Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

The whole of DF is also pretty consistent in mentioning how 30%+ differences in resolution means little (it used to be a world away though ), while 1-5% differences in fps should always be a deciding factor. Going by the general sentiment in this thread, one wonders if DF's emphases are based on reality.

Look, if you're just going to pull up a bunch of articles dark10x didn't write in an attempt to claim that DF is a single hive entity of writers hellbent on making MS look good, and Sony look bad, then you're wasting both of our time here. This is a dark10x article, pointing out aspects of the performance that dark10x always talks about. There's no smoking gun here at all.

Despite all that though, I am going to address your "it used to be a world away" comment anyway. As resolutions increase the perceptible differences between them decrease. It's a LOT easier for me to notice the difference in resolution between games like Halo 3 or PGR3, than their follow-ups Halo Reach and PGR4. Also, taking an article where not only is the resolution higher, but the framerate constantly floats a good 8-10fps higher is hardly useful by comparison, as the framerate is covered in that article too. If the fps performance of the two were swapped, you may have more of a point (still not much though, considering that dark10x had nothing to do with that article).

 

[Lion Heart]

We are officially in bizzaro world. I watched the performance video and the framerate drops are very in frequent and only go down to 25 fps at its worst, not that I needed to watch it as I've been playing it and its super smooth.

Its very disingenuous of DF to separate a game based on performance and visuals in such a black and white manner when the performance advantage is so small. How many pc gamers would drop the rez to 900p over such infrequent drops? As a pc gamer myself, I know peformance can drop to the 40s when usually at 60 yet this doesn't seem to bother people, maybe everyone has 980s. Really sad to see gamers embrace this narrative in the name of console wars.

 

[dark10x]

Dark, didn't mean to insult you. But I don't see how it's an insult to question your conclusion that the significant PS4 resolution advantage is overcome by an infrequent frame rate drop, making the game a wash between the two console versions. You put an opinion out there, your readers should be able to question it.

Questioning it is one thing but to suggest that there is some sort agenda? Come on, now.

In my opinion a consistent frame-rate is more important for visual quality than resolution. That's subjective.

My conclusion, then, basically notes that users have two options - a better frame-rate or better image quality. You pick what's more important and that's that. Both versions are good but they each have drawbacks and those differences were presented.

Ultimately, if you have a decent PC, that's the best version.

Its very disingenuous of DF to separate a game based on performance and visuals in such a black and white manner when the performance advantage is so small. How many pc gamers would drop the rez to 900p over such infrequent drops?

I would and do, actually. The second I hit a frame dip in a PC game I'm in the options tweaking settings until that issue is removed. If the issue cannot be removed I will lock to 30 fps instead and go ahead and enjoy higher resolutions and detail. Drops UNDER 30 fps, though? No way.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Visuals PS4
Performance Xbox One

its becoming something of a trend.

Nah it's like working out man. You can stay doing 30 reps at 900lbs where you're comfortable. Or you can push yourself to 1080lbs. Yea in the beginning you may drop to 27-28 reps but with practice you'll be hitting that 30 reps at 1080lbs in no time.

 

[jaaz]

He didn't say it was a wash, he said get the one that aligns with your personal preference. If you care more about IQ, get it on PS4, if you care more about performance, get it on XBO. If you are somewhere in the middle, you have to make the judgement yourself based on the data presented by the article.

No one can reasonably compare the value of IQ against performance, it's a completely subjective preference, so he didn't proclaim one or the other, nor should he have.

He is giving a slight and infrequent frame rate advantage the same weight as a constant significant resolution advantage. Yes, it's IQ vs. performance, but no sane person making a decision between two console versions would sacrifice huge differences in IQ all the time for a 1 FPS difference sometimes. It's a stretch, whether for parity or whatever, but it's a stretch.

 

[nampad]

Digital Foundry's wording plays up the Xbox Ones version ones again.
I wish the posters concerned about the framerate difference so much would watch some framecounters of other 30 FPS target games.

The extra tessellation is nice extra along with the higher resolution.

APNG

First grass, now stones.

