Looks like it was true.This is from the first direct feed video that came out today. Those jaggies and low res textures :lol: killzowned24

LOL... You wanna know something funnier?

The environments don't cast their shadows on the cars. :lol: That's PS2-era shit.

Look at :28 to :33. :lol:

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

News just getting worse for lems.

Kaz_Son

Yeah. It's funny how that lemming pretending to be a hermit Tessellation kept going on about how dev kit performance does not equate to retail unit performance, yet it's the Xbox ONE games that keep getting downgraded while PS4 games have been significantly improving since E3.

[QUOTE="XboxFails"]

So BF4 on the Xbox ONE is low settings.

"In the beginning of the video... around the tanks, no object has a shadow. No shadows are being rendered...."

mitu123

Xbox ONE isn't good at rendering effects. The Xbox ONE is like a slightly stronger Xbox 360. It renders slightly higher textures and polygon count.

Expect some more texture downgrades if they add shadows. :cool:

Um, the X1 version is low with a mix of medium, not all low.

mitu123

Gaffers confirmed 720p for Xbone version while having muddy textures. PS4 was confirmed to be running at above 720p with high quality textures.

That eSRAM bottleneck. :cool:

So BF4 on the Xbox ONE is low settings.

"In the beginning of the video... around the tanks, no object has a shadow. No shadows are being rendered...."

"As someone who saw the game today I can verify the textures were muddy and poor. The games were running on actual Xbox One consoles.

Edit: Game was not 1080p but was 60fps (ish) before someone asks.

The quality is poor as there are huge banners saying NO CAMERAS OR VIDEOS. With EA PR circling around you like hawks. "

:lol: Guess EA didn't want people comparing the PS4 version, which is comparable to medium-high PC settings to the Xbox ONE sub-low version.

[QUOTE="XBOunity"][QUOTE="Domin8ters"]Hmmm Quote: Originally Posted by oldschoolnerd: Not 100% on this, but I think that apart from bandwidth issues, there can be dependencies between the parallel threads. This would prevent linear scaling. The more you parallelise the work the more chance there is of a dependency cropping up and stalling the core. Possibly? It would explain why ms got more by the 6% upclock than enabling the extra 2 CUs. bkilian responds: Adding cores never scales linearly. For their statement to be true on a GFLOPS basis (which it probably isn't), a scaling efficiency of 95.6% per core added would provide 12CUs at 853MHz with the same horsepower as 14CUs at 800. At that (bogus) scaling factor, 18 CUs at 800MHz would only be 7.4% faster than 12CUs at 853MHz. The real scaling factor is guaranteed to be higher than that, but it will still be <1, and the scaling factor probably goes down with increasing cores, since the bottlenecks become even more important. You're going to have a lot more contention for a 256 bit memory bus at 12 cores than at 2. What this means is that in real terms, PS4 does not have, and never had, a 50% GPU advantage. What the actual advantage is, we may never know. Link for reference: http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=262Kaz_Son

":cry: b...bu...bu...but teh dGPU!"

":cry: b...bu...bu...but the volcano GPU hidden secret sauce that MS will announce in 2014!"

lol, you guys are pathetic..

You can't really blame them, though. Microsoft is the one making $21 billion in profits annually and has $70+ billion in liquid assets. It still blows my mind how a company that has to sell buildings to stay afloat designed a far superior architecture. Mark Cerny is a genius and it just goes to show that 1 talented man is worth more than thousands of overpaid mediocre ones.