PS4/X1 Comparison Thread - X1 CoD 60fps - PS4 not so much

I dont see it either.

The difference isn't really noticeable, but the contrast on the XBO version is way to high. The PS4 contrast levels look much more realistic, while XBO makes every shadow look like a damn black hole.

@dvader654:

Well its because GAF is reporting "massive differences". Not sure what footage they have seen.... that could be different from what we have seen...

Just read that the multiplayer for Xbox One was not available to play at the EA event...And that the PS4 multiplayer was having issues as well...From Polygon

"Microsoft has specified that review scores must be held until Nov. 12th at 9:00AM PST, and we were not given the opportunity to play the Xbox One version's multiplayer component. Regarding PS4, there were serious stability issues that repeatedly led to crashes after multiplayer matches concluded. As the PS4 is still more than two weeks away from its Nov. 15th launch date, it seems premature to assume that this issue will not be."

+1 They are almost identical and funny enough the "difference" from DF´s video is gone in the wind.

Same here

UPDATE: Confirmed by Infinity Ward themselves. That's a difference of 125% in pixels. Quite unbelievable. Panello downplaying the advantage is looking pretty disingenuous right about now. Also, Gaf right once again.

It remains to be seen if it will manifest into a bigger difference than the BF4 comparison though.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rqqa5o

Hey, been on the road last couple weeks so haven’t had a chance to update, but wanted to confirm that for Xbox One we’re 1080p upscaled from 720p. And, we’re native 1080p on PS4. We optimized each console to hit 60 FPS and the game looks great on both. Still on the road, but glad to see the great reception to Extinction. Can’t wait for next week's launch.

I love how they downplayed the 50% GPU advantage as 30%. Well looks like the resolution advantage is more like 125%.

That's hilariously funny. Multiplats rarely show power difference though as companies try to keep them identical so as not to insult customers or manafacturers. The exclusives is where it will show. Considering Killzone, Driveclub and Infamous are the only games that look truly ext gen to me so far I guess it shows already.

That CoD news shows just how badly MS has screwed up. Its amazing that the Xbone is pretty much the anti-X360 given all the success MS had with the 360. All that multimedia stuff is fine but MS should have made sure they nailed the hardware and the OS first.

Like so many before them, they became arrogant and cocky. Too bad, because they used to have something really special going.

They should change the name to Xbox 720.

So it has been confirmed.....Wonder if Al Panelo actually knew the whole time...lol

I will be honest in saying that PS4 version looks better but not substantially. Personally I think they both look pretty bad in my opinion. Obviously the Xbox One version is darker to hide the fact that it's not as crisp as the PS4 version. Still looks current gen overall but really disappointed with Xbone version. I really don't think that they will get much more performance from these systems.

So you think that a multiplat, cross-generation launch title represents the pinnacle of PS4 and XB1 performance? Okay then...

It's just the fact that they are familiar with the hardware this time versus previous console hardware and this is all they seem to be able to produce atm.

If all of these games are lesser on the Xbox One compared to the PS4 because of the EsRAM I wonder how long it will take for devs to figure it out. I'd have to think it won't be as difficult as the Cell. I wonder if MS saw this coming and just didn't care?

the xbox one version looks terrible!

Its a mix of harder to program for (a problem the PS3 had until Naughty Dog revamped the development tools) and weaker hardware (not a problem the PS3 had). At $500, sales (a problem the $600 PS3 had) might become a problem. Sales matter to visuals because developers will work hard to learn a hard to program for system if there is lots of money to be made (as was the case with the PS2) but ignore it if there is no money there (as is the case with the Wii U).

Cloud processing, you sitting this one out?

ESRAM doesnt render graphics. The GPU does. Putting all the blame on the ESRAM is masking the problem. The fact is that the PS4 GPU is much more powerful.

Tflops Xbox One – 1.18 Tflops for Gaming
Tflops PS4 – 1.84 Tflops
55% more

Texture Units – Xbox One – 48
Texture Units – PS4 -72
50% more

Shader Cores – Xbox One – 768
Shader Cores – PS4 -1152
50% more

ROPs – Xbox One – 16
ROPs – PS4 – 32
100% more

ACEs – Xbox One – 16
ACEs – PS4 – 64
400% more

The ACEs make the PS4 a much more efficient GPU. Especially when it comes to compute. This isn’t an accident. This is simple math. More powerful GPUs get you better performance. The entire PC games industry is built around this.

As for whether or not MS saw it coming, they themselves stated they did not target the highest performance. They specifically designed the console with 8GB of RAM in mind to make it a massive entertainment machine first. That’s why they decided to go with DDR3 instead of GDDR5 because back then they weren’t sure if they would be able to get 8GB of GDDR5 cheaply by the end of 2013. That’s why they went with the smaller GPU so they could fit the ESRAM on the die. Sony on the other hand did not give a shit about the multimedia features and started out with only 2GB of GDDR5 and moved to 4GB of GDDR5 by the end of last year. It’s a matter of making a game console that can do multimedia features versus a multimedia center that can play games. Both Sony and MS knew exactly what they were doing.

