• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Digital Foundry: The Witcher 3 patch 1.03 performance analysis (PS4/XB1)

Xbox One performs better. But PS4 runs on higher resolution. I am not surprised. Both consoles got weak point.

I am. I am just about certain Batman Arkham Knight will look and run better on PS4. We already know MGSV will be the same. Mortal Kombat X was as expected.Same for Dying Light. The Witcher 3 is the only major release so far this year with that distinction.

It's still amazing how people use as evidence these games like Unity and W3, both demoed and marketed on Xbox, and then ignore practically every other game out there.
 
What amazes me if the people attitude of "should be 900p".
No, this is the easy way for developers and could set a precedent, when developers choose lowering the resolution instead of work on optimization.
It works for EA.
 
Looks like PS4 has much worse pop in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezYecVMGwIA

At 2:41 the bridge on ps4 doesn't even appear at all lol until the guy probably gets past it, and then the red priest guy pops out of nowhere around the same time when the player is almost right on top of him. The pop in is there on the xbox one but doesn't seem to be nearly as bad.

WOW. The reason the player runs into that priest guy is because the priest was not there and then he pops in. At the same exact spot, there is a NPC standing on the crate and another NPC next to that person that just pop in, where on the same scene on the Xbox One you see the NPC's in the distance.

It is things like this that bugs me if they want to smooth out the frame rate. If you have to have LOD that bad, is it worth it?
 
I'm loving the XB1 co-marketing conspiracy theories. If the XB1 version is and was so superior, why were all the review copies for the game on ps4?

It seems pretty clear to me that during gameplay the frame drops tend to occur when there are heavy alpha effects. Even on PC you get frame drops when these appear. The issue here is that the XB1 seems to have more headroom hence fewer drops. The PS4 is handling 30fps on good conditions and when heavier effects appear obviously it has to drop frames. We'll see what happens if they fix the double buffering issue.
 
Xbox One performs better. But PS4 runs on higher resolution. I am not surprised. Both consoles got weak point.

I am surprised considering that a large majority of games this gen run at a higher res and/or better framerate on ps4.
People cherrypicking specific games that clearly go against the overwhelming trend so far this gen in order to support a point that makes no sense at all doesnt surprise me however.
 
I've asked this before but have never gotten an answer. Why do games like this that clearly aren't using improved models or effects in cutscenes have consistently more drops in conversation/cutscenes than gameplay? All of Bioware's games do it too.
 
If CD Project can't make it stable 30fps on PS4 then they should just add dynamic resolution ala XB1.

They should really just dial back the LOD or res on ps4.

Why would they do this when the resolution/gpu power of the ps4 isnt the cause of the drops ?
A basic knowledge of the impact of gpu power on framerates and of the difference between the ps4/xbox one gpus will tell you the ps4 gpu isnt the issue here.
 
shitty pop in since last patch on ps4 click here to see
Wow

Never seen anything like that in my game. When reading impressions of performance and glitches in this game I sometimes feel like I have a version that's a few patches ahead of everyone else. I've been very lucky on that front. I would not be as high on this game or as impressed with it if I was getting issues like these.
 
I've asked this before but have never gotten an answer. Why do games like this that clearly aren't using improved models or effects in cutscenes have consistently more drops in conversation/cutscenes than gameplay? All of Bioware's games do it too.

Are you sure about that? Models seems to look much better in cutscenes than in gameplay. I recall recently reading that at least in the pc version cdpr uses uber sampling on models specifically during cutscenes. I'm not sure this is the same case on console versions but it is highly possible that cutscene models use higher res textures.
 
Are you sure about that? Models seems to look much better in cutscenes than in gameplay. I recall recently reading that at least in the pc version cdpr uses uber sampling on models specifically during cutscenes. I'm not sure this is the same case on console versions but it is highly possible that cutscene models use higher res textures.
I've pulled the camera very close to Geralt in gameplay and it looks identical.
 
so, looking at the tech here is the best way to play witcher 3

1. pc (obviously)



2. xbox one - better frame-rate, smoother graphics and better couch experience















3. ps4 - better resolution, but frame-rate is very poor and game often crashes

xbone has a better couch too? Damn.
 
