The X is straight medium settings pretty much across the board and sub 30fps. The closest GPU match is the GTX 1060, though it does generally outperform it at the same resolution.
Was the Xbox One X supposed to running the game on Ultra?
I believe "uncompromised, true 4K" was the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is a lot of compromising going on
You know 4K is just the resolution right? Compromised 4k will be checkboarding. Which games like Assasssin's Creed, Monster Hunter, etc are perfect examples of compromised 4K.
Was the Xbox One X supposed to running the game on Ultra?
I believe "uncompromised, true 4K" was the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is a lot of compromising going on
You know 4K is just the resolution right? Compromised 4k will be checkboarding. Which games like Assasssin's Creed, Monster Hunter, etc are perfect examples of compromised 4K.
Not only is the game falling below the 30fps mark, it's not even performing as well as the S... AKA, there are compromises being made to hit 4K.
Not only is the game falling below the 30fps mark, it's not even performing as well as the S... AKA, there are compromises being made to hit 4K.
There is always compromises for every game. However, the game is hitting native 4K thus they can rightful state, uncompromised 4K. The same cannot be said for any game that is using checkerboarding which is compromised 4K and there are a slew of them as I have given a couple. So, its odd to pick on the game that is running native 4K as a jab to their initial slogan.
Sounds like MS is starting to bully devs into making games 4K for Xbox One X strictly for marketing purposes now. Who cares if they're sub-30 frames, or have low LoD? They gotta sell these boxes because they're collecting dust on the shelves again, dangit!
Well some people initially believe the One X was equivalent to a GTX 1070 and that is would sporting Ryzen. So, I understand the need to rub in the reality for those posters.
Well some people initially believe the One X was equivalent to a GTX 1070 and that is would sporting Ryzen. So, I understand the need to rub in the reality for those posters.
Ron was on a crusade saying this and look how that turn out.
@Pedro: Dude, this game is poorly optimised. Read the comments on the YouTube link, there's 2080ti owners getting drops below 50 fps on medium settings at 1080p. That's screwed up.
Well some people initially believe the One X was equivalent to a GTX 1070 and that is would sporting Ryzen. So, I understand the need to rub in the reality for those posters.
Ron was on a crusade saying this and look how that turn out.
Well some people initially believe the One X was equivalent to a GTX 1070 and that is would sporting Ryzen. So, I understand the need to rub in the reality for those posters.
Ron was on a crusade saying this and look how that turn out.
I missed it. What was Ron saying, and over how many pages?
Frostbite is a fairly well-optimized, wide-ranging game engine. It looks decent at lower settings with older hardware, but can scale up quite nicely. Generally has performed well in my experience.
I have a 5+ year old PC with a Geforce GTX 980 and I'm running it plenty fast (frames wise) at 1080 with high settings.
@sealionact said:
So a $2000 PC outperforms a $400 console?
Whodathunkit.
I wouldn't say my PC is worth more than $700 at this point.
@Pedro: Dude, this game is poorly optimised. Read the comments on the YouTube link, there's 2080ti owners getting drops below 50 fps on medium settings at 1080p. That's screwed up.
@Pedro: Dude, this game is poorly optimised. Read the comments on the YouTube link, there's 2080ti owners getting drops below 50 fps on medium settings at 1080p. That's screwed up.
Frostbite is a fairly well-optimized, wide-ranging game engine. It looks decent at lower settings with older hardware, but can scale up quite nicely. Generally has performed well in my experience.
I have a 5+ year old PC with a Geforce GTX 980 and I'm running it plenty fast (frames wise) at 1080 with high settings.
@sealionact said:
So a $2000 PC outperforms a $400 console?
Whodathunkit.
I wouldn't say my PC is worth more than $700 at this point.
$700 sounds about right, but you're comparing 4k to 1080p performance. I'd prefer a performance/resolution option on more games on x1x, but the ones that do have it hit 60fps at 1080p pretty well.
Frostbite is a fairly well-optimized, wide-ranging game engine. It looks decent at lower settings with older hardware, but can scale up quite nicely. Generally has performed well in my experience.
