• 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.

Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fredrik

Member
I also don't want tons of graphical options in console games. What I would be OK with is a simple switch between 30 fps and 60 fps.
People who keep complaining about 30 fps in games can opt to switch to a pre defined set of graphics that allows the game to run in 60 fps. It will be less shiny and might only run in 900p but it's a choice for the die hard fps evangelists.

Considering the fps discussion has been going on internally at Evolution I think it would be the perfect solution for Driveclub. That way we have the option to play this game in all its graphical glory or have it run super smooth at 60 fps with less details and a few more jaggies.
I'd be okay with that. I just want 60fps.

Mentioned many times before. Motorhead, the DICE racer on PS1, had a 25/50fps switch. I don't know if there was other things that got changed but the 50fps setting had less cars on the track. Best option ever. I tried the 25fps setting once and never toughed again.
 

foxbeldin

Member

FTFY
iobYG1n.png
 

keuja

Member
You do realize that Tim Lottes, Creator of FXAA [an anti-aliasing technique used widely] predicted almost all of this more than a year prior to the consoles launched based off of just the specs?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510076

ESram was the biggest problem he had with the XB1 and higher res/framerates

Holy shit at the prediction. He got everything right. PS4 sure has some potential.

Working assuming the Eurogamer Article is mostly correct with the exception of maybe exact clocks, amount of memory, and number of enabled cores (all of which could easily change to adapt to yields)....

PS4

The real reason to get excited about a PS4 is what Sony as a company does with the OS and system libraries as a platform, and what this enables 1st party studios to do, when they make PS4-only games. If PS4 has a real-time OS, with a libGCM style low level access to the GPU, then the PS4 1st party games will be years ahead of the PC simply because it opens up what is possible on the GPU. Note this won't happen right away on launch, but once developers tool up for the platform, this will be the case. As a PC guy who knows hardware to the metal, I spend most of my days in frustration knowing damn well what I could do with the hardware, but what I cannot do because Microsoft and IHVs wont provide low-level GPU access in PC APIs. One simple example, drawcalls on PC have easily 10x to 100x the overhead of a console with a libGCM style API....

I could continue here, but I'm not, by now you get the picture, launch titles will likely be DX11 ports, so perhaps not much better than what could be done on PC. However if Sony provides the real-time OS with libGCM v2 for GCN, one or two years out, 1st party devs and Sony's internal teams like the ICE team, will have had long enough to build up tech to really leverage the platform.

I'm excited for what this platform will provide for PS4-only 1st party titles and developers who still have the balls to do a non-portable game this next round....

Xbox720

Working here assuming the Eurogamer Article is close to correct. On this platform I'd be concerned with memory bandwidth. Only DDR3 for system/GPU memory pared with 32MB of "ESRAM" sounds troubling....If this GPU is pre-GCN with a serious performance gap to PS4, then this next Xbox will act like a boat anchor, dragging down the min-spec target for cross-platform next-generation games.

My guess is that the real reason for 8GB of memory is because this box is a DVR which actually runs "Windows" (which requires a GB or two or three of "overhead"), but like Windows RT (Windows on ARM) only exposes a non-desktop UI to the user. There are a bunch of reasons they might ditch the real-time console OS, one being that if they don't provide low level access to developers, that it might enable a faster refresh on backwards compatible hardware. In theory the developer just targets the box like it was a special DX11 "PC" with a few extra changes like hints for surfaces which should go in ESRAM, then on the next refresh hardware, all prior games just get better FPS or resolution or AA. Of course if they do that, then it is just another PC, just lower performance, with all the latency baggage, and lack of low level magic which makes 1st party games stand out and sell the platform.
 

Mascot

Member
I remember Bioshock having an option to disable vsync to get a higher framerate. I was hoping more stuff like that would catch on.

I was utterly amazed when I unlocked Bioshock's framerate on the 360 and wandered down a corridor at a glorious 60fps. I then turned sideways and the screen tore more than Geoff Capes in a phone book factory.

I've never really recovered from the disappointment.
 

Leb

Member
Wouldn't it just be better if the game was displayed as the developer intended?

Amen to that. When developers have to turn off anisotropic filtering, tessellation, decent AA (not FXAA, obviously) and good ambient occlusion because the consoles are woefully underpowered, at least you can take solace in the fact that the developer said, 'Eh, this isn't hardly what I envisioned, but it's as good as it's going to get with this hardware!'
 

DBT85

Member
Based on some comments in teh internets about XBO version average being in the 45 and dips to 30, while PS4 version has max 60 and dips to 45, I have created a chart.

