• 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.

Face-Off: Just Cause 3 - Digital Foundry

09a3b9c233d399bd70731088edd0e4cb.png


Frame Rate Test

Just Cause 3 PS4 vs Xbox One Frame-Rate Test

Just Cause 3 PS4/Xbox One vs Budget PC Frame-Rate Test

Just Cause 3 PC 'Very High' vs PS4 Graphics Comparison

Graphical Comparisons And Technical Analysis

Just Cause 3 PS4 vs Xbox One Graphics Comparison

Read The Full Article For More Info

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-just-cause-3-face-off

...but to summarise:

In terms of console basics, PlayStation 4 produces a native 1080p image, while Xbox One brings a 900p framebuffer to the table, with both using a post-process solution for anti-aliasing very much akin to the FXAA option on PC. The PS4 game more closely matches up to PC in terms of raw pixel sharpness, but the anti-aliasing options available on PC are a key point of difference. Coverage is decent on console, although long edges and distant objects fall to pixel-popping artefacts. Xbox One fares a little worse here due to the drop in resolution, but for the most part there isn't too much in it between the two. Texture details appear slightly more smoothed over in still scenes, but the game's use of camera blur in motion helps to even out the presentation to the point where the drop in resolution is often barely perceivable during gameplay.

For those wanting a lightweight anti-aliasing solution, FXAA is also available on the PC version delivering similar results to PS4. However, it's also possible to achieve more refined levels of image quality via use of SMAA. Basic SMAA provides smoother imagery than on consoles with better coverage across the usual sub-pixel objects and on foliage. A T2x variant of SMAA is also available which adds a temporal component that helps to tackles additional jaggies. However, the effect doesn't appear to be implemented properly - it adds a small amount of ghosting in motion that some may find distracting. Again, this looks like a bug that perhaps should have been addressed pre-launch

On consoles, Avalanche carefully selects which elements to scale back on. Assets and settings are seemingly taken from a range of PC presets, with the developer adjusting the level of graphical quality in order to strike a balance between raw detail and performance. For example, texture quality on PS4 and Xbox One seems to match the very high setting on PC (though there's little difference between high and very high), LOD factor is a curious one, often aligning closely with PC's low setting, while shadows closely resemble those running on high on the PC game.

All in all, the console versions of Just Cause 3 hold up rather well compared to the maxed out PC version in terms of the game's complete visual feature set. Draw distances are impressive across all three platforms, and it's a surprise to see PS4 and Xbox One rendering out tiny trees and pylons at the same distances as the PC game. Granted, some objects are rendering with lower quality LODs, but all the main elements are present on screen, and this goes a long way to hiding the differences outside of like-for-like screen comparison. Aside from the resolution difference, both consoles mostly appear like-for-like in other areas. On occasion we see assets streaming in faster on one platform than the other - and vice-versa - but the core art and effects work are basically a match, and it should be stated that the PC version isn't averse to some streaming glitches either, even running from SSD.

That said, moving up to very high on PC provides some improvements. Shadows appear sharper and more defined and LOD transitions occur a little more quickly, resulting in a few elements of scenery using higher quality assets from further away than on console. Ramping up anisotropic filtering sees texture details resolve more clearly across oblique angles both on near field and distance surfaces (though the effect isn't quite as good as it should be - using the GPU control panel option may produce better results). By comparison, consoles operate with at something in the region of 2x to 4x AF leading to blurrier artwork in similar scenes. PC owners also get a mild heat haze effect deployed near the horizon, which slightly blurs and distorts objects within its radius - a form of atmospheric rendering, if you will. It's subtle, but very effective.

In other areas motion blur, depth of field, ambient occlusion lighting, and the use of global illumination are identical across all three formats - though the latter feature is bugged on PC, and can produce an off-putting strobe effect. SSAO is responsible in creating the indirect shadowing on all three formats, with the effect creating some soft halos around Rico when he moves past close-range scenery.

The global illumination technique deployed in Just Cause 3 is particularly interesting though, with Avalanche Studios carefully applying the effect in moderation so that the GPU isn't overburdened in rendering multiple light bounces across the entire environment. The effect is only activated in close proximity to Rico, with scenery in the distance featuring a simpler lighting model. This allows for extra depth to areas immediately close to the player - where such details will be noticed - without incurring a game breaking performance hit.

From a core graphical perspective, both consoles hand in a decent presentation, with PS4 taking a small lead in terms of raw pixel sharpness and clarity. However, things appear shakier when looking at performance, where both machines struggle in action-heavy scenes where the engine really lets rip with an array of alpha-based effects and physics powered environmental destruction. Both consoles target a 30fps update and adaptive v-sync is used to help reduce latency and stutter by allowing for tearing to appear at the top of the screen - in short, in common with many recent titles, Just Cause 3 has a certain elasticity to its render budget.