Yeah the pop in has gotten insanely worse with 1.03, damn. I've also noticed a ton more glitches during cutscenes.

And it will goes even worse in the more demanding scene, in the future patch. It's the easy way to improve fps. A thing I don't understand why they use the same poly model for the NPC, even in the long distance. That's why in the city NPC appears from the nothing, just to fix faster the fps drops. Meh.
 
I've pulled the camera very close to Geralt in gameplay and it looks identical.

yeah they do look damn close. Strange game. For me it runs well most of the time and then can dip in places you wouldn't really expect it to. The rain doesn't even look that good and you can be standing in an area with no reflections and it will still bog it down sometimes....I've had no crashes though and don't have these pop in problems either.
 
i was wrong about these consoles. before they were released, i was confident that since so much time had passed since the ps3/360 were released, then surely we would be getting some powerful hardware capable of meeting modern gaming expectations for graphics and performance. 1080p @ 60 fps isn't that much of a stretch for games in 2015. it's completely reasonable to expect modern consoles to be able to output games with these metrics.

and yet, game after game, both consoles continually struggle to do this. it's really disappointing to see. you either sacrifice resolution/graphical fidelity, fps, or in some cases, both. if there will be another generation of consoles from sony and microsoft, i truly hope they include far more powerful cpus within their systems.
I'm always suspicious of posts like this. I don't think anybody expected Witcher 3 to run at 60fps on consoles (even before this gen began), GTA5 a last gen game doesn't even run at 60fps. Even high end cards like the 970GTX don't run Witcher 3 at 60fps locked, framerates tumble in the bog/swamp area just the same with hairworks off, and even then, one or two sliders below Ultra might be necessary for balance.

Would you be willing to pay $1000.00 for a console to give you the returns you require? Also, how many people would have adopted it? Would Witcher even be on such an expensive console in the first place? as I'm certain, such a console would not have a large enough fanbase to greenlight such a project, since the ROI would be a crapshoot by and large. These are the questions you must ask yourself to ascertain the feasibility of your expectations..

To me this is good support on their game and many devs should do the same. So many issues Erich never get corrected or aren't even near a polished state.
What exactly has been corrected on the PS4 version? This one had the most problems (performance wise from the start). 20fps and below in cutscenes, instances of 20fps lock and double buffered vsync in cutscenes and gameplay. Last I checked all these issues and more are still there. How exactly do you measure good support, by submitting several useless patches or by patching a game to actually correct glaring issues and providing tangible performance improvements?
 
so, looking at the tech here is the best way to play witcher 3

1. pc (obviously)


2. xbox one - better frame-rate, smoother graphics and better couch experience


3. ps4 - better resolution, but frame-rate is very poor and game often crashes

You almost had me until that line.

DF gave the PS4 the edge in the console face-off , of course.

For those that bought the Xbox One version, does it have black crush like other 900p titles?
 
You almost had me until that line.

DF gave the PS4 the edge in the console face-off , of course.

For those that bought the Xbox One version, does it have black crush like other 900p titles?

Black crush hasn't been an issue for most titles since the launch/prelaunch window. The Witcher 3 looks great.
 
Wow

Never seen anything like that in my game. When reading impressions of performance and glitches in this game I sometimes feel like I have a version that's a few patches ahead of everyone else. I've been very lucky on that front. I would not be as high on this game or as impressed with it if I was getting issues like these.

yeah I felt like that before the 1.03 patch
 
I'm pretty pissed off the game glitched and didn't give me the Ursine Silver sword diagram so I can't make any of the best swords..WTF..
 
so, looking at the tech here is the best way to play witcher 3

1. pc (obviously)

2. xbox one - better frame-rate, smoother graphics and better couch experience

3. ps4 - better resolution, but frame-rate is very poor and game often crashes

Not got a gaming PC yet.

Don't buy any sub HD games anymore or games with poor frame rate, so I have skipped this one on console for now until they get there act together.

