Equanimity
Member
Why?
Well it's higher than 1080p. It's most probably 1440p or something close to it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF: Battlefield 1 Multiplayer PS4 Pro vs PS4 Gameplay Stress Tests
- Thread starter Equanimity
- Start date
Why?
Well it's higher than 1080p. It's most probably 1440p or something close to it.
Didn't they sad a low of 1440p and high of 1560p in other video?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That's never going to happen because the worse cases are so much more demanding than the average. In theory, you could have 64 players on one flag all throwing grenades.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
For the single player yeah, I'm assuming the multiplayer is the same as they never mentioned it in this video.
That's very impressive considering the CPU is only 30% upclocked and a lot of people have said that you weren't getting 30% gains even at best case scenario. This is 50% higher FPS on the whole which fully surpasses the upclock.
Goes to show what fine grain optimization can do. The original PS4 must have really pushed the CPU to give the upclock such a big boost
Goes to show what fine grain optimization can do. The original PS4 must have really pushed the CPU to give the upclock such a big boost
Doesn't 64 player mode on this map give trouble to i5 CPUs (even 6600K)?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I'm averaging around 100fps on the PC in CQ64 and I still get drops to the 40s when things get really bonkers. But that's the lowest I've seen.
Tobe Tobusch
Member
Gonna buy a pro as soon as I have that money left.. The framerate on the nomal ps4 is so so bad, it's crazy sometimes. Proper aiming is not possible in many situations imo.
It's a misconception that's been spread around pretty aggressively on GAF.
The actual policy is: No multiplayer mode will jump from a target 30fps to a target 60fps on the PS4 Pro. It's pretty simple.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
After playing on the pro all weekend, you definitely get an advantage over regular PS4 users. Having a smoother framerate = smoother aiming/response and I could not only feel the difference but see it in my end of round scoreboard.
Marty Chinn
Member
This to me is much more important than down sampling image quality. Wish it was able to hold a locked 60 fps, but something is better than nothing.
Not if you have decent speed RAM. Only a few frames dropped (to 58 or 59 fps) in hours of play on an oc 6600 maxed out + super sampling here...
visiblemode
Member
Yep. This is the perfect example of devs making the difference. The HW is there GPU waiting like a, I dunno, butterfly? Just ready to be used. Good going to the devs. I want this game....
RunningRiot
Member
I'll be looking to snatch this up on BF
Yes a friend of mine says game is very CPU bound and even powerful cpus can take a hit.
Battlefront was probably low on CPU requirement compared to this though, smaller maps, lower player count, little to no destruction. Plus it was also probably not as GPU heavy.
With the ~30% boost in CPU plus whatever the GPU brings, I suppose the framerate, resolution and graphical improvements we are seeing here is to be expected.
Ah okay! That's good to know!
It's definitely a big argument to buy the PS4 Pro, then!
Felix Lighter
Member
That performance lines up right with the CPU overclock the pro received.
Well, large 4k TV with increased resolution should help too... So everyone buy Pro now.
I really wish hey would have targeted a framerate closer to what BF4 was for OGPS4. Having a framerate that constantly juggles from 30 to 60 is way too jarring and I would have definitely preferred having less graphical effects going off to achieve it. BF4 looked great and ran rather well, it's a shame you have to upgrade to have anywhere close to a smooth experience here.
That being said this is one of the better examples of what Pro can do, it's just a shame OG users have to suffer.
That being said this is one of the better examples of what Pro can do, it's just a shame OG users have to suffer.
PLASTICA-MAN
Member
Good FPS. I wish they improved the grapchis a little bit.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
It isn't the res as it is the framerate. When people are chugging frames on the OGps4, and I'm not, I definitely am feeling that advantage.
thelastword
Banned
Just goes to show that the consoles should not be directly compared to a PC. The lowest I saw it dropping was around 44fps on the pro. If the 6600k still falls to the 40's when things get hectic, it shows that when a dev uses the unique architecture of the console which includes GPGPU, that it can perform really well.
Funny enough, Dice said they improved cpu efficiencies and performance with the latest patch.....
