DF: DA:I runs better on xbox one, but looks better on ps4

DA:I according to digital foundry is another game that looks better on the ps4, but runs better on the xbox one.

Here is some of the things digital foundry found while they did they technical analysis for the PC,xbox one and ps4 versions of the game.

Excerpt #1

In an attempt to squash launch controversy developers have been increasingly open about rendering resolutions and BioWare is no exception. As the developer revealed, Dragon Age runs at 900p on Xbox One and 1080p on PlayStation 4. The console versions both appear to use the same post-process anti-aliasing technique. As expected, this looks significantly cleaner when paired with the native 1080p image of the PS4 release, but still works well enough on Xbox One. Both versions also utilise HBAO and implement decent anisotropic filtering, though the lower resolution on Xbox One does leave textures looking a touch blurrier.

Excerpt #2

Performance-wise, both consoles do a good job of delivering a stable, consistent frame-rate but it is the Xbox One version that delivers the smoothest experience overall. Frame-rate drops are extremely rare, only appearing in the most extreme circumstances - for all intents and purposes we're looking at a locked 30fps. Unfortunately, the higher resolution on PS4 comes with a catch in the form of noticeable performance dips during strenuous sequences. During a normal run of play, the game does a good job of maintaining the target frame-rate but frame-rate faltered sometimes during battle sequences and sometimes even traversal across the landscape. Both versions use an adaptive v-sync setup that results in torn frames when the 30fps performance target isn't met, but thankfully, torn frames are contained mostly within the top 25 per cent of the screen, with less of a serious impact on image quality than you might expect.

Summary of article

The future of BioWare games is looking bright indeed. Dragon Age fans should be pleased by the combination of Inquisition's excellent visuals and stable performance, while its gameplay is receiving plenty of plaudits. From a technical perspective, even with the underwhelming cut-scene performance, Dragon Age: Inquisition is still the most optimised BioWare experience we've enjoyed on a console. Thankfully the firm has acknowledged these issues (which are mostly a concern for PC owners) and is apparently investigating solutions. Considering that much of the problem appears to be tied to animation rather than frame-rate, however, we're very curious to see what they come up with.

In terms of final recommendations, it's clear that if you have the muscle, the PC version is going to provide the best experience - but the console versions are still very impressive. If you don't mind minor frame-rate dips and feel that image quality is most important, it's easy to recommend the PS4 version. However, those looking for the most stable experience should instead opt for the Xbox One version. It's clear that neither console version is quite perfect but the level of graphical accomplishment and performance are an enormous improvement over every other BioWare console title we've played.

More can be read here

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-dragon-age-inquisition-face-off

I wonder if this looking better on the ps4, but running slightly or significantly better on the xbox one pattern will continue.The first two excerpts posted here are the most important parts of the article.I wonder if the ps4's cpu is causing the framerate issues in that version of the game.

As expected, the PS4 can't do 1080p.

@super600: GET READY

Ill take the better running game over the better looking game,

1080P can take a hike if the framerate doesn't hold up.

But 1080P is the buzzword this gen, so gotta roll with it.

If I had to choose between the 2 I'd choose the X1 version. Games run better, less issues, and better overall online experience. Looks to me like the Xbox Won.

Cmon people, i don't care much for the PISS 4 either, but the frame rate drops are minimal. It's between 30 and 28fps most of the time. It's still a better choice than the xbone version at 900p

Still, the fact that many games are showing frame rate issues with the ps4, and xb1 version, at the beginning of the gen is disheartning.

I wonder if a GTX 750ti paired with a decent cpu could perform better again, at 1080p.

Fps > Graphics , IMO .

Frame rate drops on both consoles but higher resolution on PS4. Pick your poison.

You would say that, shill.

i prefer higher framerates this game lags enough as it is on consoles

i wouldn't want it laggier on ps4 very happy with my xb1 copy

i don't know man, i would much rather have a smoother game than more pixels. but thats me.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Thanks for sharing. I was looking at getting the ps4 version but I definitely value performance over visuals so I will probably get the X1 version

Hope they get the sli issues fixed for pc... I chose 1080p60 fps . instead of 4k since i couldnt get sli to work on any settings. And 1 970 at 4k only gets me 30fps..... Eeeewww.... :P

But lower FPS is more cinematic.

