DF: Consoles struggle with 60FPS in BF Hardline MP

Digital foundry has released a performance analysis of battlefield hardline MP using "Final Code" on PS4 and X1

"Today, we have the final PlayStation 4 and Xbox One code to hand, where to varying degrees we see Visceral Games' efforts paying off - though it's clear a locked 60fps is still a hard won fixture on console."

Problems seem to be caused by 64 players on compact maps (on both consoles)

Cranking the player count up to 64, some maps hold up in performance terms more adeptly than others. As ever, triggered events like the collapsing of the Hollywood Heights' central building cause big momentary drops - similar to the crashing crane on the Downtown stage. However, it's compact maps such as The Block that strain PS4 and Xbox One more consistently, where sustained periods at between 40-50fps are possible when a match is in full flow.

When crammed with 64 players, the focus on physics-based destruction causes very erratic lurches on our graph, quite unlike any other stage. At its nadir, both PS4 and Xbox One fall closer to 40fps to produce very sluggish controller response - easily the worst we see in the game after days of testing.

For example, from a 8,100 frame sample of major stress points on The Block, we see 741 (9.15%) frames dropped when maxed out at 64 players. Conversely, even factoring the absolute worst clips from a 32-player game, only 41 frames are dropped (0.50%) from the same sized test sample.

Of course the PS4 maintains the resolution advantage, but each game features the same visual settings and flaws

Indeed, the biggest difference is still in the resolution stakes; Xbox One runs at a 1280x720 internal resolution, and the PS4 sticks to 1600x900. Each delivers these massive sandbox maps at the same visual presets too; pop-in occurs at the same distance, while effects and textures are matched for quality. Sadly the low-grade screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO) and pixel-crawl artefacts carry straight over from Battlefield 4 too - two points we had hoped would be addressed for Hardline.

And of course, stupid EA couldn't even run a press event with out the multiplayer shitting itself (due to using cut down code for the event)

Having tested the PS4 version's multiplayer at an EA-hosted event, it bears mention that we saw around five crashes over the course of the first day. These manifested as server hang-ups that forced all attendees to restart a match. It's an unfortunate initial impression given Visceral Games' efforts to optimise, though to be fair we experienced no crashes on the second day.

I'm sure a further in depth analysis will becoming, and include the PC version

For you X1 fans, it seems the game is available already on EA early access.

But i guess for smooth gameplay avoid 64 players on small maps

PC Gamer - "With my teh $300 * insert video card* I can achieve 1080p 40+ fps stupid console peasants"

*BFHL releases and FPS dips to 41*

lol.. "Teh weak consoles and their 40 FPS...lolololol"

what are you talking about?

Dude, you're getting destroyed by a DF article, make some sense instead of spouting completely random bullshit.

Post some links, some data, some graphs.

I think what he's trying to say is..

"I'd just like to do more like see but what the framerate. 40 dips plus 50 inverse console... money and stuff *insert butthurt* peasant."

Makes sense.

Here is the reality, consoles with the hardware specification that the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 released with should have debuted at the end of 2011, not 2013. They are extremely weak systems in the 2014/2015 time frame and developers are having severe trouble with getting games to run optimally on them while making them look better than something which would be on the 360/PS3. The baseline on these systems should have been $500 in terms of the console itself. That would have afforded them to put in a CPU and GPU far, far better that would handle 1080p on everything and look just as good as PC.

For that $100 more they could have put in a GPU that would be the equivalent of a GTX680 / 7970, for that $100 more they could have put in a CPU more in line with the FX series AMD's with a higher operating frequency. They should have done it, sure they would have sold less systems initially, but they would have future proofed themselves not to mention when people saw the capabilities they would be all over it.

This can't be fixed, the only fix for this is to make it a 4-5 year generation and release something new, that's really all there is to it.

@-God-: what are you jankar's alt when he gets bored?

I said it at release and I'm saying it again. These are the worst consoles in video game history in terms of hardware specs. At any point in given time of console history, these consoles would have been discontinued after 6 months, but since there are no other consoles besides the almost 10 years old x360, the almost 9 year old ps3 and the vastly underpowered wii u people put up with it.

Well, people that don't have a pc anyway. Sony and microsoft shamelessly released consoles that are were equivalent of 5 year old tech(now 7 year old). Not only that, they're selling it at the same price as pc retail hardware, which is ridicilous, consoles have always been about getting more bang for the buck when it comes to hardware with the trade off that you were locked on a closed platform. There's no trade off here , you might as well have bought a pc with all the advantages that come with it, for the same price.

The worst part is , is that they're getting away with it, especially sony with their gddr5 and 50 percent more gpu power. Gddr5 doesn't mean shit if the rest of the system is crap and that 50 percent more power. Well 50 percent more power of next to nothing, is still next to nothing.

The only way it can be fixed is if someone stands up and releases a decent console, they would simply murder the x1 and ps4 sales instantly, of course no one has the guts, maybe nintendo, they're making a console right now, but how long is that going to take and for all we know, it's another wii u.

Outside of arena shooters it doesn't bother me when the frame rate dips below 60.

That said, I wonder if the visuals took a hit in the final pc version as a result of them trying to hit 60 on consoles.

@lostrib said:

@-God- said:

@OhSnapitz said:

PC Gamer - "With my teh $300 * insert video card* I can achieve 1080p 40+ fps stupid console peasants"

*BFHL releases and FPS dips to 41*

lol.. "Teh weak consoles and their 40 FPS...lolololol"

Dude, you're getting destroyed by a DF article, make some sense instead of spouting completely random bullshit.

Post some links, some data, some graphs.

Thank you rib.

You still made no sense.

