Dark1x of Digital Foundry says that he noticed a odd trend of a few games starting to perform better on PS4 Pro than Xbox One X

May 1, 2010
14,158
908
755
Because it's the odd case that I mentioned on the post you quoted. Is there any game left for you that you want to discuss or is all what's left here Ace Combat?
it's still about Anthem , Ace Combat & Resident Evil 2 remake nothing has change these games are close in visual & performance with Pro performing better at times.
 
Apr 17, 2007
5,185
551
880
A thread from the inventor of the 3tf Xbox One X console (6tf fp16).
We have so many games being better than the Pro,I don't really see a trend. KH3 runs better on the X, the Pro only wins when pushing way less pixels.
RE2 also runs better in gameplay, cutscenes for whatever reason don't but that's hardly something someone would describe as a plus for the Pro. And for Anthem, we know we are looking at old and unoptimized code. We should wait and see what will happen at release.
Wait KH3 runs better on the X? How is that possible when we have others in this same thread that talks about Japanese developers favoring the Pro. What other excuses are you guys going to come up with?

And lol at c0de posting on gaf, did they ban you on era?
 
Last edited:
Likes: II_JumPeR_I

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
Yet somehow they can't tell the difference , so did Sony make checkerboard rendering better on PS4 Pro?
Doubtful. Anthem uses Frostbite which used CB even on base Xbox One for Battlefront 2. We will see in the final face off but I expect all versions to have CB and it seems there is no special hardware needed for CB.
 
Jan 25, 2018
355
187
200
England
It seems it's been established this game is heavy on the GPU. Has anybody played both Pro and X ? I just have and X looks a lot cleaner to me and i know DF said 1800p on both but it don't look that way to me.
I'm not so sure if they are the same resolution, iv'e turned off chromatic aberration on both but sometimes the X looks sharper to me. When you stop moving it seems it takes a moment on Pro to look as sharp as the X, i'm probably wrong but best leave it to the experts for the final game now and it doing my head in switching between them.
I'm going to applaud myself :messenger_clapping: :)
 

TLZ

Lord of all gifs and memes
Oct 20, 2015
4,652
1,151
375
Sydney
I've crossed over with MLiG plenty of times and Marc has been in a couple of my videos (DKC + that GC HDMI chat thing). We have some cool ideas, though, for the future. Maybe we can get Game Sack involved too at some point.
I forgot about that, but I think I remember now. Great to know you're continuing it too. Your collaboration makes a lot of sense.

As for Game Sack, I'd love to see any of you randomly crash kameo the other's video and take over it, haha. Or something crazy like that.
 
May 9, 2018
773
440
205
Somewhere
Yet somehow they can't tell the difference , so did Sony make checkerboard rendering better on PS4 Pro?
Or maybe BioWare was able to take advantage of it. I mean that’s as likely as your theory about the SDK update. We don’t know but we do know that the resolution is greater on the X now.
 

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
it's still about Anthem , Ace Combat & Resident Evil 2 remake nothing has change these games are close in visual & performance with Pro performing better at times.
It's not about Anthem as it is pushing more pixels. It doesn't matter what is to be seen when there is more computational load.
It's not about Resident Evil 2 when this game has better performance during gameplay than the Pro. Last I heard you don't play cut scenes.
So we are down to Ace Combat.
 
Last edited:
Likes: II_JumPeR_I

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
Wait KH3 runs better on the X? How is that possible when we have others in this same thread that talks about Japanese developers favoring the Pro. What other excuses are you guys going to come up with?

And lol at c0de posting on gaf, did they ban you on era?
Why would they? And what do I care about others? Different people have different opinions.
 
Last edited:
May 1, 2010
14,158
908
755
It's not about Anthem as it is pushing more pixels. It doesn't matter what is to be seen when there is more computational load.
It's not about Resident Evil 2 when this game has better performance during gameplay than the Pro. Last I heard you don't play cut scenes.
So we are down to Ace Combat.
Why not? if the games look pretty much the same but perform better for now on PS4 Pro it's still a question of how this is being achieved.
 
Mar 23, 2015
1,653
251
310
www.egregoredesign.com
I want to chime in with the fact that Digital Foundry does a damn good service for the community regarding the technical attributes of games. Keep on keeping on.