Seems like most posters just read the OP, where the part about tesselation was left out:

First up, tessellation. One of the most demanding settings in any game, tessellation is useful for dynamically increasing the quality and complexity of the underlying polygon meshes used throughout the game. In the case of Dragon Age, tessellation is used heavily throughout the experience with the game's various rocky paths and stone-work making great use of the technique. On the PC version, raising the quality of the tessellation setting simply increases the radius in which detail is rendered. In many cases the two console versions appear to be a match for the PC's medium preset but we noted a number of situations in which detail was greater on PS4, suggesting a higher setting on Sony's console.

 

[dark10x]

He is giving a slight and infrequent frame rate advantage the same weight as a constant significant resolution advantage. Yes, it's IQ vs. performance, but no sane person making a decision between two console versions would sacrifice huge differences in IQ all the time for a 1 FPS difference sometimes. It's a stretch, whether for parity or whatever, but it's a stretch.

It is not as slight or infrequent as you seem to think. That's where I think you are confused. While minor I encountered performance dips pretty regularly during play even while just running around in certain maps.

Digital Foundry's wording plays up the Xbox Ones version ones again.

I can guarantee you that it is not. If the platforms were reversed the conclusion would mirror that.

 

[onanie]

Despite all that though, I am going to address your "it used to be a world away" comment anyway. As resolutions increase the perceptible differences between them decrease. It's a LOT easier for me to notice the difference in resolution between games like Halo 3 or PGR3, than their follow-ups Halo Reach and PGR4.

Dude, it was 880x720 vs 832x624. The relative difference was even smaller than what it is now. It was "a world away" back then, but with bigger differences now you need "very close attention" to even catch the disparity.

 

[jaaz]

It is not as slight or infrequent as you seem to think. That's where I think you are confused. While minor I encountered performance dips pretty regularly during play even while just running around in certain maps.

Well, if it's frequent drops, that is another thing altogether. But as I read your article, and as I'm reading most reports, they seem to think it's very infrequent. Certainly not enough to overcome the significant resolution difference. I will boot it up and see for myself.

 

[dark10x]

Dude, it was 880x720 vs 832x624. The relative difference was even smaller than what it is now. It was "a world away" back then, but with bigger differences now you need "very close attention" to even catch the disparity.

In terms of percentages the difference between 900p and 1080p is much greater than something like that *BUT* in terms of the actual impact on image quality going between something like 1280x720 and 1152x648 is much greater. The lower the base resolution the more lost resolution will become an issue.

Now, if the PS4 version were 1080p and the XO version were 720p (ala Ground Zeroes) and the frame-rate situation was the same I'd probably be more inclined to deal with the frame-rate dips. That's just too large a gap but the drop to 900p with decent AA? If it means a better frame-rate I can deal with it.

 

[t0rment]

Digital Foundry's wording plays up the Xbox Ones version ones again.
I wish the posters concerned about the framerate difference so much would watch some framecounters of other 30 FPS target games.



First grass, now stones.

Seems like most posters just read the OP, where the part about tesselation was left out:

Once again, DF downplays the advantages of the PS4 version, since the difference in the tesselation is not even a factor on the verdict, but i bet if it was the other way around they'd be exacerbating the difference

 

[dark10x]

Once again, DF downplays the advantages of the PS4 version, since the difference in the tesselation is not even a factor on the verdict, but i bet if it was the other way around they'd be exacerbating the difference

I just have to laugh at this stuff, I guess. That's the only way.

 

[Synth]

Dude, it was 880x720 vs 832x624. The relative difference was even smaller than what it is now. It was "a world away" back then, but with bigger differences now you need "very close attention" to even catch the disparity.

Yea, but I'm not watching the numbers, and the relative difference doesn't mean much to me. At some point the pixels are small enough that I can't easily discern them, and even doubling the resolution doesn't have a huge impact on how I perceive the image. Now, if each gen I had a new TV that was twice the size of my previous set, and I remained the same distance from it... then the relative difference would probably matter more.

 

[onanie]

In terms of percentages the difference between 900p and 1080p is much greater than something like that *BUT* in terms of the actual impact on image quality going between something like 1280x720 and 1152x648 is much greater. The lower the base resolution the more lost resolution will become an issue.

