DF: Rise of the Tomb Raider: Xbox One X vs PS4 Pro First Look Graphics Comparison!

It's going to be interesting to see what microsoft can do with there box, it either is going to backfire for them on one way or the other tho.

If the xbox can really pull off better visuals at better framerate then a far more stronger piece of hardware in PC ( gpu side ) then there is something going very wrong with windows and how it handles the drivers even at dx12 for that matter.

If not it's going to look good for there windows platform, but bad for there xbox platform.

@endofaugust: plus, even if the resolution difference, per se, isn't all that noticeable, it will help make the improved textures pop more as well

As Digital Foundry already stated as did I, Nixxes no doubt completely disabled the Depth of Field to highlight the additional resolution and texture detail in their trailer for the game. It's not that it's going to be omitted from the actual game, it's hard to show off environmental texture resolution increases in a video when they're masked by DoF.

@endofaugust: Oh ok. I thought this was the actual product we'd be getting. Why are we comparing this with Pro then? Lol I'd much rather compare 2 actual products... Like what I'm going to actually see on my TV.

Well you can still clearly see the differences in the foreground, just apply those to the background with some DoF and you have the final product.

Well said. I just went with what was said since June 2016. Not every game will be native 4k or 60 fps. I never let my expectations go crazy since that was stated. I am more than pleased by what DF and devs are saying about this piece of hardware.

@endofaugust said:

@reduc_ab_ said:

They look......exactly the same. I mean, really. I don't see a difference at all?

It's pretty clear, the clarity is much better and the texture resolution is considerably higher. The Pro version looks soft because of its lower render resolution and the textures are a muddled.

This right here is day/night. Xbox One X indeed looks better then Pro. Anyone who's been gaming on PC can clearly see the obvious.

@davillain- said:

@endofaugust said:

@reduc_ab_ said:

They look......exactly the same. I mean, really. I don't see a difference at all?

It's pretty clear, the clarity is much better and the texture resolution is considerably higher. The Pro version looks soft because of its lower render resolution and the textures are a muddled.

This right here is day/night. Xbox One X indeed looks better then Pro. Anyone who's been gaming on PC can clearly see the obvious.

“I believe that the difference between what we’re going to deliver with Scorpio from a performance perspective and PS4 Pro will be obvious to customers. I believe we have the best value this holiday, and I think we’re going to have the most powerful box next year.”

"The performance delta will be obvious" - Albert Penello, September 2016

This is the fruit of those post E3 statements coming to life.

The X just dropped its pants and took a giant dump down sonys throat.

If this is one of the first multiplats with this big of a difference, imagine down the road. It's going to get uglier for Cows here on out. Every Pro version will be the worst version.

Of course it took optimizations...

lol good one.

@tormentos said:

XBO 4k 30FPS

vs

But but but but higher bandwidth lower cache 1070GTX equivalent forza wet track...

Yep and they suspect X isn't running max PC settings too....making it even weaker..

I think the takeaway from all this is that as long as your expectations are not through the roof in terms of graphical difference between Pro and X1X quality you should be happy going with the X1X. It's not a huge leap in quality, but a slight edge is there if you're interested in multiplats running a little better on the X1X.

It's a bigger difference than is being led on by your post, it's essentially as large of a delta between the GTX 1070 and the 1080 Ti for perspective, no one would call that a "slight edge" or a "little better".

The game is raw rendering a 100% higher resolution and looks better in the process, that's no small feat.

@endofaugust: At this point, with this game, that "big difference" is not evident though. Maybe in the future it will be, with other games. But looking at those pics/vids, the difference in quality between the two versions does not leap off the screen, so to speak. It's there, but it's not huge. Again, we'll have to wait and see for future applications. Undoubtedly the X1X is a nice machine. Incidentally, I'm really hoping MS offers a solid VR headset; if they did, I think I'd bite. VR is my weakness, and I'm sure the X1X could do very well in this regard.

If thats not a big difference, I'm not sure what is a big difference. Lets be clear, the game looks good on the Pro, and i'm willing to bet there's not a lot that can be done to make the game dramatically better looking. I would imagine the delta between the X1X and the Pro is larger than the delta for the GTX1080 and X1X (For this game). Like someone above mentioned, rendering 2x the pixels, WHILE displaying better textures is going to display better. Nothing to be ashamed of for the Pro, newer tech almost always reigns supreme.

@lhughey: Well yeah, it's better tech for sure. But it's not a HUGE leap. We'll see how other games turn out tho.

Anyway, I'm not a Pro defender. I don't even like the thing. I think Sony wasted their time making it honestly. My OG PS4 does the trick just fine, and I'll most likely stick with it until next gen rolls around.

Holy shit xox destroys all

Dude are you Blind??

Did you not catch the blurry textures on the engraved Stone for example??

Even the texture quality is superior on the XB1X.

It's a Huuuge Leap that will be more pronounced on a 4K HDR screen.

This should make things abundantly clear, don't forget to open it in a new tab.

