced (notice I said "if") and its features are harder to develop for (eSRAM, "helper hardware" to which CPU and GPU cycles can be offloaded, etc), then I'm willing to give the Xbox One the benefit of a couple months or more to prove its capabilities. Further, given what Xbox One's first-part exclusives have shown me at launch (these are launch games!), then the console, at least to someone like me, is plenty capable.
I 100% agree with your disclaimer.
Xbox is definitely capable of really good graphics, and if you want good games like Forza 5 and KI you should go for an Xbox. If graphics don't bother you then no need to worry about specs talk.
Assuming the software is well coded:
Original Xbox is about 2-2.5x more than PS2. Really big gap here.
PS3 is about 1.1x more than 360, although their architectures are so different it's more of a blanket statement. Really well coded PS3 games almost never happened except exclusives, since it's a nightmare to code for.
PS4 is about 1.5x more than XB1. A noticeable amount, but not clearly ahead like PS2 to Xbox. I don't think ESRAM latency, audio offloading, or CPU upclocks will make much of a performance difference. MS reducing their GPU reservation might help a little bit.
Assuming the software is well coded:
Original Xbox is about 2-2.5x more than PS2. Really big gap here.
PS3 is about 1.1x more than 360, although their architectures are so different it's more of a blanket statement. Really well coded PS3 games almost never happened except exclusives, since it's a nightmare to code for.
PS4 is about 1.5x more than XB1. A noticeable amount, but not clearly ahead like PS2 to Xbox. I don't think ESRAM latency, audio offloading, or CPU upclocks will make much of a performance difference. MS reducing their GPU reservation might help a little bit.
Last edited:
I'm fairly certain the smaller minute details of multiplatform games look, will allways be WiiU<XBO<PS4<PC this generation.
When Steambox come that will sit side-by-side with the PC.
The reason are simple - Sony put more money into buying a better GPU and memory - while MS didn't invest as much on those parts.:-)
Nintendo probably invested a comparative amount of money in their architecture - but pricecuts and innovation on Memory, CPGPU chips happened at a time WiiU were beeing finalized, so they got less bang for their buck in 2010/11 than SONY+MS did in 2012/13.
When games are getting more and more complex on PS4, they too will sometimes choose to drop framerate and resolution - depending on how important that is for the game-directors - when that happens we'll see a bigger drop on XBone-version aswell, or removal of objects or features, to get closest possible to PS4-quality.
ESRam-management on Xbox One will improve no doubt - but they do/did similar thing with WiiU, 360, PS2, wich all had some sort of embedded memory, so this is not uncharted territories. I have my doubts that ESRam techniques will improve enough to offset compute advancements aswell as memory-speed on PS4. :-/
That's my layman-theory, not beeing a expert, so I kind of expected this.
Personally the resolution-downgrade dosn't bother me unless I notice jaggies after upscaling - so I'd rather have lower resolution and equal focus on AA and deferred shading. I've seen jaggies a couple of times in Xbone-footage of multiplatform titles, when the PS4-footage looked perfect on same titles..
When Steambox come that will sit side-by-side with the PC.
The reason are simple - Sony put more money into buying a better GPU and memory - while MS didn't invest as much on those parts.:-)
Nintendo probably invested a comparative amount of money in their architecture - but pricecuts and innovation on Memory, CPGPU chips happened at a time WiiU were beeing finalized, so they got less bang for their buck in 2010/11 than SONY+MS did in 2012/13.
When games are getting more and more complex on PS4, they too will sometimes choose to drop framerate and resolution - depending on how important that is for the game-directors - when that happens we'll see a bigger drop on XBone-version aswell, or removal of objects or features, to get closest possible to PS4-quality.
ESRam-management on Xbox One will improve no doubt - but they do/did similar thing with WiiU, 360, PS2, wich all had some sort of embedded memory, so this is not uncharted territories. I have my doubts that ESRam techniques will improve enough to offset compute advancements aswell as memory-speed on PS4. :-/
That's my layman-theory, not beeing a expert, so I kind of expected this.
Personally the resolution-downgrade dosn't bother me unless I notice jaggies after upscaling - so I'd rather have lower resolution and equal focus on AA and deferred shading. I've seen jaggies a couple of times in Xbone-footage of multiplatform titles, when the PS4-footage looked perfect on same titles..
It will have a higher FR than the PS4 version, just because you're old junk doesn't run it like that doesn't mean a newer 400-600 PC can't.
Isn't the R9 270 and 270x a rebadged and factory OCed 7870, being sold for $199?
Still seems like a mid range PC card to me, despite its new name and factory clockrate.
Yes I'm aware PS4's GPU despite being based on a 7870 is running at a much lower clockrate and 2 less CUs.