They all run 1080p on ps4, only star wars is 900p on ps4 but its also 720 on xbox1, the rest are 900p on xbox1.
It's 900p at 60fps too. 900p at 30fps should never even get released on the PS4, but Ubi is strange with these things. AC4 was 900p on release, that run like butter, Watchdogs was 900p, that run like butter too, one received a 1080p patch the other did not. All of their games are 900p from the start because it's the XB1 standard, if they realize the XB1 struggles at 900p they may tone down the resolution a bit, like they did in watchdogs XB1 (which still runs at a worse framerate than the PS4 version at 900p). Somehow the AC games are the outliers, the special ones, pretty much every open world game runs at a higher rez and framerate than the XB1 version, but AC is so special that the extra power of the PS4 cannot be discerned in both rez and performance.
Let's get this clear, this game still has awful framedrops from what I'm seeing, especially when you start coachriding, (even in some battle scenes), I saw several drops to 23, 24, 25 fps in the Nxgamer video. If the game is cpu bound in these scenarios, then the same framerate would persist at 1080p resolution. So let's have the better resolution please.
You know what I'd like, I'd like for Ubisoft to give an option of 900p or 1080 in the menu, put your money where your mouth is, we would see how much the upgrade in resolution impacts the framerate. I'd also like to see who here would stick to 900p. Nothing was more noticeable to me when I patched AC4 from 900p, what a massive difference in clarity and IQ, the game looked so much better for it.
I was mainly referring to why there might be drops during cutscenes which aren't cpu limited and the rest of my comment was why I think the game can't be pushed to 1080p on PS4. Because it already drops below 30fps in 900p from time to time, most probably due to cpu limitations.
So yeah captain obvious, eh.
CPU limitations do not affect resolution, if this game is cpu limited, then the framerate would be the same at 1080p rez,of course with much better IQ.
Have you ever thought that its not a good idea to raise the resolution on a game when you cant maintain 30 fps minimum
For all you know raising the resolution to 1080p would cause even more frame rate instability. Which would be counter productive to the goal of better frame rate stability.
I have a shitty CPU on my PC, no matter how much I try to play Ryse, it uses 100% of the Quad Core CPU's, whether I play at native rez (1440p) or 720p the frame rate is about the same, it stutters and becomes unplayable. If I'm stuttering, I'd rather stutter at 1440P.......
It already drops below 30fps on occasion at 900p, at 1080p it might be much worse.
Well AK's IQ on consoles is poor as well, low AF + very blurry AA + CA + FG.
Syndicate seems clearner to me and graphically richer, lovely texturework on many places.
Excellent materials as well, better than AK from what I can see.
Does syndicate have pom, tesselation, particle effects, rain effects, texture detail as high and such dense geometry and detail like in AK? No. Neon everywhere, smoke effects a plenty, water effects exceedingly superior. People speak of PBR, but this is just another bulletpoint which means nothing until you see it's application in-game, the bat suit and clothing in AK look much better than any clothing in Syndicate. Materials look much better in AK. Syndicate textures are awful, even Unity had better textures, the whole world looks bland, how can you compare that to the high level of detail in AK....
A.I in batman is also more plentiful, I'm talking about interactive A.I, goons that come in larger packs than you will get in AC at any one point.
Syndicate does not even come close to filling Ak's shoes, on top of it having much faster traversal than that game too, with minimal pop-in and no loadtimes. I think you should go play AK again.
Any title running at less than 1080p is just an instant no buy for me.
Only game I bought that's 900p on the PS4 is BF4, not anywhere close to $60 mind you. I bought it for $15 on a sale, I gave them a bone because it was Dice's first effort on the consoles, launch software is rushed and I wanted to play the campaign. Apart from that never. I've since noticed how Dice/engine is progressing on the system and i'm not impressed, no improvements since launch as it pertains to resolution and IQ, so then I'll be fine on those titles. Farless a 900p 30fps title, I'm thinking Dice should have had all their titles 1080p 60fps on the PS4, lower some effects here and there, cut something back, I don't see the 900p 30fps title that I will purchase yet, because it will never happen.
Because your first premise: rendering has nothing to do with the CPU is false in the first place. Look I am not going to explain stuff deeply (or 100% correct) but in general the CPU has to 'prepare' the picture before the GPU is able to render it.
So what does a CPU do:
*Tracking Objects - calculations of moving objects in the game, such as NPCs, cars, carriages etc.
*Hit detections - Along with tracking. With large data sets, such as multiple NPCs and yourself firing or doing actions, each action has to be taken into consideration
*AI - The game AI(s), ranging from the NPCs to just simple user interactions.
*Judging what should be rendered in the first place. What is your position, what is the LOD, what can be seen from your viewpoint etc.
*Arrange Audio regardless of the 'sound card' used.
*Physics. How cloth moves, is there wind etc.
*etc.
And now let's say you want to have a 30 fps game. This means you have to draw a frame every ~33ms. But your GPU isn't able to do this without the informations the CPU is calculating, so it has to wait for the CPU data.
Now let's assume your CPU needs ~13ms to calculate the required informations, this gives your GPU ~ 20 ms to render the frame. But what if your GPU isn't able to render a 1080p image in 20 ms because your gpu needs 26ms to do so? Well then you can try to optimize your cpu usage to give your gpu more time (maybe not doable) or you can lower the resolution which lowers the time your gpu needs to render the frame in the first place. And now your GPU only needs 20ms to render one frame and you are good to go.
The devs claimed that they weren't able to hit 1080p because of CPU limitations in Unity and I tend to believe them. Unity had a lot of NPCs, interiors and overall better graphical effects then syndicate. But it dropped down to 20 fps on both consoles. This means that their 33 ms per frame time limit couldn't be reached because the cpus needed too much time to 'prepare' the frame (and yeah they even used some gpgpu stuff for physicy etc.).
In Syndicate the NPC count, and effect quality has been lowered dramatically, which means that the calculations the CPUs have to do were decreased significantly. And still the game starts to drops frames (goes below 30 frames per second) in certain areas with larger carriages numbers or NPCs density. I think this is because the CPUs aren't fast enough to process all data and there isn't time for the gpu to render a higher resolution frame in the first place.
Again, the CPU has nothing to do with the rez a game is being rendered at. Funny, you believe their claim that they were CPU limited and could not give us 1080p on Unity, in contrast, to a slippage that (they were indeed aiming for parity), where there's enough evidence to suggest that, even without the slippage. Funny, that the game was CPU limited and many claimed the PS4's framerate suffered as a result as you are now claiming is the cause of a non-1080p committal, funny still, that Ubisoft themselves patched the CPU starved game to run at the same framerate as the XB1 and it generally outperforms it in combat and cutscenes.
So most games, the PS4 can do 1080p plus better performance, but Unity is such a masterpiece that better hardware has to perform worse or on par. I don't think this is a logical assessment at all, but I have a feeling you don't think so either.
I think it's close to a wash only going by XBO versions. 