880x720 vs 832x624
absolute difference 114k pixels
relative difference 18%
DF's description: "a world away"

1080p vs 900p
absolute difference 634k pixels
relative difference 31%
DF's description: "you need to pay very close attention to catch the disparity"

Even with a higher base resolution, the relative difference is also significantly larger.

 

[wachie]

I'll take the non-vaseline version, thanks.

880x720 vs 832x624
absolute difference 114k pixels
relative difference 18%
DF's description: "a world away"

1080p vs 900p
absolute difference 634k pixels
relative difference 31%
DF's description: "you need to pay very close attention to catch the disparity"

Even with a higher base resolution, the relative difference is also significantly larger.

lol

 

[yodathesoda]

Dat 50% power advantage.

 

[ninjablade]

I just have to laugh at this stuff, I guess. That's the only way.

i don't know why waste time on uptight fanboys, you have been a trusted and reliable poster here for years since the dreamcast days, if fanboys don't like what they hear, there gonna call you biased or say you have a agenda, that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

 

[StuBurns]

He is giving a slight and infrequent frame rate advantage the same weight as a constant significant resolution advantage. Yes, it's IQ vs. performance, but no sane person making a decision between two console versions would sacrifice huge differences in IQ all the time for a 1 FPS difference sometimes. It's a stretch, whether for parity or whatever, but it's a stretch.

Much like 1080p means per-pixel mapping, the true advantage of 1080p, 30fps means correctly synchronized projection. You can't look at 28fps as being only 6% worse than 30fps, it isn't, because it's not refreshing evenly, the impact of the performance is greater than the mathematical difference. The exact degree to which this affects an individual is way beyond any single person's ability to detail. The article presents the data, and you are expected to know your own preferences enough to decide which version shares the most of what you value.

If he had said '1080p is worth the performance issues', he'd be presuming a lot, and wrong for some people, possibly a great many. If they can't find an objective, outright winner, they shouldn't proclaim one as the victor at all.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

He didn't say it was a wash, he said get the one that aligns with your personal preference. If you care more about IQ, get it on PS4, if you care more about performance, get it on XBO.

Which would make sense if there were consistent performance issues on PS4. There aren't.

Meanwhile, the IQ and effects on Xbone are consistently shitty compared to PS4.

Hardly an either/or proposition here.

 

[Pestilence11]

"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."

Is this not the most important sentence when it comes to performance?

 

[StuBurns]

Which would make sense if there were consistent performance issues on PS4. There aren't.

Meanwhile, the IQ and effects on Xbone are consistently shitty compared to PS4.

Hardly an either/or proposition here.

It's funny you say that. I would take a consistent experience over one that's not, even if it means for 80% of the time, I'm getting a worse experience. It's why I don't like the dynamic buffer concept.

So I agree it's not an equal proposition, I just think it's in-favor of the opposite direction.

 

[GayForMaster]

Looks like this gen is 10 years too early for 1080fps/30 locked

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

It's funny you say that. I would take a consistent experience over one that's not, even if it means for 80% of the time, I'm getting a worse experience. It's why I don't like the dynamic buffer concept.

So I agree it's not an equal proposition, I just think it's in-favor of the opposite direction.

Different strokes for different folks.

For me, consistently beautiful wins out over consistently ugly, unless there's a major handicap that comes with the eye candy. And in this case, there's not even a minor handicap. It's a blip.

 

[Elandyll]

Actually, its about consistency. A game holding a steady 30fps will look and feel smoother than one that has regular drops, even if they are minor drops(its more than 1fps often enough).

Sorry Sean, I know you're a fairly level headed guy normally, but I'm going to call you out on this one. A 1fps (probably 2 as well) drop is likely impossible to notice for the vast majority of people.

 

[thelastword]

Just looked at the videos, the most immediate thing to me in the non-framerate video was the crisper picture on the PS4, the extra jaggies on the xbone version is definitely noticeable especially on translucent forms and effects.