Also want to state that too many people overblow graphical resolution before and after the announcement of the mid generation refreshes. Barring piss poor optimization, it's a platform war football 9 times out of 10. (the tenth time being those who drop ridiculous money on a high end gaming rig and that is their passion) Devs need to leverage graphical fidelity vs. the target hardware vs. the frame rate. Furthermore, the success of the Switch and, to a lesser extent, the indies on it denotes it is all about the damn software first and foremost.

Have diverse and good games. Optimize it to the hardware. The rest is chest thumping and should not be taken too seriously.
 
Last edited:

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
538
262
390
Germany
Why not? if the games look pretty much the same but perform better for now on PS4 Pro it's still a question of how this is being achieved.
How long do you want to just copy and paste the "how!?!??!?!?!?!" part while ignoring the answers that are given to you? It does perform better because the one x is pushing 44% more pixels. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that answer and I swear to God if you keep posting "yeah but why tho" posts I will assume you're just trolling.

If you want I can make 2 Screenshots half life, one running in 1080p and the other in 720p just to see how your brain will melt seeing two different fps numbers on the same machine. "how do they achieve this!?!?!?"
 
Last edited:
Likes: xemumanic
May 1, 2010
14,158
908
755
How long do you want to just copy and paste the "how!?!??!?!?!?!" part while ignoring the answers that are given to you? It does perform better because the one x is pushing 44% more pixels. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that answer and I swear to God if you keep posting "yeah but why tho" posts I will assume you're just trolling.

If you want I can make 2 Screenshots half life, one running in 1080p and the other in 720p just to see how your brain will melt seeing two different fps numbers on the same machine. "how do they achieve this!?!?!?"

So just ignore the fact that they look almost identical? making them look almost the same is not coming free something is being done to make the PS4 Pro game look just as good as it look on Xbox One X.
 
Last edited:

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
So just ignore the fact that they look almost identical? making them look almost the same is not coming free something is being done to make the PS4 Pro game look just as good as it look on Xbox One X.
Yes because they use CB, a tech that can be applied everywhere. The thread is a joke because its starting point is mostly gone, there is no trend that you caught, nothing. Perhaps wait until release next time before making a thread prematurely.
 
May 1, 2010
14,158
908
755
Yes because they use CB, a tech that can be applied everywhere. The thread is a joke because its starting point is mostly gone, there is no trend that you caught, nothing. Perhaps wait until release next time before making a thread prematurely.
The starting point isn't gone
 
May 1, 2010
14,158
908
755
Come on.. they are not looking the same. The ps4 version is not better than the X because it’s pushing more pixels. As simple as that.
It’s amazing how one guy who has been trying to educate everyone about the importance of the FP16 secret sauce, can’t see the importance of resolution.
Did you read the article?

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that in a world where Xbox One X has established itself in consistently delivering the preferred multi-platform experience, the Anthem demo delivers higher frame-rates on both PlayStation platforms. Yes, resolutions are lower and the PS4 consoles run unlocked with no 30fps cap, but regardless, the performance from X especially isn't where it should be. In terms of pure pixel output, Microsoft's enhanced machine is delivering 44 per cent more resolution than Pro, but on default settings with all post-processing features enabled, it's difficult to tell Pro and X apart. Only by disabling these features (a welcome option in the graphics menu) and by pixel-counting were we able to discern the difference in actual play. Disabling these features also seems to remove the curious stippling-like effect that did initially suggest that we were looking at a checkerboard-style presentation.
 
Mar 19, 2013
21,605
612
460
Brazil
What is game delivery?! Do you mean the point that you always bring to mention with the slow disc install? Because you cannot mean that XBL downloads are slow. Then it sounds that nobody on earth wants to buy an Xbox One because it's so awful but although it's not setting the world on fire, it still sells so I think the OS is not so bad for millions.
And yes, the launch was bad and the years thereafter but that's not the topic of this thread.
Games mean games.

From the launch to today nothing changed except even less games makes you want to buy a Xbox One.

Sell me in one? What it offer to gamers?

That is the sad truth... there is nothing exciting in the Xbox One... it is a bad product... if MS can’t see that for the next generation then they are fated to suffer again.

What is the X? A bad product with stronger hardware... all the issues except the weak hardware with Xbox One are not fixed... it lacks personality, games, appeal but it is indeed the most powerful console in the world.