I have a 5+ year old PC with a Geforce GTX 980 and I'm running it plenty fast (frames wise) at 1080 with high settings.
@sealionact said:
So a $2000 PC outperforms a $400 console?
Whodathunkit.
I wouldn't say my PC is worth more than $700 at this point.
$700 sounds about right, but you're comparing 4k to 1080p performance. I'd prefer a performance/resolution option on more games on x1x, but the ones that do have it hit 60fps at 1080p pretty well.
Oh my bad didn't see the 4K bit. Yeah my PC definitely not 4K ready hahaha
Dude, the context of your response implied that you are responding to a comment on the the game's optimization, otherwise what were you responding to?
Dude, you made a comment about x1x not being equivalent to a 1070. I think that the reason people are disappointed with performance is because its poorly optimised..... on PC as well as x1x. 1070 owners are running it using low settings at 1080p ..... x1x struggles to keep 30 fps because it's using medium settings equivalent at native 4k. Poorly optimised.
I feel Frostbite is so forced on any platform at the moment. I think battlefront 2 does it the best, but with Anthem the pop in's and the geometry loading are extremely distracting and unnatural looking. I would go as far to say that that Apex Legends is a more pleasing visual experience to look at, just because it can stream long draw distances and make object pop in a smooth gradient. But in Anthem, the geometry, shadows, foliage, textures, objects and basically everything pop's in right 2 meters infront of your eyes. That to me is unacceptable, and seems like an extremely forced way to make a small radius around the player look very good, while the rest is very distracting.
Dude, you made a comment about x1x not being equivalent to a 1070. I think that the reason people are disappointed with performance is because its poorly optimised..... on PC as well as x1x. 1070 owners are running it using low settings at 1080p ..... x1x struggles to keep 30 fps because it's using medium settings equivalent at native 4k.
Poorly optimised.
Dude, again, your response has nothing to do with my response and implies I was discussing optimization. It simply didn't make sense to respond to me about optimization.
I feel Frostbite is so forced on any platform at the moment. I think battlefront 2 does it the best, but with Anthem the pop in's and the geometry loading are extremely distracting and unnatural looking. I would go as far to say that that Apex Legends is a more pleasing visual experience to look at, just because it can stream long draw distances and make object pop in a smooth gradient. But in Anthem, the geometry, shadows, foliage, textures, objects and basically everything pop's in right 2 meters infront of your eyes. That to me is unacceptable, and seems like an extremely forced way to make a small radius around the player look very good, while the rest is very distracting.
Frostbite is just a game engine. You are making it sound as if they are forcing a specific technology when they are simply using the engine to the best of the system's capabilities. Apex and Anthem are very different in scope and execution.
Dude, you made a comment about x1x not being equivalent to a 1070. I think that the reason people are disappointed with performance is because its poorly optimised..... on PC as well as x1x. 1070 owners are running it using low settings at 1080p ..... x1x struggles to keep 30 fps because it's using medium settings equivalent at native 4k.
Poorly optimised.
Dude, again, your response has nothing to do with my response and implies I was discussing optimization. It simply didn't make sense to respond to me about optimization.
Dude, nothing I said implied you were discussing optimization.
Dude, nothing I said implied you were discussing optimization.
You alrite?
Dude, my comment about people thinking the Xbox One X is equivalent to a GTX 1070 literally has nothing to do with the game's optimization yet you quoted me on a nonspecific quote about optimization. You alrite?
I feel Frostbite is so forced on any platform at the moment. I think battlefront 2 does it the best, but with Anthem the pop in's and the geometry loading are extremely distracting and unnatural looking. I would go as far to say that that Apex Legends is a more pleasing visual experience to look at, just because it can stream long draw distances and make object pop in a smooth gradient. But in Anthem, the geometry, shadows, foliage, textures, objects and basically everything pop's in right 2 meters infront of your eyes. That to me is unacceptable, and seems like an extremely forced way to make a small radius around the player look very good, while the rest is very distracting.
Frostbite is just a game engine. You are making it sound as if they are forcing a specific technology when they are simply using the engine to the best of the system's capabilities. Apex and Anthem are very different in scope and execution.
