cjtiger300
Member
Agreed. Its more like YOUR eyes are fucked, lol!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry vs. AC4 PS3/360/WiiU/PS4/XB1/PC (Take shelter)
- Thread starter Vashetti
- Start date
Agreed. Its more like YOUR eyes are fucked, lol!
I imagine this is how Albert and Larry sleep at night after these DF comparisons
Im sure they sleep just fine in their mansions.
Its not like they didnt knew this before even launching the Xbone. They just lie to up their product as much as they can, thats their job anyway.
I disagree. The specs of these consoles predicts this sort of outcome:
XboxOne: Halved ROPS, 2/3 compute, low texture fill = issues with resolution
PS4: Balanced mid range PC parts + console optimizations = 1080p at High settings @ 30 fps
PC: Strongest, but not optimized yet, so marginal improvements over PS4 when it should be much better.
WiiU: Like last gen consoles with weak CPU. The AC3 engine was very CPU limited as any PC gamer can tell you. Seems AC4 improved for many x86 CPU cores which Wii U does not have. IPC*Clockspeed in WiiU's CPU I believe is even worse than 360.
Let's not get hung up on debates over generation. Tech is tech. A brand new iPad Air is going to be lapped in circles by a Surface Pro 2 because the specs in the Surface is simply in an entirely different class of computing hardware.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
IDK why people were whining about the PC port on the internet. Game runs flawlessly at 60fps/1080p maxed out on my pretty modest rig.
You have a point
holy crap xbox one and the wiiu look bad..
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I'm going to take a wild guess and say it's because the game wasn't running that well even on their high end rigs.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
4770k and a gtx670, 16 gig ram.
Never noticed the framerate dipping at all, but admittedly I'm not that sensitive to it.
blankempathy
Member
Yet my first gen i7 at 4ghz with my 680 gtx has issues running it at 60 fps not even close to maxed out.
Joke post?
The gap will only grow larger as new PC parts become available.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Ac4 is straight legit either way tho, you can't really go wrong
xn0
Member
I mean the sharping filter just looks horrible. Like it or not according to Microsoft they've always said they did not try to target the highest end graphics with the XB1:
"We purposefully did not target the highest-end graphics. We targeted more as a broad entertainment play" Greg Williams General Manager of Silicon Development Microsoft Xbox Division.
I think we can safely expect that all multiplat games (unless heavily optimized for XB1) will generally look better on PS4 since Sony targeted having the most powerful gaming system this generation.
"We purposefully did not target the highest-end graphics. We targeted more as a broad entertainment play" Greg Williams General Manager of Silicon Development Microsoft Xbox Division.
I think we can safely expect that all multiplat games (unless heavily optimized for XB1) will generally look better on PS4 since Sony targeted having the most powerful gaming system this generation.
It already went 50% off
cheezcake
Member
I just don't understand the thought process....
"Hey guys, so our consoles quite a bit weaker than the PS4, most multiplats will probably run in a lower resolution"
"Don't worry about that, I've got a good idea! Let's compensate for our worse IQ by applying an upscaling filter which makes aliasing even MORE visible! We can even make the filter crush the blacks in each and every frame, because that'll make our games look edgy and cool right!"
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Damn, PS4 is really close to PC.
Discomurf
Member
Yikes @ Xbone and Wii U.
But didn't IGN do a comparison video where the Wii U version looked much better?
edit: found it
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/14/assassins-creed-4-graphics-comparison-ps4-ps3-xbox-360-wii-u
I don't know...from this the Wii U version clearly looks better then ps3 and 360 versions to mine eyes.
But didn't IGN do a comparison video where the Wii U version looked much better?
edit: found it
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/14/assassins-creed-4-graphics-comparison-ps4-ps3-xbox-360-wii-u
I don't know...from this the Wii U version clearly looks better then ps3 and 360 versions to mine eyes.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Why exclude only Nintendo. MS fuck up the hardware as well you know.