This is the first time we've really seen the difference between a native and checkerboard render constructing to the same pixel count for consoles. It's night and day in terms of clarity even if you don't factor in the high resolution textures, the checkerboard render can clearly be oust as a lower resolution, it's not even close.

"The performance delta will be obvious", and it is.

@endofaugust: Looking at that flicker image, the difference is indeed more notable. At first I thought the X1X was simply darker contrast....but it looks pretty good. I should say I'm on an island right now (literally); AKA nowhere near a computer to have a better look.

Don't get me wrong, though. The X1X is way more powerful than the Pro. I am starting to see that for sure.

That's great that they give you the choices to play the game at higher framerates,more detail or narite 4K..

my take away is there are going to be a lot of multiplats that are 4k on X1X but checkerboarded on the "Pro".

It's going to be a hot item at the beginning but it will slow down significantly after the holidays. IMO at least.

@tormentos said:

XBO 4k 30FPS

vs

But but but but higher bandwidth lower cache 1070GTX equivalent forza wet track...

Are you a PC gamer now?

We need proof of your PC, another deformed thumb pic in front of someone elses PC, you know like you did with the PS4 lol

After seeing the comparison vid I didn't really see the difference, but after others have been posting pics and such i'm starting to see the difference, and as tempting as it is, i'm too pissed off at MS atm to buy one.

@EG101: sorry bro. Uncharted best scene probably still looks just as good if not better overall. And thats the og ps4 im talking about.

1080p will continue to be the standard until next gen. Nice 500 dollar system tho. If i had the bread i would get one. But theres to much ps4 exclusives to buy

4k is what 1080p/i was last gen. some Ppl actually pefered 720 that gen lol

I might not buy a pro even.

@Livecommander:

Yea, XB1X is definitely not for everyone. As for UC scenes on OG PS4 looking better than TR on XB1X, I have to disagree.

I hate DOF anyway. Hopefully they leave it out of the final game. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would prefer blurred textures over clean crisp ones.

@EG101: Because you don't want an object a mile away looking like it's right behind you? Plus you want the focus to be on the subject... Just like in photography.

@i_p_daily: why pissed?

Watching the videos just reminds me of x1 and ps4 comparisons. Small difference just looking at videos.

Well that's also how the human eye works, when you look at something in specific everything around it falls out of focus.

6tf v 4.2tf, what the **** do you people expect?

And as long as games don't have eye tracking I keep turning dof off, it is way over done in most cases

@blessedbyhorus said:

The PS4 Pro got DUSTED and this is coming from a person who has been CLOWNING the Xbox brand a lot ever since their lackluster E3. Anyone denying this is just a butt hurt PS4 fan.

As clear as day.

X1X's texture art work seems to be superior to PC's version.

As a NVIDIA Gameworks Maxwell V2 era game, PC's version has to factor in GTX 970's 3.5 GB VRAM consideration.

@tormentos said:

XBO 4k 30FPS

vs

But but but but higher bandwidth lower cache 1070GTX equivalent forza wet track...

For V-sync lock selection between 60 hz and 30 hz, GTX 1070 would land on 30 hz lock. GTX 1070 doesn't have the power for 60 hz version.

X1X's 30 hz limit was set by the developer and it's not floating beyond 30 hz v-sync. No proper PC benchmark regime uses V-sync locks.

ROTR doesn't have a proper built-in benchmark, hence it needs multiple benchmarks i.e. each review site would have different ROTR scenes.

http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-founders-edition-video-card-review_181760/7

https://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-a-look-at-1440p-4k-ultra-wide-gaming/3/

Testing: Geothermal Valley is the location chosen for testing with this title, as it features a lot shadows and a ton of foliage. From the start of our saved game, we merely walk down a fixed path for just over a minute and stop the benchmark once we reach a broken down bridge (the shot below is from the benchmarked area).

Geothermal Valley is also DF's favorite testing ROTR scene. This is just "high settings" for Geothermal Valley. X1X destroys R9 Fury Nano (7 to 8.6 TFLOPS).

MS throwing money around to make a game (it all starts with one) for PC gamers only, as a gamer who only games on Xbox and supports them with buying their consoles, games, gold etc, I see this as a slap in the face.

As for the differences, yeah it's hard to tell the difference in motion, but looking at endofaugusts pic there is a big difference.

@ryu_silveira:

Quote :

stating it's not as good as the Pro.

......

I never said that XboneX is not good as Pro. Of course it's better. IN GRAPHICS DEPARTMENT, dumbass! Checkeboard technique is another thing. One console can produce better checkerboarding technique than other ( same as upscaling ). Nice try to twist my words, Xbone fan.

You find it to be an insult for them to create and release a follow up game to a long running PC franchise they have that completely predates Xbox?

Get a grip.

TFLOPS alone doesn't complete the GPU.

There's no magic sauce with X1X.

AMD's CU(Compute Units) has two main read and write group units

1. TMU, On X1X, Fury, Polaris 10 and PS4 Pro GPUs, L2 cache has expanded 2MB. This reduces external memory access rates. On Vega 56/64, TMUs has shared access to 4 MB L2 cache. XBO's TMU has access to ESRAM which is slower than L2 cache. When a programmer uses compute shader, TMUs are the main read/write units.