Good

That's what should have happened with the PS3/360. I don't see any problem with having shorter console generations. However, if that ends up being the case, I would demand backwards compatibility.

The PS3/360 is what "screwed" this generation in a sense. As one poster mentioned.. the PS4/XBO should've been released 3 yrs ago. I still think they have the potential to be great system's.. devs just need to get creative on what they resource within a game.

"cinematic effect" that is all.

Cost wasn't the issue and would not of been able to enable them to put in bigger graphics cards and CPU.

isn't this ridiculous? since 2013 they haven't improved graphics, fps and resolution. frostbite3 is getting old or consoles are THAT shitty... oh wait they are..................

Thats that cinematic look. EA should have been smart and put some black bars in there. Add some good old london fog and you'll have a masterpiece.

imma take 900p and 40fps ova the hack infested pc versions

ur getting destroyed by hackas on pc every day lmao PissC

lol is that really the best you can do? stay mad.

Puny consoles struggle with everything this days.

Not into the series much. Look on the bright side--I think--consoles are getting player heavy maps. If the fans of the series like this then the following games will be more akin to the old BF games on pc.

The game looks worse than BF4, Visceral clearly have no idea what they're doing

Fucking embarrassing.

So this...is the power...of improved SDKs...

Oh boy,I smell great success for you here

@commander: 7 year old tech? There was no PC in 2008 on a single gpu that could touch either console. When you take account size and form factor they are pretty modern for there performance.

Thats about what I'd get outta my current PC....with vsync on though.

Can't say I really care though....the beta was just awful and it's not like I don't wonder how they can get BF4 to run better than Hardline.

Shitty devs?

sure, but single cards are single cards, on pc you can use multiple, it's part of the tech

so yes 7 year old tech , in terms of performance anyway. Size form factor even power consumption doesn't matter, these aren't handhelds and they could have put a lot more in there. The gpu in the ps4 wouldn't have been so bad if the cpu wasn't so weak as well. Look what the x1 can do with just overclocking the cpu 10 percent,that says enough.

i would rather it be 30fps and look better. hardline looks like shit. bf doesnt require the speed to aim that something like cod or other arena shooters do.

@commander: A single gpu is what you should compare it to. A console isn't going to sell well if it's $1500 and the size of a mini fridge. Not to mention 2008 cards are not even capable of the DX11 feature set. So all in all they are equal to high end rigs from 2010.

The PS3 launched for $600 and Sony still lost $250 on each console. MS launched the 360 for $400 and lost $150 on each console. It took Sony nearly 4 years to see profit and MS about 2 years. That's why the gen lasted so long and it probably won't happen again. This gen they were able to almost break even at launch. And you will probably see fully backwards compatable sequels to the consoles in 3 years.

Too late, I already pre-ordered the PS4 deluxe edition

There are multiple factors why these consoles are weak as they are.

1. Their CPU's are the main culprit, their weak IPC performance because of their architecture and the fact that they are only clocked at 1.6 and 1.7 ghz.

The fact that both the PS4 and X1 dont and cant allocate all cpu cores to feed their gpu's does not help matters. This is why DX12 is being introduced to the X1, and PS4 will follow suit.

2. Their gpu's are only in 7790-7850 performance ranges, these gpu's performance are not any better then what was available in late 2011 into 2012.

3. Cost and Profits

MS and Sony lost billions on the Xbox, 360 and PS3, Between insanely high R&D and manufacturing costs along with high failure rates. It forced Both companies to prolong the generation to make up for the loses. This time around MS and Sony decided to work within their means and sell a product that actually broke even to making them profit from the start. Working within a set budget per unit limits what they can throw into the console.

Maybe by the tenth generation peasants will get to experience 1080p 60fps.

Oh vells. The game is awful anyway (if the beta was any indication)

The game won't be good on any system, so I wouldn't try to worry about it.

@faking_it_bad: Lol I've never even been in a match of BF4 with hackers. I actually would wager the hacking issue is 85% fabricated or false claims due to the horrible state the game was in causing problems on the server people thought were hacks or just people and sites talking bullshit or creating bullshit analytic software. For example I use mainly bolt action rifles and I have a high head shot ratio. I own in a match and then one of the opposing players gets on a site that evaluates your stats and sees if it seems out of the norm, If it thinks it is it will put a flag beside you. He comes back and proceeds to say the site says I'm a hacker, and that people like me ruin the game, even though I haven't hacked a multiplayer game my whole entire life. Single player games ya but I'm not a douche who can't try to learn a skill I actually enjoy a little competition and challenge.

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

Yeah because the xbox one and PS4 have so many free cores to use to feed the GPU...lol

Keep that DX12 secret sauce alive...lol

Any way this is the same thing that happen with BF4 on 2013...

this has more to do with shitty devs then anything else. this game uses the same engine with hardly any underlying changes. api's have gotten better for both consoles since bf4 and they cant even get this game to run at a better frame rate. there are pleny of other games out there that look better then this and run just fine on consoles

lol here comes the copy and pastier. PS4 still uses deferred workloads same as all current API's.

Everything still goes through a single core. DX12 will bypass the limitation noob keep that denial alive. Once dx12 becomes the standard all devs will start using all the resources available. PS4 will see its API standard usage change as well.

@OhSnapitz:

Bruce leeroy?

Good to see someone else knows about last dragon.

I feel good buying my games on consoles for that fantastic, high quality version, instead of the broken, shitty ones on PC.

The Order use a foward render engine so does FH2 on xbox one.

There isn't a core to spare on any of the 2 units to use,the CPU is basically completely use on both consoles man,6 cores been use has been the norm on consoles since 2005 maybe it is on PC where that shit was late.

DX12 will do shit and when it fail to deliver i will be making fun of you all the way.