8/10
ZealousMonkey
Banned
What, you never heard of 'extreme clearness textures'? Dude is probably 15
Just so all the kids know: RGB Limited and Full basically look the EXACT same when you calibrate correctly. There is hardly a difference. And Bluray content is always limited with super whites and blacks option.
I don't mind the Xbox, but gotDAMN if they didn't seriously fuck up and harm calibration standards last gen. They basically created a whole legion of tweens, possibly now adults shudder, that think crushed blacks are the right way to view an image. And yes there is a right way. People somehow think that their poopy low grade LCD is supposed to output CRT blacks and when that doesn't happen they look to the knobs to get their POP. I really wish that whole RGB Full never happened.
And going by this generation M doesn't have a damn clue. They are still fucking with their audience as far as correct calibration standards. It really is pretty disgusting.
nvm, found it here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-assassins-creed-4-black-flag-face-off
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
#Dead
Unknown Soldier
Banned
This must be some new definition of modest I wasn't previously aware of, unless you're just trolling.
GHG
Member
The 670 is now a midrange GPU (recently got rebranded to the 760). If you intend on gaming on your PC at 1080p or above, you owe it to yourself to at least have a mid range gpu.
Its a $250 gpu for crying out loud.
ZealousMonkey
Banned
I know right. Modest lol. That is nearing high-end for singles. I mean modest..... ehh that is still more like a 560ti imo.
These are some screens neoenigma took in the Screenshot thread in case people haven't being blown away yet.
I dunno... everything's really high res, but does it really look that mindblowing apart from that? It seems very artificial to me. Stock Crysis looks better IMO even after 5 years.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
In comparison to ALL the versions, not just the Xbone/PS4 one's ..
mysteriousmage09
Member
Xbox One and Wii U are terrible looking.
I dunno... everything's really high res, but does it really look that mindblowing apart from that? It seems very artificial to me. Stock Crysis looks better IMO even after 5 years.
I think Crysis looks better too, but got damn do I love me a clean image and that is clean.
Well thats bigger than i thought gap between ps4 and xb1, we have non native, more framedrops worse aa method and a super dog shit scaler adding to the shit pile. Its been a bit of a first round knock out so far for ps4 with these vs df tests, in some cases way above any differences found last gen. Ms need to fix that scaler, i simply wont buy a non native res title unless its using its own scaling method like ryse, ms you don fucked up.
RedRedSuit
Member
I'd like to see this "pretty modest" rig too.
I have a GTX 670 (4GB), i5 3570k, and 8GB RAM. This is not exactly a modest PC... it did cost a pretty penny albeit last year. I can assure you it cannot run AC4 "maxed out" at a locked 60fps/1080p. If I turn down a couple of things which don't really make it significantly worse, AND I use 3rd party utility to force triple-buffering, THEN I can get it into the 50-60fps range without tearing.
Hardly "60fps/1080p maxed out on my pretty modest rig."
Oh, you answered.
(1) That is not modest.
(2) I don't believe for one second that this was running at 60fps locked with everything maxed out. Soft shadows on high? God rays on high? Env quality on very high? Yeah, no.
Do yourself a favor and never look at your post history.
headnod.gif
jim2point0
Banned
Those are downsampled on teh PC version from 3840x1620 with either 4xMSAA or 8xMSAA.
Just to give you an idea... here are my specs:
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770k @ 4.4 GHz
GPU: 2x-SLI EVGA GTX 680 4GB
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1866 MHz
I get around 10-15 FPS with those settings
The game's appeal (at least for me) comes from the aesthetics (the colors and atmosphere that come from the setting) and the fact that it's a pretty large open world. The weather system and the way things blow in the wind.... not to mention the water... are also pretty amazing to see in motion.