I seriously wish Alex was still around. Just so i can stick this in his face.

The difference is that big for 3 reasons - Games like this and Bf4 were rushed ports, MS's dev tools suck atm and there's something wrong with the eSRAM.

Xbone indeed.

Looks like in terms of multiplatform games, Xbone is essentially in the same situation PS3 was in at the start of last gen. But so long as it doesn't get "Bayonetta bad" it should be tolerable. Anyway, things get fuzzy with these initial cross gen multiplatform games. I paid $60 for GUN on the 360.

:(

I don't play realistic military shootan' games, but if any multiplat games that actually interest me are a good bit better on PS4, then I'll just wait until I have a PS4 to play them.

@Pedro: ok. edited. you can edit it out of your post too.

It isn't even close to the same situation. The Ps3 and 360's gpus were comparable, unlike this time. Ps3 got bad ports because the Cell had to compensate for the slight graphics deficiency on Ps3, and nobody could code for the thing. 360 was also the lead platform. Even then Ps3 had slightly less usable RAM.

There are no lead platforms now, and Xbox's gpu is a whole tier lower than Ps4's and it's bandwidth starved with RAM issues.

Unlike the Ps3 situation where it could only get better, it can only get worse for Xbone. Well, in comparison to Ps4 anyways, tools will get better for the Xbox at least.

Teh d00m and what not, gotcha. :)

ESRAM can save the day and if not ESRAM the Zeus like Cloud would save the day. If not that, then fanboy Kool-Aid would save the day. So its a win regardless. :P

Outside of my silliness. ESRAM can bolster the performance of the system allowing it to reach its peak performance. However, its still going to be weaker than the PS4. This gen we have a three tier gaming console selection PS4>Xbox One >Wii-U.

Just telling you it's a totally different situation than last gen, I don't have an agenda :lol:

As for Bayonetta bad, COD is a bigger difference than that already in raw output.

That's some serious issues lol

@S0lidSnake:

Tflops Xbox One – 1.18 Tflops for Gaming

Tflops PS4 – 1.84 Tflops

55% more

Texture Units – Xbox One – 48

Texture Units – PS4 -72

50% more

Shader Cores – Xbox One – 768

Shader Cores – PS4 -1152

50% more

ROPs – Xbox One – 16

ROPs – PS4 – 32

100% more

ACEs – Xbox One – 16

ACEs – PS4 – 64

400% more

PS4 1.1 gigawatts of power

For everything else there's Mastercard.......

:-)

If only specs impacted console sales. They should, but they don't, and history proves it.

Given launch lineups, I'd wager that if the X1 was priced at $400, the race would be really, really close, even after all the terrible press Microsoft has received. Truth be told, it's kind of close now, even with the additional $100 price tag. Kind of!

@S0lidSnake: The Xbone just looks darker lol.

Well we know the GPU difference won't look like 50%, just look at Battlefield. I only mention the ESRAM because MS has been hanging their hat on it so much. Say what you want but the company has the best people in the world doing what they do, so they must have confidence that decision will be the correct one. Also was the DDR3 comment speculation or did MS say that DDR5 was too expensive? I was under the impression that DDR3 was chosen cause of the latency to work in conjunction with the ESRAM.

Well, I don't think the Xbox One is quite the Wii U lol. It will sell very well. Maybe not as well as the PS4, but it will be far too much for devs to ignore.

umm where have you been the past few days? Battlefied 4 is 900p on PS4, 720p on the X1. That's an extra 56% pixels.

1600*900=1,440,000

1280*720=921,600

1,440,000/921,600=1.56.

Let's look at the Tflops advantage again.

Tflops Xbox One – 1.18 Tflops for Gaming

Tflops PS4 – 1.84 Tflops

1.84/1.18=1.559 or 56%

The performance to GPU power ratio seems pretty 1:1 to me. And then you have the terrible AA implementation in the X1 version, lack of Ambient Occlusion, better framerate and missing clouds of all things. DICE was able to do more than just a 56% resolution increase with the 56% more GPU power.

Then you have CoD Ghosts which has a massive 125% resolution increase and god knows how many other effects.