Breakdown of next patch

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-next-patch-(1-04-1-05)?p=1728578#post1728578

Seems like they are working on ps4 performance issues.

I know they are DX11 favoured developers, but until they do a decent job on Ps4 I will wait, there are enough good games.
 
Should have delayed the game longer.

Might have actually released a quality product day one this time had they done so.

so, looking at the tech here is the best way to play witcher 3

1. pc (obviously)



2. xbox one - better frame-rate, smoother graphics and better couch experience















3. ps4 - better resolution, but frame-rate is very poor and game often crashes

Skyrim 2.0
 
NPCs, PS4 share function, right now

11270331_10206535703808872_4236324496658964836_o.jpg

11109819_10206535704288884_4995308229453158856_o.jpg

11010014_10206535767090454_6266550160334824552_o.jpg

11357149_10206535768490489_8103676207247190736_o.jpg

Hey, this is actually nice. Are people suggesting PC has even more?

One thing I'm noticing more of: NPC pop in. Very ugly and annoying to see.

Thanks for these pics, NPC numbers seem fine to me here.
 
I made a thread on cdpr tech support forum about the terrible pop in on the console versions after patch 1.03. Honestly for me this is game breaking to have objects, textures, and npcs to load right on top of you as you play the game, nothing breaks immersion more than this. I've decided to put this game aside after 50 hours of gameplay to wait for this shit to be fixed. Those of you waiting for the game to be fixed until playing / purchasing are making the right decision imo.
 
I must laugh hartily at all the sentiment that higher resolution does not affect performance.

If one platform can keep nearly the same frame rates (within 2-3 frames) at almost twice the amount of pixels on screen, that means without a doubt a better performance on that platform no?

From a pure 'frame rates' test, sure the conclusion is fine, but performance test without counting resolution?

Surely you jest.
 
Hey, this is actually nice. Are people suggesting PC has even more?

One thing I'm noticing more of: NPC pop in. Very ugly and annoying to see.

Thanks for these pics, NPC numbers seem fine to me here.

The problem with the comparisons is that it seems highly random. It's not Majora's Mask, people aren't always in the exact same place at the same time, and sometimes places can be dead, and then it can be packed on the same time of day on different days. The first shot of the square, it used to be a more empty but then a celebration started there and it never went away....

So yeah, some DF screenshots were taken at one of these random dead times and people were thinking that was the norm. Maybe it's another bug.
 
I'm always suspicious of posts like this. I don't think anybody expected Witcher 3 to run at 60fps on consoles (even before this gen began), GTA5 a last gen game doesn't even run at 60fps. Even high end cards like the 970GTX don't run Witcher 3 at 60fps locked, framerates tumble in the bog/swamp area just the same with hairworks off, and even then, one or two sliders below Ultra might be necessary for balance.

....we're a year and a half into the consoles and they are still getting trounced by older PC's, my 670 is running locked 30fps on high. Witcher might be struggling to hit 60fps locked on a 970 in places, but that is still a world away from struggling to hit 30 at a mix of Medium & High. Atleast you're dropping into the 50's or high 40's at worst, which is still double that of the consoles at higher settings.

Its not that 1080p 30fps isn't good enough, hell its what I play this game at on my PC because my 670 is getting on 3yrs old now so the latest games are going to start taxing it, but the consoles aren't hitting locked frames at settings lower than PC's that cost a lot less than $1k. The notion that you need to spend that much to perform as well as or above the current consoles is hypebole, you can do the same as for less than $600 and unlike the consoles, its a PC so it will also do everything else (media, general purpose use) so much better.

coupled with remakes that are basically just what people were playing years ago at the same level on their PC and a software line up that is looking pretty barren, I don't see myself actually buying a Playstation or Xbox this time round despite the past two gens buying all the consoles as well as having my PC.
 
Why would they do this when the resolution/gpu power of the ps4 isnt the cause of the drops ?
A basic knowledge of the impact of gpu power on framerates and of the difference between the ps4/xbox one gpus will tell you the ps4 gpu isnt the issue here.