See above. Right now you can get the equivelant video cards for $700 - $750. Either with 2 770s (basically rebranded 680s that I have) or even a single 780 Ti. But that's not even enough for 30 FPS with that IQ. You'd probably need 2x 780 Tis, assuming 3GB VRAM is enough. I would imagine a pair of titans would also get you close. It's no surprise that nvidia is preventing EVGA from slapping 6GB on their custom 780 Tis. They really want people to get their damn titans
The reason I'm only mentioning nvidia cards is because I'm pretty sure AMD still can't downsample from resolutions that high (not possible in the drivers). If you have a 4K monitor though, you might be able to go the AMD route...
I think the Xbone holds up well, the sharpening does pronounce the detail in some places while making jaggies much worse in other places. One thing that is very bad is pixel crawl on Xbox One, and the slow frame rate in the comparisons hides this a little bit, it would otherwise be more noticable as pixels would flicker a lot compared to playing it slow.
Those are downsampled on teh PC version from 3840x1620 with either 4xMSAA or 8xMSAA.
Just to give you an idea... here are my specs:
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770k @ 4.4 GHz
GPU: 2x-SLI EVGA GTX 680 4GB
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1866 MHz
I get around 10-15 FPS with those settings
Haha, yeah I figured. I wonder...would it look nearly as good if you dropped the AA? I wonder how much performance increase that would give you.
Alex
Member
I think it does, I always feel like these tiny, compressed images that are supposed to be showing what is largely a war of image quality are a bit senseless.
jim2point0
Banned
There are certain places in the game that inexplicably run smoother than others and I can manage 30 FPS @ 4K with just SMAA. But any MSAA on top of 4K will drop frames like mad.
When I'm playing for reals, I drop my resolution to 2560x1440 with 4xMSAA. I actually hit 60 FPS at places but my average is more like 40. And ship battles can drop my FPS to 25. Even at that resolution. I think there are some optimizations they could do there....
One thing is for certain. I can not go back to 1080p (the cute baby resolution for babies)
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I played through the game on 360, and while the vegetation etc doesn't come anywhere close to PS4/Xbone levels, I was pleasantly surprised at how good the performance of the game was, especially after the really inconsistent AC3.
They did a good job imo.
They did a good job imo.
Pjsprojects
Member
Well I played AC5 WiiU version for around four hours last night and it looks/runs great.
My pc version does look better but Uplay...
My brother in law has the game on 360 and although smooth it looks blocky and seems to lack some detail.
I'm not a pixel counter tech head but even I can see the Xbone version looks to sharp. Don't see any reason to buy an Xbone when PS4 is cheaper and better so Sony will get my money.
My pc version does look better but Uplay...
My brother in law has the game on 360 and although smooth it looks blocky and seems to lack some detail.
I'm not a pixel counter tech head but even I can see the Xbone version looks to sharp. Don't see any reason to buy an Xbone when PS4 is cheaper and better so Sony will get my money.
That's kind of silly.
Hitting your displays native resolution is most important.
Downscaling is interesting but, at least in my setup, it introduces slight image quality artifacts. You're better off using the native resolution of your display with more AA.
Of course, I have a 1440p LCD monitor, but I play on a 1080p plasma. Image quality is much better despite the lower resolution. Resolution is far from everything.
Probably there display. There is no additional detail present on Wii U.
LowEndTorque
Member
Probably around $2,000 minimum is my guess. Maybe more.
You must be setting it up wrong or something...downscaling looks absurdly good in terms of IQ compared to native. Dark Souls at 4K resolution on my 1080p screen was a revelation. Especially in motion were the changes noticeable...no more shimmering or sub-pixel aliasing.
Maybe so. In Windows, there is slight artifacting with certain colors not unlike video compression. I haven't been able to eliminate those issues on any monitor thus far.
In game, it's not so obvious, but I still think using ssaa or TXAA at native res looks cleaner.
ionicbluebird
Member
Likewise the PS4 version at 50-60fps with HBAO enabled (If Ubisoft came back to patch the game at the end of the generation with what they'd learned)