I then got to the framerate video and I noticed immediately that the video isn't exactly like for like in every scenario. Look at the beginning of the framerate video, the PS4 player is already attacking whilst the xbox player just chills for a couple of seconds in the background before he enters the fray. It's really hard to take such conclusions seriously when what's being compared isn't exactly like for like. It seems that the PS4 player is generally more hack-slash happy throughout the many battle scenes captured, whilst the xbox player is just casually running around a bit too much without engaging. In such instances it is easy to conclude that the XBONE player is not taxing the engine like the PS4 player is. Perhaps DF can aim to minimize that a bit because I've been noticing a wider divide in what's being compared as of late.

Apart from that, the most noticeable observation was that the PS4 went to 31fps many times over, at least 8 times in the short video, this tells me that it hits 60fps quite frequently, I even noticed it in one battle scene, I'm not sure I ever saw the xbone hitting 31fps, maybe it did once but I'll have to re-check. It just shows that the PS4 is maintaining a higher framerate over the xbox if it was uncapped. Still, besides the first part of the video, where the PS4 dropped frames, I noticed that most of the other battles was a solid 30fps on the PS4, the XBONE was solid too of course, but something is still amiss.

According to dark10x's analysis video, there is no way the framerate is below the xbone's framerate 40% of the time, his very video goes against such a figure and that is just plain misinformation. What concerns me about these recent findings is one glaring issue though, it would appear to me that the PS4 version is not being optimized properly by the devs.

Could someone explain to me why drinking a potion in the middle of a barren expanse with no battle engaged drop the PS4 version to 27fps whilst the xbone version stays at 30fps? Yet in that same scene the PS4 version would hit 31fps, I saw the Ps4 version drop frames whilst the player engaged the menu in that very scene. With the GPU advantage that the PS4 has, maintaining a higher resolution at a higher framerate should be a no-brainer. It seems that the xbone is getting a lot of attention during dev-time, some which the PS4 could also use.

 

[Tom Penny]

Only 5+ more years of underwhelming console performance. Naughty dog or someone will save the day eventually.

 

[Synth]

According to dark10x's analysis video, there is no way the framerate is below the xbone's framerate 40% of the time, his very video goes against such a figure and that is just plain misinformation.

He said "40% of battles" not "40% of the time". If it were 40% of the time, we'd be reading a very different article.

 

[Seanspeed]

Sorry Sean, I know you're a fairly level headed guy normally, but I'm going to call you out on this one. A 1fps (probably 2 as well) drop is likely impossible to notice for the vast majority of people.

Where are people getting that its only a 1 fps drop? I've seen it mentioned over and over, but its definitely dropping more than that.

 

[thelastword]

He said "40% of battles" not "40% of the time". If it were 40% of the time, we'd be reading a very different article.

Even then it's not correct according to his own video.

 

[not_so_special]

have played both versions...framerate is almost identical,but resolution is noticeable blurry on the one...buyed the pc version

 

[vesvci]

I don't think that DF has a masterplan to downplay the differences between the two platforms.
They just tend to give a lot of space to even minor differences in Xbox One favor, when they manage to find them, because they are the only "news", the only things worth interest, discussion, and clicks.
Otherwise all of their articles would be something like: "... and once again the more powerful platform gets the best looking version of the game. No shit."

yikes, excellent point. news would not be news without sensationalism.

 

[StuBurns]

Different strokes for different folks.

For me, consistently beautiful wins out over consistently ugly, unless there's a major handicap that comes with the eye candy. And in this case, there's not even a minor handicap. It's a blip.

Don't get me wrong, if I wanted the game, I'd get it on PS4, big that's the point, he provided the data, and I would be able to make the decision I believe I'd prefer. He isn't trying to choose for people.

The consistency thing was just a philosophical point rather than in direct relation to the specific performances here. Like I'd rather Vanquish stay its anamorphic resolution than go to full 720p under less demanding loads.

 

[Ushay]

Games looks fantastic on Xbox One, personally speaking. PS4 shots look incredible too.

My only issue is an annoying sound bug that cuts out occasionally. Fixed by pressing start and reloading.

 

[Durante]

It's really silly to accuse dark10x of being biased towards one system or the other.

If anything, he's "biased" towards performance, that is, he values framerate higher than most people. Personally, I'd never take 900p over 1080p30 with a few drops -- but then again I am on the other end of the spectrum, valuing IQ above all else. (I also wouldn't be happy with the PS4 IQ in this game either, but that's besides the point)

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

Honestly, I'd always take a completely stable frame-rate over improved image quality. I've always felt that way which is why I've had argument with Durante and those that prefer superior image quality over rock solid performance.