If you had a basic knowledge of GPUs you would know this game is bringing way better GPUs than the ps4 has to it's knees on PC. I don't subscribe to the lazy devs not optimizing this well enough theory myself. If you do, that's fine. As it stands right now xbone version is benefiting from making concessions in settings to the hardware and ps4 version is suffering from not.
 
If you had a basic knowledge of GPUs you would know this game is bringing way better GPUs than the ps4 has to it's knees on PC. I don't subscribe to the lazy devs not optimizing this well enough theory myself. If you do, that's fine. As it stands right now xbone version is benefiting from making concessions in settings to the hardware and ps4 version is suffering from not.

This thread isnt about the games performance on pc - its about the performance of the ps4 version vs the xbox version.
You posted that the devs should lower the resolution on ps4. My point still stands - if you think there is any logical reason for the game to perform worse on a platform with a gpu that is significantly more powerful (40 percent) than the competing platform with the weaker gpu other than the developer fucking up while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of games this gen run at a higher resolution/framerate than no - you really dont understand how gpu power effects framerates.
 
i had my first crash yesterday (didnt have one on v1.01) and i think its funny but the intro of the game sometimes the fps drops (the sword close up) and even looks like screen tears a bit

but i cant complain really, i love eye candy and the rest is tolerable (until i get hit with the xp bug that is)

im glad they are still improving it though
 
This thread isnt about the games performance on pc - its about the performance of the ps4 version vs the xbox version.
You posted that the devs should lower the resolution on ps4. My point still stands - if you think there is any logical reason for the game to perform worse on a platform with a gpu that is significantly more powerful (40 percent) than the competing platform with the weaker gpu other than the developer fucking up while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of games this gen run at a higher resolution/framerate than no - you really dont understand how gpu power effects framerates.
Also a tip for your future posts - mocking the person you're quoting just shows right away that you dont have a real point to make.

I'm not mocking you. I only bring up the PC version because it's relevant to what you're talking about re: GPUs.

You're really oversimplifying things by comparing this to all other ps4 games. It's one of the most demanding games this gen so far, probably only 2nd to AC:U. It's not so cut and dry as: "well infamous runs at 1080/30, so this should too!". That doesn't really make sense.
 
This thread isnt about the games performance on pc - its about the performance of the ps4 version vs the xbox version.
You posted that the devs should lower the resolution on ps4. My point still stands - if you think there is any logical reason for the game to perform worse on a platform with a gpu that is significantly more powerful (40 percent) than the competing platform with the weaker gpu other than the developer fucking up while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of games this gen run at a higher resolution/framerate than no - you really dont understand how gpu power effects framerates.
Also a tip for your future posts - mocking the person you're quoting just shows right away that you dont have a real point to make.

Isn't it true that neither MS nor AMD had ever revealed what GPU is in the XB1 exactly? How do we know the difference is 40%? I mean, the GPU in the XB1 was custom made, correct?
 
So they ímproved the PS4 performance without drop quality?

Some guys told my it was not possible because lol lol lol

The game will get even better after future optimization a in the code... that is how sofware development works.
 
Isn't it true that neither MS nor AMD had ever revealed what GPU is in the XB1 exactly? How do we know the difference is 40%? I mean, the GPU in the XB1 was custom made, correct?

Yeah! It's under NDA! What is this post?

so, looking at the tech here is the best way to play witcher 3


2. xbox one - better frame-rate, smoother graphics and better couch experience


3. ps4 - better resolution, but frame-rate is very poor and game often crashes

Now, we're talking.
 
This thread isnt about the games performance on pc - its about the performance of the ps4 version vs the xbox version.
You posted that the devs should lower the resolution on ps4. My point still stands - if you think there is any logical reason for the game to perform worse on a platform with a gpu that is significantly more powerful (40 percent) than the competing platform with the weaker gpu other than the developer fucking up while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of games this gen run at a higher resolution/framerate than no - you really dont understand how gpu power effects framerates.

It is a more powerful gpu of 40%. It also has to fill 44% more pixels than the xb1.
 
Top Bottom