They are forcing it actually. The reveal demo shows off what Frostbite could do with perhaps an SLI GTX 1080TI and a decent I7, but here they had to scale it back to console hardware and so a higher end PC settings got sacrificed. Let's not forget the tedious loading screens caused by a low capacity for streaming huge amount of textures and data. The entire game is supposed to be seamless and looking like a dense open world. Instead we got an unoptimised mess with pop in on the highest levels. The fact so many dynamic rendering techniques are present shows they forcing Frostbite at this level on consoles. This should have been a next gen game, I am sure for financial reasons EA pushed the developers for a 2019 release on current gen hardware.
Was the Xbox One X supposed to running the game on Ultra?
I believe "uncompromised, true 4K" was the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is a lot of compromising going on
Are you still butthurt about that? Geez dude get over it. Next thing you know you'll be crying about Sony claiming "4D and dual HDMI output, toy story 2 graphics, rumble is last gen, you'll get 2 jobs, ect ect ect"
Dude, nothing I said implied you were discussing optimization.
You alrite?
Dude, my comment about people thinking the Xbox One X is equivalent to a GTX 1070 literally has nothing to do with the game's optimization yet you quoted me on a nonspecific quote about optimization. You alrite?
Whehey! We're getting somewhere! "Dude, my comment about people thinking the Xbox One X is equivalent to a GTX 1070 literally has nothing to do with the game's optimization ..."
Correct. It is an alternative viewpoint; "Hey this game's performance sucks because it's on x1x which isn't even as powerful as a GTX 1070" "I have an alternative viewpoint. I think it sucks because it's poorly optimised. Shucks, even people with 2080 ti cards are complaining about it."
Whehey! We're getting somewhere! "Dude, my comment about people thinking the Xbox One X is equivalent to a GTX 1070 literally has nothing to do with the game's optimization ..."
Correct. It is an alternative viewpoint; "Hey this game's performance sucks because it's on x1x which isn't even as powerful as a GTX 1070"
"I have an alternative viewpoint. I think it sucks because it's poorly optimised. Shucks, even people with 2080 ti cards are complaining about it."
Actually the response you were responding to (people believing the One X is on par with a GTX 1070) was in response to the differences in performance between a $2000 PC to a $400 console as being obvious, which has nothing to do with the game sucking or performance. Funny how you missed that dude.
Was the Xbox One X supposed to running the game on Ultra?
I believe "uncompromised, true 4K" was the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is a lot of compromising going on
You know 4K is just the resolution right? Compromised 4k will be checkboarding. Which games like Assasssin's Creed, Monster Hunter, etc are perfect examples of compromised 4K.
Loading Video...
""The highest Res, the best framerate NO compromises.""
I don't know about you but what I get from what she say is something different, she talk about 3 aspect as been separate.
So that mean 4k 60 fps no quality downgrade.
Running at 4k and dropping to 23 FPS is already a compromise is clear that to even keep 30 the XBO X should had use chakcerboard or dynamic res.
Which would have been a compromise on that front as well.
People who take marketing as a fact are idiots. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have all done this bullshit and every company in the world does this. It is called MARKETING. Anyone who states otherwise are nothing but hypocrites. I have always wonder why my Big Mac never looked like this:
All this is called is "Fanboy Fake Outrage" you hypocrites!
I believe "uncompromised, true 4K" was the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is a lot of compromising going on
Are you still butthurt about that? Geez dude get over it. Next thing you know you'll be crying about Sony claiming "4D and dual HDMI output, toy story 2 graphics, rumble is last gen, you'll get 2 jobs, ect ect ect"
WTF does the xbox one coming short of its promises has to do with Sony's supposed past shit, some of that crap Is no even accurate.
"One of the basic premises of the Xbox is to put the power in the hands of the artist," Blackley said, which is why Xbox developers "are achieving a level of visual detail you really get in 'Toy Story.'"
You know 4D experience is not like 3D at all right? we have 4D theaters here and they refer to the experience inside the theater not what goes on the screen, like moving chairs, win water and stuff like that.