Don't worry, the PS4 version will probably sell more so that makes it better.

I would take a more stable framerate over a higher resolution.

That being said, I am getting the PS4 version due to not having a Xbone. With the recent price drop and release of some heavy hitting titles the Xbone may be in my short future.

Saw the videos, in the 5 minute one there is a 1 fps difference like 30% of the time and a 2 fps difference 20% of the time (both favoring xb1) and they are both 30 fps the remaining 50% of the time; curiously there is a few places where ps4 outperforms xb1 for a few seconds but it was infrequent in that video). Also, XB1 frequently has pop in on distant objects though both had distant shadow pop in occasionally. Tessellation on ps4 is also a cut above xb1 version; in most scenes it isn't too bad but on certain ones (any large gravel concentration) it looks much flatter and less detailed on xb1. Larger vegetation appears mostly the same (with some shimmer on xb1) but grass density appears slightly reduced on xb1 (or the inferior image quality might make it seem like so) . Ground textures and walls are less detailed on xb1 and become blurry closer and every wood/woodgrain surface is also less detailed on xb1.

So it would seem according to the df videos and pics:

xb1

• 1-2 fps advantage frequently

ps4

• 30% higher rez all the time
• better tessellation all the time
• better af and/or textures all the time

That is a lot of permanent trade-offs for a frequent but not constant 1-2 fps advantage.

If it could not do 1080p it would be 900p..

So you would take the PS4 version most of the times.?

If you are talking 60 vs 30 yeah but mostly 28 vs 30 is basically identical while the PS4 has 1080p boost,AA seems clear on PS4 and the xbox one has blurrier textures.

I wish i were getting a constant 60fps but sadly i do not. I had to turn tessellation down from ultra to high and turn off msaa4 and use high post process aa instead to get 40-60fps at 2560x1080 but it is still extremely playable since it hovers in the low 50s like 80% of the time and looks fantastic. Mix of ultra with a few highs produces awesome visuals, still wish i could fully max it though but my 770 can only do so much. Here's hoping for a nice cyber-monday gtx 970 or 980 deal. I admit that i prefer this game with a gamepad though and found kb/m to be a tad unwieldy. I need to apply the cutscene 60fps fix, have yet to do so.

I noticed the frame rate drops to on the PS4 version, don't have an Xbox one yet. It is a bit distracting but not a game breaker, I'm still really enjoying it.

@tormentos: It should of been 900p. FPS is king.

Dude, to be fair, 4x MSAA and ultra tesselation is some heavy shit.

Even 2x msaa can dump some fps in any game. It's stuff like tesselation, higher shadows and particles that knock down framer rates usually.

The 770 is a great card and will last a couple of years just fine, but the end all be all.

FPS is king when you are talking shooters 30 vs 60,but arguing 30 vs 28 is a joke and you know it silly closet lemming,if you could pull 30 FPS on 900p on an Nvidia card vs 1080p 28 average on a ATI the ATI card would be crown graphics king period,better AA higher res and cleaner textures.

Is that gap was existent on PC Nvidia vs AMD the one doing 1080p 28 would win period after all dropping to 900p would boost your frames way pass 30.

The difference between 30 28- vs 30 is minimal at best is not Tomb Raider where the xbox one was behind 20FPS on average and up to 30 FPS behind in many instances.

So yeah your whole point is silly.

Trading Resolution for frames,mind you that as the generation moves on and the games demand more the xbox one will land on 720p again,because well to hold those 30 it will be more and more difficult each time specially on GPU bound games which are the majority.

Now to watch lemmings claim this game based on 1-2 frames just like they got ACU based on 4 more frames in crowds. Dat CPU. Dat comeback.