Like I said even Wii U have more to offer to games than XB1.
 
Last edited:
Dec 5, 2008
5,730
578
805
Montreal
Games mean games.

From the launch to today nothing changed except even less games makes you want to buy a Xbox One.

Sell me in one? What it offer to gamers?

That is the sad truth... there is nothing exciting in the Xbox One... it is a bad product... if MS can’t see that for the next generation then they are fated to suffer again.

What is the X? A bad product with stronger hardware... all the issues except the weak hardware with Xbox One are not fixed... it lacks personality, games, appeal but it is indeed the most powerful console in the world.

Like I said even Wii U have more to offer to games than XB1.
Forza horizon series sold more than GTsports ;)
 
Last edited:
May 9, 2018
773
440
205
Somewhere
So pretty much Xbox X runs it at 4K Native with performance hits and Pro runs it at CB 4K.


Games mean games.

From the launch to today nothing changed except even less games makes you want to buy a Xbox One.

Sell me in one? What it offer to gamers?

That is the sad truth... there is nothing exciting in the Xbox One... it is a bad product... if MS can’t see that for the next generation then they are fated to suffer again.

What is the X? A bad product with stronger hardware... all the issues except the weak hardware with Xbox One are not fixed... it lacks personality, games, appeal but it is indeed the most powerful console in the world.

Like I said even Wii U have more to offer to games than XB1.
If it was as bad as you said it was, it wouldn’t be selling, but this shit is derailing the topic at hand.

Forza horizon series sold more than GTsports ;)
Siiiiigh
 

BesuBaru

Neo Member
Aug 25, 2018
41
32
100
For what it's worth, I think you guys do a great job. Can't believe people are going for conspiracies, but then you don't find any sort of defensible, rational thinking when it comes to fanboys.
I'll second this. I think DigitalFoundry makes top-tier analytical content. I've seen plenty of fanboys scream "media bias" (Especially with Xbox fanboys, won't name who comes first to mind), but said fanboys are usually feels over reals.
 

BesuBaru

Neo Member
Aug 25, 2018
41
32
100
I can't wait for 60fps to be the norm.
The thing is that back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era, games that ran at 60hz was the norm (Aside from some exceptions like early 3D games like StarFox and Hard Drivin, and bad/subpar ports). 30FPS caps only started to become commonplace in the 32-bit era, due to the lack of hardware rendering on consoles (Which made it hard to optimize a game for 60FPS), and due to 3D technology being early.

It's really only used nowadays to push visual flare at the expense of input latency and gameplay.

I remember when people were having wild claims near the end of last-gen that the Xbox One and PS4 would run everything at 1080p 60FPS.
 
Feb 29, 2016
868
683
230
Wait KH3 runs better on the X? How is that possible when we have others in this same thread that talks about Japanese developers favoring the Pro. What other excuses are you guys going to come up with?

And lol at c0de posting on gaf, did they ban you on era?
You have to force 1080p for it perform a whole 2fps better than the X at times. You might as well not even have a pro if that's how it has to be utilized. Pretty useless upgrade over the ps4 base.
 
Jan 17, 2018
398
235
200
The thing is that back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era, games that ran at 60hz was the norm (Aside from some exceptions like early 3D games like StarFox and Hard Drivin, and bad/subpar ports). 30FPS caps only started to become commonplace in the 32-bit era, due to the lack of hardware rendering on consoles (Which made it hard to optimize a game for 60FPS), and due to 3D technology being early.

It's really only used nowadays to push visual flare at the expense of input latency and gameplay.

I remember when people were having wild claims near the end of last-gen that the Xbox One and PS4 would run everything at 1080p 60FPS.
There is a chance for 1080p/60hz mode in NG games but devs would have to create games using 50% of available CPU power (for 4K/30 mode).
 