2. ROPS, On X1X , L2 cache has expanded 2MB. On Vega 56/64, ROPS has shared access to 4 MB L2 cache. Older AMD GPU's ROPS has no direct access to L2 cache without running into memory controller bottleneck. XBO's ROPS has access to ESRAM which is slower than L2 cache. When a programmer uses pixel shader, ROPS are the main read/write units.

MS demo'ed ForzaTech wet track with heavy alpha effects to highlight X1X's ROPS 2MB render cache improvements which includes 60 other graphics pipeline improvements.

X1X's GPU 2MB L2 cache + 2MB render cache = 4MB below-L1 cache.

Vega 56/64 has 4MB L2 cache.

In comparison to NVIDIA Maxwell/Pascal GPUs, both TMUs and ROPS has unified access to L2 cache. GTX1070/1080 has 2MB L2 cache. GTX 980 Ti/1080 Ti has 3MB L2 cache. This is a known NVIDIA advantage with Pixel Sahder and ROPS read/write. Pascal delta color compression can increase effective storage for it's L2 cache by up to 2 times.

https://www.amd.com/Documents/GCN_Architecture_whitepaper.pdf

The old GCN's render back end (RBE which includes four ROPS) cache. Page 13 of 18.

Once the pixels fragments in a tile have been shaded, they flow to the Render Back-Ends (RBEs). The RBEs apply depth, stencil and alpha tests to determine whether pixel fragments are visible in the final frame. The visible pixels fragments are then sampled for coverage and color to construct the final output pixels. The RBEs in GCN can access up to 8 color samples (i.e. 8x MSAA) from the 16KB color caches and 16 coverage samples (i.e. for up to 16x EQAA) from the 4KB depth caches per pixel. The color samples are blended using weights determined by the coverage samples to generate a final anti-aliased pixel color. The results are written out to the frame buffer, through the memory controllers

GCN version 1.0's RBE cache size is just 20 KB. 8x RBE = 160 KB render cache (for 7970)

X1X's RBE has 256 KB. 8x RBE = 2048 KB (or 2 MB) render cache. X1X has hold more rendering data on the chip when compared to Radeon HD 7970.

AMD's older GPU which includes Polaris GPUs.

On X1X, Pixel Engine (ROPS) was modified with 2MB render cache and direct access to 2MB L2 cache. Total cache below L1 cache is 4MB.

Vega 56/64's Pixel Engine (ROPS) has direct access to 4MB L2 cache.

Think of X1X having proto-Vega ROPS with 6 TFLOPS CU.

To prove my theory with X1X's improved ROPS design, GeForce GTX 1080 Ti was degraded to 6.5 TFLOPS and it's still delivers the same results as X1X's ForzaTech wet track with heavy alpha effects, hence I concluded that X1X's ROPS design was modified. Alpha effects runs via ROPS. ROPS contains graphics function units like alpha blending.

GTX 1070 has no problems with ForzaTech's dry tracks stable 60 fps.

TFLOPS means little when AMD's older GPU's read/write ROPS units are gimped and aging.

AMD R9-290X/R9-390X's aging RBE/ROPS comparison

16 RBE with each RBE contains 4 ROPS. Each RBE has 24 bytes cache. 24 bytes x 16 = 384 bytes.

X1X's RBE/ROPS has 2048 KB or 2 MB render cache. That's 5.5 times over R9-290X/R9-390X's version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-project-scorpio-tech-revealed

We quadrupled the GPU L2 cache size, again for targeting the 4K performance."

X1X GPU's 2MB L2 cache being used for rendering in addition to 2 MB render cache.

Yeah where does MS make most of it's gaming revenue from now?

Because PC only gamers buy MS consoles & gold don't they, oh they might buy games but bitch about having to do it through the win 10 store.

As for getting a grip, yeah you of all people shouldn't be telling people to "get a grip" lol.

@endofaugust said:

@reduc_ab_ said:

They look......exactly the same. I mean, really. I don't see a difference at all?

It's pretty clear, the clarity is much better and the texture resolution is considerably higher. The Pro version looks soft because of its lower render resolution and the textures are a muddled.

That doesn't look like a $100 difference, more like a $25-$30 one. And you need to have both games running next to each other to really have some sense of the differences. For most people such differences are irrelevant.

@pinkanimal said:

@endofaugust said:

@reduc_ab_ said:

They look......exactly the same. I mean, really. I don't see a difference at all?

It's pretty clear, the clarity is much better and the texture resolution is considerably higher. The Pro version looks soft because of its lower render resolution and the textures are a muddled.

That doesn't look like a $100 difference, more like a $25-$30 one. And you need to have both games running next to each other to really have some sense of the differences. For most people such differences are irrelevant.

http://wccftech.com/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-xb1x-ps4-pro/

It definitely looks better on the X1X. You cannot deny that what so ever. Congrats on the beastly console Microsoft. Now get to making some CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE games so I can have a reason to buy the damn thing.

@ronvalencia: that first image appears to have a blurry wall but that's due to the DOF being on for pro and off for x.