Some comparisons of settings on consoles with the pc version:

Tesselation = medium settings, with PS4 potential higher in some situations

Post processing = high settings

Foliage =/= any settings. Consoles use their own mix

Shadows = medium settings, with HBAO being used

On PC, ultra settings a huge performanc hogs, but don't offer enough gains for it. Seems to be a similar to teh 6GB ultra textures on SoM

@tormentos: Still believing I'm a lemming.... Wake up idiot.... Now to your point. Yes arguing 30v28 is stupid but we had people arguing yesterday over grass in GTA5. Stupid is SW and Stupid is what we do. Yes, we know that the PS4 produced better visuals. This has been proved time and time again, you don't need me to tell you something you already know. The fact of the matter is though, the consoles are proving that they can't produce the visual quality we demand at the resolution and performance levels we demand.

The differences between the two consoles are minimal to me as I play my games on PC.

I notice a lot of frame rate drops during the cut scenes on ps4. it truly is quite annoying and takes me out of the story.

PS4 version looks 50% better, thanks for link TC.

@deadline-zero0: I've been looking for benchmarks with budget builds and I'm having no luck so far. I'm curious what the performance is like with a i3 4130/750 ti combo or something. If that can achieve medium/high quality with a better frame rate then there is no reason to get this on console if one has the choice.

Digital Foundry acknowledges one runs better but another looks better. Funny how they never separated the two like this at the beginning of the gen when Xbox ONE games looked better. Still a biased website doing biased things.

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS: Agreed but also you are not going to see the difference from 1080 and 900 unless you play with two big 50+ inch HD sets side by side and play with a controller in one hand and a magnifying glass in the other hand

Also add to the fact that the One will upscale it to 1080 anyway. Therefore you get visuals and performance on Xbox One which to me makes it the winner here.

Here's the rule of thumb for any game like this:

900 upscaled to 1080 with performance> 1080 with low performance

so the age old argument of looks or personality has finally entered the gaming realm. me? i choose looks

Fps is king no matter what game you are playing, How long you COWBOYs going to keep the 1080p hype up past performance of the games don't you know if your game stuttering or tearing you really not getting the full benefits of having a superior IQ? Most of the time you are wasting your time arguing anyway with these old ass LCD TVs yall got. Apex, insignia, tvs like just make your IQ arguments dumb

LMAO lemmings celebrating a 2 fps difference,

i take cleam IQ in 1080p with -2 fps drop over a blurry looking game with +2 fps in sub-hd

WTF the grass in GTA is basically comparable to one setting on high vs mid,basically hell it has been this way since ever...

There is considerable more foliage on GTA PS4 than on XBO which is indicative of a stronger GPU,arguing 2 frames is a joke you will not notice the fu**ing difference,you can tell between 30 and 60,between 30 and 28 you can't period it is a fact and you know it,unless the game drops into the 20's or teens you would not notice those drops,much like you don't notice 60 vs 55 or even 58..

That you demand which is totally different i don't have a R290X i have a R270 the majority of PC gamers are not even abode my freaking PC let alone on something stronger,so that is what you demand,again beat the PS4 price wise the you have a point,hell now the xbox one became even harder to beat by PC at $350 price wise,you get what you pay for nothing more nothing less.

lol what there is to damage control the xbox one is inferior once again 28 vs 30 can't notice dude but better AA,cleaner picture and blurrier textures can..

will not end well......

Anyone else get the feeling that the deeper we go into this gen the more splitting of hairs we'll see in these face offs. Arguing over these minute differences is looking sillier each day. Also that 50% FUD ponies keep trying to spread makes them look dumber and dumber each day.

Even when people provide the original ink of the dev when he said games would be developed 50% faster ponies still intentionally misquoted him continuing to spread FUD. **shakes head**

as if you notice the difference between 30fps and 28 LOL

i do see the difference between 1080p and 900p

there is no DC clearly ps4 is the better version

how can a muti pla game be called better on the ps4 if u have the other one with better framerate? i see ppl saying the ps4 has the better 3rd party game but games like cod aw,gta,acu, have better fps on xbone...

So since PS4 enjoys the best version should it just be considered exclusive?