polybius80

Neo Member
Jan 10, 2019
24
20
80
I think everyone here, no matter what their platform of choice, fanboys and girls included that jaguar cpu is awful at this day and age and a major handicap in today’s gaming.
the jaguar CPU may not be the best available back then but its performance is not bad for the aplication and the rest of the specs of xbox one or ps4, I dont want to offend anybody but most people dont really understand how a game works and because of that they make clueless opinions about specs and how they affect game performance, so just because "most people" think something not make it right

lets say you replace the jaguar with a CPU 2 times faster, do you really believe the GPU is going to draw 2 times more frames per second?, sure it can improve performance here and there, but is not going to make the GPU draw in less time than it does, shader performance is not going to improve, today is very common to see games with dynamic resolution compared to the beginning of the generation and resolutions under 1080p, that is a GPU problem not a CPU one, and lets not forget that CPU have more free time now than at the beginning of the generation because physics are now calculated in the GPU and sound is calculated in their own processors
 

polybius80

Neo Member
Jan 10, 2019
24
20
80
The thing is that back in the 8-bit and 16-bit era, games that ran at 60hz was the norm (Aside from some exceptions like early 3D games like StarFox and Hard Drivin, and bad/subpar ports). 30FPS caps only started to become commonplace in the 32-bit era, due to the lack of hardware rendering on consoles (Which made it hard to optimize a game for 60FPS), and due to 3D technology being early.

It's really only used nowadays to push visual flare at the expense of input latency and gameplay.

I remember when people were having wild claims near the end of last-gen that the Xbox One and PS4 would run everything at 1080p 60FPS.
no

in old systems during a frame game logic runs for a moment and then stops for the "GPU" to draw the frame, then gives frame time for the logic(and sound) again to move memory for the updates and prepare for the next frame and so on, that was because they HAD to run at 60 fps because the lack of memory for a double frame buffer like "32 bit" systems where they can draw a new frame in a section of memory while the current frame(in another section of memory) is rendered on screen

old systems can't use its CPU for all the frame time and when they need more CPU time they make tricks like the black lines in atari 2600 games or less resolution, interlaced black lines(that give CPU time for logic) or even user mapper chips on a cartridge to give give order to the PPU in the nes

"32 bit" are way more powerful because they can use its CPU all the time and build a frame while the other is being rendered because they have the memory for it

the video memory looks like this




games like starfox renders inside the FX chip and draws an image that the snes can takes for display, snes dont actually manipulate this image itself, its only told to take the pixels and copy them in the screen but those pixels are updated by the FX chip all the time, the snes displays all HUD and wathever image is on FX chip at 60 fps that way the image of the 3d scene can render in less time and framerate is in sync with the screen
 
Last edited:
Likes: Negotiator

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
Let's recap what games the OP was about or which were mentioned:

  • Kingdom Hearts 3 - runs with better FPS on the Pro when you disable supersampling in the settings on the Pro but that means you will get worse image quality than the X because it supersamples the image from 2560x1440. The high resolution mode on the Pro renders at 2304x1296 and has worse performance than the X. Source:
  • Resident Evil 2 - This game runs at 2880x1620 for both X and the Pro. When it comes to performance, the X has an advantage in gameplay where the Pro has an advantage in cut scenes. As gameplay would be important to people actually playing a game, it's hard to find a positive here for the Pro or an advantage the Pro has over the X. Source:
  • Ace Combat 7: A game that's running at the same resolution on both PS4 and Xbox One X at 1080p but the pixel count is only done by DF which counted wrong in the past, no vgtech video yet. Pro runs at a better FPS than the X, Pro almost locked at 60 while X drops regularly from that. Source:
  • Anthem demo, code from Dec, 2018: This was said to be at the same resolution on both systems but now turns out to be the case that the X outputs at 4k while the Pro renders at 1800p. "UPDATE: Our latest tests with motion blur disabled suggests that PS4 Pro renders at 1800p, while Xbox One X hits full 2160p." So in this case we have the Pro again having better FPS while also pushing way less pixels. Source:
So with all this data, where is the actual trend that is the premise of this thread? The trend that the Pro can have better performance in games when it also has less to do?
 
Jan 25, 2018
355
187
200
England
Let's recap what games the OP was about or which were mentioned:

  • Resident Evil 2 - This game runs at 2880x1620 for both X and the Pro. When it comes to performance, the X has an advantage in gameplay where the Pro has an advantage in cut scenes. As gameplay would be important to people actually playing a game, it's hard to find a positive here for the Pro or an advantage the Pro has over the X. Source:
So with all this data, where is the actual trend that is the premise of this thread? The trend that the Pro can have better performance in games when it also has less to do?
Res 2 also has better SSR and shadow quality.
 