2 hdmi wasn't a damn promise by sony it was part of the prototype ps3 show,now don't tell me hardware doesn't change.
Case in point I don't remember my xbox been like this at all.
Hell what are you doing in this thread you don't care about graphics remember for graphics PC consoles are for exclusives...lol
@Xabiss said:
People who take marketing as a fact are idiots. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have all done this bullshit and every company in the world does this. It is called MARKETING. Anyone who states otherwise are nothing but hypocrites. I have always wonder why my Big Mac never looked like this:
All this is called is "Fanboy Fake Outrage" you hypocrites!
And once again another meltdown from the usual lemming who claim is not a lemming..lol
@StormyJoe said:
@Pedro said:
Was the Xbox One X supposed to running the game on Ultra?
No. But people want to find a way to bash the X1X. I notice no PS4 comparison...
@Pedro: Dude, this game is poorly optimised. Read the comments on the YouTube link, there's 2080ti owners getting drops below 50 fps on medium settings at 1080p. That's screwed up.
They are probably bottlenecked by their CPU or memory. I am running the game at 3440x1440 max settings and I always keep a high frame rate and do not experience LOD/pop-in issues or long load times. The game runs great for me. That being said, the game could definitely use some optimization to better support a wide range of setups.
@Pedro: Dude, this game is poorly optimised. Read the comments on the YouTube link, there's 2080ti owners getting drops below 50 fps on medium settings at 1080p. That's screwed up.
They are probably bottlenecked by their CPU or memory. I am running the game at 3440x1440 max settings and I always keep a high frame rate and do not experience LOD/pop-in issues or long load times. The game runs great for me. That being said, the game could definitely use some optimization to better support a wide range of setups.
Yeah, I have a 1070 and a 7700k, and I have noted dips to around 50-55 in high-intensity situations at 1080p/Ultra. No lower that that. The game definitely needs work on performance.
People who take marketing as a fact are idiots. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have all done this bullshit and every company in the world does this. It is called MARKETING. Anyone who states otherwise are nothing but hypocrites. I have always wonder why my Big Mac never looked like this:
All this is called is "Fanboy Fake Outrage" you hypocrites!
And once again another meltdown from the usual lemming who claim is not a lemming..lol
See you prove a point and the worse of the worse fanboys claims you are having a meltdown. My point still stand WTF do you people think marketing is? Exactly what you all are describing and EVERYONE does it.
Again "Fanboy Fake Outrage" nothing to see here, but I expect nothing else from Tormentos.
Guessing I have to spell it out for you since your comprehension is so piss poor. Oh and everything I wrote Sony said at some point.
You don't say cause I said what 4D was or how it works........seriously do you actually understand what you read or is a 3rd grader helping you out?
Did I say it was a promise? Was uncompromised 4K a promise or just something said by MS exec? It was said by Sony just like MS said what they said. Doesn't really matter if it was promised or not, it was said. Damn dude you have no clue what you're reading huh?
What are you doing in this thread? You don't own an X1, PS4 or Switch and let's not even bring up your so called "gaming" PC.
@tormentos said:
@kingtito said:
Are you still butthurt about that? Geez dude get over it. Next thing you know you'll be crying about Sony claiming "4D and dual HDMI output, toy story 2 graphics, rumble is last gen, you'll get 2 jobs, ect ect ect"
WTF does the xbox one coming short of its promises has to do with Sony's supposed past shit, some of that crap Is no even accurate.
"One of the basic premises of the Xbox is to put the power in the hands of the artist," Blackley said, which is why Xbox developers "are achieving a level of visual detail you really get in 'Toy Story.'"
You know 4D experience is not like 3D at all right? we have 4D theaters here and they refer to the experience inside the theater not what goes on the screen, like moving chairs, win water and stuff like that.
2 hdmi wasn't a damn promise by sony it was part of the prototype ps3 show,now don't tell me hardware doesn't change.
Case in point I don't remember my xbox been like this at all.
Hell what are you doing in this thread you don't care about graphics remember for graphics PC consoles are for exclusives...lol
Log in to comment