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Not necessarily, because PC gamers can access higher settings than the PS4 pro.
thelastword
Banned
Battlefields and Ai are pretty much the same in conquest on both systems. The higher settings you can scale up on pc are pretty much gpu related.
OG PS4 will always come first. The percentage of pro users is so small and will remain small in comparison.
GameAddict411
Member
Why is it supersampling when it can't maintain the target framerates? I can only assume it's the CPU being very slow. UGH
Filthy Casual
Member
Pretty shit for ps4 poor players. Quite a significant advantage for pro players. I know it's a commonplace thing on PC but it still sucks. I would like the option on OG for 720p and better framerate if this is consoles now.
thelastword
Banned
I think Dice has to patch the PS4 version to perform better, the XB1 performs a bit better in campaign and conquest, which should not happen. I'm thinking because of the marketing deal they gave the xb1 version a bit more love, but I'm so wary of dice patches for battlefield in particular, they break so much trying to patch things for that series.
Also people have to understand that conquest is only one mode, there are other multiplayer modes that performs very well on PS4/Xb1, but it seems that everybody concentrates on conquest.
Equanimity
Member
Argonne forest is dropping a lot of frames since I installed the new patch. Every other map I have played performs well on TDM, Rush and Domination but argonne forest has become almost unplayable.
Dice needs to fix this asap.
Dice needs to fix this asap.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I can still get better performance by dropping settings down from ultra and I'm pretty CPU limited (an i5-750 paired with a 1070 GTX at 1080p). That holds true even at 1600x900. Draw distance/detail is the big one.
jabberwocker
Banned
yeah you have a higher spec pc by a good margin, of course it should run better.
I think people overstate how much of an advantage the extra frames are. I don't discount that there is some small advantage but better players on the old hardware will still be better than weaker players on the Pro, especially in a game like Battlefield (at least in the core game modes) where there is so much going on and there is such a high skill ceiling. I think the biggest difference is the quality of the experience. The game is more enjoyable when it's running smoother and it looks better.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
It's not weird. This was always the way it was going to be.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Less players and less destruction. Maybe smaller maps too, but I'm not sure about that.
Bf4 on PS4 did not run better than this. Your memory must be clouded. Plus it looked quite ugly in MP.
LelouchZero
Member
Are you running that CPU at stock clocks? 3.5GHz clock-speed would give it a good boost to performance from the 2.66GHz stock clock.
They're running an i5 750 which is a 6+ year old CPU, not a 6600K.
The 6600K keeps it well above 60 fps in most cases.
I really wish these consoles had better CPUs, hopefully we'll see more usage of GPU computations to compensate for the weak CPUs.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's overclocked. My performance is phenomenal for that CPU, but I'm still CPU limited. The 1070 is a beast.
BF4 definitely held better framerate in Conquest, it was usually in flux for sure no doubt there, but it stayed in the 45-60 range, usually being 50-60.
BF1 dips below 40 and into the 30s pretty often, especially on maps with large draw distances.
I've got 400 hours in BF4, I can definitely notice the difference. BF4 had dips, but they didn't feel as frequent as here to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkjS4wLEQX0
The video in the OP is with the new 1.04 update.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...eld-1-smoother-and-more-responsive-on-ps4-pro
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...eld-1-smoother-and-more-responsive-on-ps4-pro
LelouchZero
Member
Oh I see, yeah it's a really good GPU!
That 6+ year old CPU is still going strong though, 2 new PlayStations and a 3rd Xbox released since it came out, crazy really.
Do you know of the Xeon X5650? It's a six core Westmere CPU and that can be frequently had for under £80 used, it could be a nice upgrade to have if it's compatible with your motherboard and you'll get more performance in games like Battlefield 1 as it scales pretty well with more cores.
Cyborg
Member
I agree and thos dips are so rare that dont affect my match.
swearing-circle
Member
Head.spawn
Junior Member
For as massive as these online battles can get, the graphical fidelity, and still very much up there in performance; I'll give DICE a pass all day long. It's amazing what they manage to do with the limited hardware.
Xbox has a lower target resolution; it simply isn't pushing exactly what PS4 is, which is why there is a difference. If both games had the same exact target resolution and settings, then I would agree it's worth mentioning, but that simply isn't the case.