1920*1080=2,073,600

1280*720=921,600

2,073,600/921,600=2.25 or 125%

No, MS has and will never say they picked DDR3 because it was cheap. it's common knowledge and anyone with any knowledge of this industry will tell you they did it because it was cheaper. Their main aim is to include Kinect in every system and sell it for a profit. That latency argument is nothing but bullshit. DDR3 was chosen because it was the cheapest way to get 8GB of RAM which is essential to their plans of making a multimedia console. ESRAM was chosen to SUPPLEMENT DDR3 to make up the difference in bandwidth.

lol at your say what you want but i trust Microsoft. You mean the same people who knowingly released a product that had a 100% failure ratio and got sued $1 billion for it? Or people who have released such disasters like Windows Vista and had a awful launch of Windows 8? They have some really talented engineers but Engineers do not get to make final calls on the direction the Execs chose for the system. No engineer in his right mind would go for a 1.18 Tflops GPU in 2013 without GDDR5. 1.18Tflops was a mid range GPU in 2010. But they were told to make a multimedia box for another $500 with Kinect. And that's the best they could come up with.

@S0lidSnake:

What!! No clouds!! I need my clouds in my first person shooters!!! Its funny reading about the graphics of the next-gen consoles. The flops, the 1.1 gigawatts, the shaders...etc....Big picture, majority of these consoles owners will not notice a huge disparity or any difference...Big picture both consoles are going have great games regardless....

umm i thought i told you we wont be replying/reading each other's posts anymore. Yet in the last four days I have received almost ten notifications saying you have replied to my posts.

I had hoped that you had enough decency to follow through. Unbelievable.

@F1Lengend:

The unofficial mascot cat of GS...lol...dates back to 2003

I do not know what a ROPs is, but this thread makes me want more of them. Also, the initial code name of Xbox 720 was not meant to be taken literally, I do hope these people realize that. (oh how I wish I could tell people I have a Xbox Durango paid in full at Gamestop, but I can't!)

Looks like the romance between the Digital Foundry and Microsoft is over. Yesterday Leadbetter wrote an article which pretty much called out MS for all of its false tech talk (no kind words were said about balance).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-resolutiongate-the-fallout

The reality for Microsoft is that the raw spec differential it has battled against is not only borne out in what is arguably the most technologically advanced multi-platform game of the next-gen launch, but the gulf actually increases on a title that, on the face of it, isn't pushing boundaries to anything like the same degree. Mark Rubin has previously suggested that there is no new Infinity Ward engine for the cross-generational Ghosts - rather that the studio has continued to build upon the existing tech. The situation is interesting in that we have a piece of technology that almost always favoured Microsoft's current-generation hardware now performing in a vastly superior manner on the competing platform in the next-gen era. It's a stunning turnaround.

-------------------

In the Xbox One Architects interview, Microsoft positioned the Xbox One silicon as a natural successor to Xbox 360, with ESRAM defended as the most power-efficient, cost-effective solution for delivering 8GB of RAM in a console product - an evolution of the eDRAM that had served it so well in the current generation. We hear different stories about ESRAM from virtually every source we speak to, but two gripes are common. Firstly, the notion of operating between two memory pools for render targets is an additional pain that is not an issue on PlayStation 4's unified 8GB of GDDR5. Secondly - and perhaps most importantly - the most common compliant we hear is that developers really want more than 32MB for their high-bandwidth graphics work.

---------------

Since then, Microsoft has reversed many of its setbacks and concentrated on gaming first and foremost - the "TVTVTV" focus in the messaging has all but gone and the platform-exclusive line-up is winning over gamers far more, we suspect, than its attempts to compete with PS4 on platform parity. However, in directly addressing the specs differential, whether in the Xbox One architects interview or in online forum posts, it has seemingly set itself up for another own goal. Microsoft itself has made the story about parity with the competition, when highlighting what makes Xbox One unique in terms of exclusive games, services and functionality - along with more effort in returning some of the magic to Kinect - may have served Xbox One more effectively in the run-up to launch.

Looks like Playstation fanboys will have fun pointing out insignificant graphical differences this gen.

@StormyJoe:

I take it you missed my prior post in this very thread. You can either scroll up roughly a dozen posts or just read the text below. I don't see how the fact that the problems spring from a mix of the Xbone being hard to program for and weak somehow makes them more acceptable. Care to explain your reasoning champ?

Its a mix of harder to program for (a problem the PS3 had until Naughty Dog revamped the development tools) and weaker hardware (not a problem the PS3 had). At $500, sales (a problem the $600 PS3 had) might become a problem. Sales matter to visuals because developers will work hard to learn a hard to program for system if there is lots of money to be made (as was the case with the PS2) but ignore it if there is no money there (as is the case with the Wii U).

lol 720p vs 1080p is not a significant advantage.

Now I have seen everything.

Umm.. What? What does that even mean? How can PS4 hardware specs be the reason the Xbox 1 version look worse? And conversely, why wont the superior hardware specs NOT be the reason they look different?

What about the 2/3rds of the article? I read the entire article the other day and it takes a massive shit on both the X1 and its PR and Engineer folks who continuously misled Digital Foundry. What exactly are you trying to say?

Oh and this is not system wars. Calling someone a cow just makes you look stupid and a 13 year old.