Large explosions and heavy deployment of alpha transparencies clearly have a tangible impact on performance across both consoles, with sub-30fps metrics rolling out when the engine is put under stress in intense firefights. CPU-driven physics also seem to be a bottleneck in some scenarios.

We ran the performance video above earlier in the week and were looking to follow up with a more stringent stress test, but based on our results, it actually requires just one screenshot to illustrate the major concern we have with the game, and it's a particular issue on Xbox One. PlayStation 4 drops frames and we see dips from the 33ms render time target, dropping down to 50ms and even 66ms on occasion. This is far from ideal. But take a look at Xbox One - not only are we nowhere near the 33ms target, drops to 66ms and even 83ms are apparent.

Of the two versions, it's clearly the PlayStation 4 release that is preferable. The resolution increase is welcome, if not exactly a major boon during gameplay, but it's the less impacted performance level that sees it take point. You won't escape the frame-time latency issues in the thick of the action, but at least the worst excesses are blunted, to a certain extent. It's going to be really hard for Avalanche to comprehensively address this specific issue, but it's clear that optimisation should be a priority there for any future update. On top of that, the developer really needs to address the loading time issues. Here we found another PS4 advantage - anything up to a minute faster than the Xbox One version, though curiously restarting after a checkpoint saw load times virtually equalise between the two platforms.


TL:DR

  • Runs a native 1080p display on PS4, whereas runs at 900p on Xbox One.
  • Dips on both consoles below 30fps.
  • Xbox One sees more frequent drops than PS4.
  • Xbox One's dips seems to be related to streaming issues.
  • Both deploy a 2-4x AF texture filtering method.
  • Loading times not ideal on either consoles, but still a bit faster on PS4.
  • There's a bit of screent tearing as both consoles use an adaptive V-Sync solution.
  • Blur, depth of field, ambient occlusion lighting, and the use of global illumination are identical across all three formats including draw distances and high shadows matching PC's high settings.
  • PC's ultra means shadows appear sharper and more defined and LOD transitions occur a little more quickly, resulting in a few elements of scenery using higher quality assets from further away than on console and with higher AF implementation.
  • PC also gets a mild heat haze effect deployed near the horizon, which slightly blurs and distorts objects within its radius - a form of atmospheric rendering which is subtle, but very effective.
Screenshots Comparing The Graphics

d2ce2f81f10702c9cacc7d64aea90d97.png


b5c584f144d6434a347acd148d724dda.png


fcee6708033808277aee6e75eae19fda.png


9bb37b6aa27f73e1d98fadd982f2309b.png


199048256da90f46804e81ddebbb61cb.png


640c81e7649df73f35b3a0cfd7e8d8e0.png


2a9dad799350e05c425769c759a08b94.png


c7a34951a752cfe949119cf67b476861.png


b9232b931a0a4f854370a742108d5137.png


e2c9f3e1c8d0b105e6da1ce15a2e736e.png


Personal Thoughts

On a technical level, it is incredibly disappointing to see some frame rate issues considering how well Avalanche's last effort, Just Cause 2 was really well optimized for consoles, both regarding how amazing it looked (and it still holds up well, particularly the sea + lighting) and how stable the performance was (from what I can remember so bear in mind it maybe rose tinted glasses etc).

I guess we'll have to wait for patches, but that is what makes the situation even more puzzling considering it went gold over a month, so they had a lot of time to patch it in time for day one. I know it's not the main Avalanche team doing the game, and its their first effort on new hardware and all, but things like loading issues HAVE to be sorted out; it's just not acceptable. Perhaps the new Havok middleware solution for the destruction didn't go as planned and caused more stress on the engine than originally thought.

Don't get me wrong, the game does look impressive at time, and the draw distances are something to behold, I just feel it falls shorts in many areas where its predecessor didn't,; the loading times are its biggest hindrance and the frame rate does leave a lot to be desired. Digital Foundry perfectly echo my thoughts when they say: "It's just somewhat frustrating that the launch code just feels like it's not quite ready for show-time. Hopefully, the console versions will get the extra round of optimization they really need, while the various instabilities in the PC version will be addressed since Just Cause 3 can still be brilliantly entertaining - at its heart, it's perhaps the most fun, exciting open world game of the generation."