Same reason why, in some cases, I lock my PC games to 30 fps if I can't hold a completely stable 60 fps. Consistency is important.

For console owners that prefer image quality to consistent performance, however, the PS4 version provides just that.

Is the IQ better than the xbox one version? Yes, but generally any game with screen tearing doesnt have good IQ if you ask me.

 

[Rurunaki]

It's really silly to accuse dark10x of being biased towards one system or the other.

If anything, he's "biased" towards performance, that is, he values framerate higher than most people. Personally, I'd never take 900p over 1080p30 with a few drops -- but then again I am on the other end of the spectrum, valuing IQ above all else. (I also wouldn't be happy with the PS4 IQ in this game either, but that's besides the point)

The problem though is, it's a technical comparison. Subjective opinions should not be included. We're pretty much dealing with absolutes here. I would prefer if their "opinions/preference" does not sum up the face off.

 

[Synth]

Even then it's not correct according to his own video.

Umm, how so?

By 40% of battles, he saying that out of every 10 battles, 4 of the would have frame drops present. He's not saying that the frames a dropping 40% of the time when you're in battle. If we were going purely by his video, then the drops would occur in more than 40% of the battles, due to the limited samples.

It's probably best to just ignore that one comment, because it's obviously easy to get confused by.

 

[K.Jack]

I don't recall ME3 being a slideshow on the PS3.

I watched my brother play through it on PS3. The framerate is horrible. I wouldn't call it a slideshow, but it gets down to 20fps and maybe even worse at times.

 

[crazyprac]

880x720 vs 832x624
absolute difference 114k pixels
relative difference 18%
DF's description: "a world away"

1080p vs 900p
absolute difference 634k pixels
relative difference 31%
DF's description: "you need to pay very close attention to catch the disparity"

Even with a higher base resolution, the relative difference is also significantly larger.

Lol you got to admit this pretty accurate and funny.

 

[HTupolev]

The problem though is, it's a technical comparison. Subjective opinions should not be included.

In terms of the part you're talking about, they're really not. This...

"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."

...follows fairly directly from the "objective" aspects of the analysis, and seems like a fair way of making the point.

 

[Always-honest]

Looking at the video, they seem very much alike. Despite the resolution difference.
Ofcourse on a bigger screen without compression the differences might be more aparent.
But from the looks of it, XboxOne got a really good version of the game.
Are there high res screens in the face-off?

 

[GnawtyDog]

The word consistency is truly a marvel of irony. Such a lovely word.

 

[Qassim]

The problem though is, it's a technical comparison. Subjective opinions should not be included. We're pretty much dealing with absolutes here. I would prefer if their "opinions/preference" does not sum up the face off.

I'm struggling to see where his "subjective opinion" is being included in regards to the choice over one or the other.

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.

The article provides evidence that the Xbox One version runs at a more stable frame rate, and without pushing people towards one or the other, concludes that the version you will prefer will depend on your preferences (iq vs a more stable frame rate).

 

[antitrop]

yup, same

yet we are told it happens 40% of all battles and there is tearing on 25% of the frame during those dips.

I have no choice but to call utter BS on that. I'll make videos today even just to see

I played for almost 5 hours last night on PS4 and didn't notice any tearing.

Worst technical problem is the laughably terrible frame stutter during some cutscene for no reason.

 

[wachie]

 

[Durante]

Flowergate?

 

[Always-honest]

Please, elaborate.

 

[GnawtyDog]

SonyGAF? Man alot of people going ape shit lately about X1 having better fps.

There's a few games on X1 that had slightly less fps and people bashed it. Funny how things work here

They work the same as they always have. Maybe you have a different perception of how it works.

Lol at SonyGAF.....seems like you missed TLOU:R DF threads...in actuality, it seems you have missed a lot.

 

[evolution]

Performance seems fine to me on PS4, I would go with that version considering it looks the best out of the two.

 

[Stallion Free]

Flowergate?

Consoles probably just haven't loaded the flowers yet in that scene.