Likes: Believer1
Oct 22, 2013
1,884
314
390
NYC-LA
Sure, and launching that with worse specs a year later than the Pro 😂😂
The thread was already strange but now we are reaching fantasy island.
But a 6tf at 16fp would be just 3tf at 32fp which would be less than the Pro, making it worthl…….. What the fuck is even going on in this thread anymore?

The "Fiction" has spoken , that's what's going on..he should be onFinction from now on 😂🤣🤣 dudes a joke along with nutcase tlw.
 
May 4, 2005
12,384
1,162
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Let's recap what games the OP was about or which were mentioned:

  • Kingdom Hearts 3 - runs with better FPS on the Pro when you disable supersampling in the settings on the Pro but that means you will get worse image quality than the X because it supersamples the image from 2560x1440. The high resolution mode on the Pro renders at 2304x1296 and has worse performance than the X. Source:
  • Resident Evil 2 - This game runs at 2880x1620 for both X and the Pro. When it comes to performance, the X has an advantage in gameplay where the Pro has an advantage in cut scenes. As gameplay would be important to people actually playing a game, it's hard to find a positive here for the Pro or an advantage the Pro has over the X. Source:
  • Ace Combat 7: A game that's running at the same resolution on both PS4 and Xbox One X at 1080p but the pixel count is only done by DF which counted wrong in the past, no vgtech video yet. Pro runs at a better FPS than the X, Pro almost locked at 60 while X drops regularly from that. Source:
  • Anthem demo, code from Dec, 2018: This was said to be at the same resolution on both systems but now turns out to be the case that the X outputs at 4k while the Pro renders at 1800p. "UPDATE: Our latest tests with motion blur disabled suggests that PS4 Pro renders at 1800p, while Xbox One X hits full 2160p." So in this case we have the Pro again having better FPS while also pushing way less pixels. Source:
So with all this data, where is the actual trend that is the premise of this thread? The trend that the Pro can have better performance in games when it also has less to do?
If you primarily care about performance and not so much about resolution, it is still annoying you cannot choose to getthe same or better performance on Xbox One X. Afterall, it is a very, very expensive piece of hardware for tech enthusiasts and so it should offer that option regularly.
 

c0de

Member
Aug 22, 2012
8,436
44
450
If you primarily care about performance and not so much about resolution, it is still annoying you cannot choose to getthe same or better performance on Xbox One X. Afterall, it is a very, very expensive piece of hardware for tech enthusiasts and so it should offer that option regularly.
You are right that MS should offer an option to disable supersampling, I am with you on that.
 
Jul 9, 2018
1,256
1,784
295
If you primarily care about performance and not so much about resolution, it is still annoying you cannot choose to getthe same or better performance on Xbox One X. Afterall, it is a very, very expensive piece of hardware for tech enthusiasts and so it should offer that option regularly.
If you cared enough about performance to be annoyed by it, you'd be playing on the PC. Whoever plays on consoles is trading performance for convenience.
 
May 4, 2005
12,384
1,162
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If you cared enough about performance to be annoyed by it, you'd be playing on the PC. Whoever plays on consoles is trading performance for convenience.
I do care about performance and if Xbox One X was sold on the promise of 60fps on all games, no matter the resolution I would have even been willing to buy it, even though I am more of a platformer / arcade guy (so not so well served by Xbox and PlayStation in recent times). But for me to play on PC, you'd have to pay me a good wage. Just because one cares about performance it does not supercede all other concerns: Ownership, fixed platform qc, compatbility guarantee, uncomplicated environment... There are many many reasons I would always choose console over PC. Being able to enforce performance by hardware spendings is the only reason, however, that I could think of, that would be in favour of PCs.
 
Likes: Negotiator
Jul 9, 2018
1,256
1,784
295
I do care about performance and if Xbox One X was sold on the promise of 60fps on all games, no matter the resolution I would have even been willing to buy it, even though I am more of a platformer / arcade guy (so not so well served by Xbox and PlayStation in recent times). But for me to play on PC, you'd have to pay me a good wage. Just because one cares about performance it does not supercede all other concerns: Ownership, fixed platform qc, compatbility guarantee, uncomplicated environment... There are many many reasons I would always choose console over PC. Being able to enforce performance by hardware spendings is the only reason, however, that I could think of, that would be in favour of PCs.
Please link to the promise of 60 fps. Nobody promised that. The X1X was marketed on 4k resolution, and they delivered on it.