[EDIT] Hey guys, just a warning: please keep off derailing the thread by mentioning NX Gamer and turning it into a pissing contest/sh*tposting against him or Digital Foundry as they both do great work and provide us with excellent content.
Also, bear in mind he didn't actually test the PS4 version, so people claiming it "isn't as bad as he made it out to be", have to understand that he was testing the XB1 version. Thanks. [/EDIT]
 

J_Viper

Member
Were there not a few folks in another JC3 thread who claimed that the Xbone held a better framerate?

it's a disappointment either way. If Mad Max turns out to be the better game, I'd be shocked.
 

cakely

Member
This is not a game I'll be buying on consoles. I'm really surprised that JC3 on the Xbox One runs at a lower resolution and achieves significantly worse performance. It just shouldn't work that way.
 

hawk2025

Member
The PS4 version almost seems like it may be able to survive the madness at a reasonable framerate, but based on what was shown and the drops with the bridge demolition, I would like to see more footage with larger base takeovers to see how it holds up then.


Were there not a few folks in another JC3 thread who claimed that the Xbone held a better framerate?

it's a disappointment either way. If Mad Max turns out to be the better game, I'd be shocked.

Happens every single time. Someone mentions PS4 version problems, someone else sees a video on Twitch of the Xbox version and uses the infamous "It's fine" phrase, everyone loses their minds and starts waxing poetical about CPU advantages.
 
Not half as bad as some would lead you to believe (on consoles) for the amount of crazyness on screen it looks stellar.

gimme dat PC tho
 

Windforce

Member
PS4 runs higher res and gets high performance? PS4 is a beast.

Now seriously, 1080p looks so much better. 900p is too blurry.
 

Courage

Member
I don't know what to believe anymore. DF's Fallout 4 article made it seem as if the XBO version was significantly worse than the PS4 version but they both ended up being terrible.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
Finally. I'll trust Digital Foundry over anyone else.

At the very least, DF tries not to bullshit you with pseudo-techbabble about memory leaks, SIMD instruction sets, or other made-up crap that NXGamer likes to pull out of his ass.
 
To summarize.

Lowest drops to 24 fps on PS4, 20 fps on Xbox One.
PS4 is closer to the target 30 fps than Xbox One and maintains it longer. Xbox One can drop randomly when nothing explosive is going on.
Graphical quality is same for both versions of the game.
Resolution is 1080p on PS4, 900p on Xbox One.
Both version of the game run with adaptive Vsync.
IQ is equal to the high settings on PC.

The game also requires a decent GPU as Digital Foundry weren't able to get the game working at closer to 30 fps with GTX 750ti. Some PC folks were sure that this would be the case, lol.
 

RE_Player

Member
I don't know what to believe anymore. DF's Fallout 4 article made it seem as if the XBO version was significantly worse than the PS4 version but they both ended up being terrible.
With the Xbox One being worse in some spots... I don't understand what you are getting at?
 
Definitely will wait till the game is $30 or less. Maybe there will even be one or two performance patches by then. Got too big of a backlog as it is, not sad about waiting.
 

hawk2025

Member
I don't know what to believe anymore. DF's Fallout 4 article made it seem as if the XBO version was significantly worse than the PS4 version but they both ended up being terrible.

Both being terrible need not imply that one is not significantly worse.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Just shitty all around. And now we wait for multiple patches to address these issues.

PS4 being the best console version is par the course, but these CPU issues are gonna have to be fixed
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Once again gaffers anecdotal evidence is crushed. So much for the PS4 version runs like shit as well narrative.

And like I say in every early release thread, I'll wait for objective data. I don't want to hear how someone describes something ("worse frame rate ever!"), everyone has a different frame of reference.
 

Saty

Member
Explosions and physics bring the FPS down. But from the single example in the vid it seems the players only uses 2 C4 charges. You can later upgrade to set 4 charges at the same time - i assume framerates take a further hit when you place all 4 around a structure and detonate them.
 

ISee

Member
Seems to run much better on the PS4.

37tYYGF.jpg

DDR5 helping with streaming vs DDR3?

Not as bad as Nxgamer says..


Still not good enough.

If the physics are CPU bound, shouldn't the XONE version perform better? Isn't the XONE CPU clocked a bit faster + developers have already access to the 7th CPU core there?

(I know that Sony 'unlocked' a 7th core but I doubt JC3 is able to take advantage from it atm).

EDIT:
We need deep testing with different PC CPUs and RAM speeds....
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
So when people thought the XB1 > PS4, the higher clocked CPU was the reason.


Now what?
 

Kureizu

Member
The PS4 version looks pretty solid in the video. The XO version seems to perform better than it did in the NXGamer video. I wonder why.
 

KainXVIII

Member
I heard that some people even exchange their PS4 copies for Xbox One after threads with 3 minutes loading etc. I wonder what they do now =)
 

Maledict

Member
This is not a game I'll be buying on consoles. I'm really surprised that JC3 on the Xbox One runs at a lower resolution and achieves significantly worse performance. It just shouldn't work that way.

Why not? The Xbone is significantly lower power than a PS4 in a number of ways. It's not an automatic trade off of image quality versus frame rate despite what people have said. There's already been several games which look and run better on the ps4.
 
Top Bottom