It demonstrates the balance of both being around 45 fps.

9ERezTd.png

Your chart does not mirror the comments in the OP.

s. The Xbox One build can technically reach around 45 fps, though this performance is generally only achieved during the most empty, simplest environments. For most of your play, and during action scenes, the Xbox One build will sit on around 30 fps. On the other hand, the PlayStation 4 build will attempt to hit 60 fps as often as possible, and does a pretty good job of doing so, but does have slight dips under 60 fps during certain scenarios
 

KeRaSh

Member
Wouldn't you then need to have two different leaderboards for all the club records? In the interest of fair play?

Do they have different leaderboards for every single combination of all the options for PC games?
It would be a built in option that anyone could configure like setting the gamma level for a game that has dark sections in competitive multiplayer.

I personally wouldn't care. I'd probably opt for the pretty version running at 30 fps most of the time to be honest but it would give people a very important choice.

Hell, just make it an option for the singleplayer campaign and make it mandatory for the MP mode. Killzone SF comes to mind with the MP running at 60 while the SP is 30+ unlocked. Add a switch that disables some effects and give people the chance to play the campaign at 60 fps.
 
Amen to that. When developers have to turn off anisotropic filtering, tessellation, decent AA (not FXAA, obviously) and good ambient occlusion because the consoles are woefully underpowered, at least you can take solace in the fact that the developer said, 'Eh, this isn't hardly what I envisioned, but it's as good as it's going to get with this hardware!'

Not this horseshit again.
 

Binabik15

Member
I don't NEED 60 fps for slow-ish tps games, but I LIKE 60 fps for them and I can't stand dips in general, but below 30 in particular.


But I have vanilla TR on Steam and not even booted it, sooo...yay for my PS4, but no sale from me.
 

B.O.O.M

Member
I caught wind of this before console launches when a few 3rd party devs were saying the same things.

Running code on the PS4 by raw power alone would already be better than the Xbox and required a lot of optimisation.

If this remains true then there will be more of the same. I hear the rock is not steady on another project.

haha how subtle of you :p
 

DigitalDevilSummoner

zero cognitive reasoning abilities
Is it just me or has this generation made gaf become frame rate obsessed? I don't remember it being like this before.

gaf has always been obsessed about comparing consoles head to head really but the thing is that the two major competing machines have never been so strikingly similar under the hood in terms of architecture so the discussions are not that much about theoretical power anymore and you don't really have the a disadvantage of the port console. right now any little difference in mutliplat games is due to raw power.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
gaf has always been obsessed about comparing consoles head to head really but the thing is that the two major competing machines have never been so strikingly similar under the hood in terms of architecture so the discussions are not that much about theoretical power anymore and you don't really have the a disadvantage of the port console. right now any little difference in mutliplat games is due to raw power.

Seriously.
PS4 is almost literally an Xbox One Turbo. Or Wii to Xbox One's Gamecube. (in terms of GPU and extra memory on Wii aside)
 

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
I was utterly amazed when I unlocked Bioshock's framerate on the 360 and wandered down a corridor at a glorious 60fps. I then turned sideways and the screen tore more than Geoff Capes in a phone book factory.

I've never really recovered from the disappointment.
I hate, HATE that goddamn V-Sync Toggle. Here, console gamer, choose between Image Quality and 60 FPS. Oh, both options suck? Sucks to be you then, console gamer. If Bioshock Infinite is the example of how graphics toggles would be implemented, I don't want it at all. I spent first hour toggling between the two options walking 10 feet, then toggling them again.

No, I disagree with almost everyone. To me, consoles are about providing an equal experience to everyone. You shouldn't have to make a decision between two evils. If you don't have a choice then you're playing the optimal way the developer intended for you to play.
 

Erasus

Member
Thats a huge difference. People who say different dont even know. 30 vs 60 fps? 60fps is plain better.

There was that sports game early on in the 360/PS3 gen that ran 60 on 360 and 30 on PS3, but turned out that they just dumped everything on the single PPE core in PS3. Could they just have bad dev tools on XOne or something? The edRAM too small for the full buffer?
 

madmackem

Member
Is this the real life, is it just fantasy, wowzers the launch titles showed a bigger gap than we ever saw last gen and if this is for real then this is only going to continue. That is some difference, and i posted on the og tombraider thread and got called out for thinking the ps4 could run this at 60fps.
 
I disagree. I've played most of the TR games on PC and when the frame-rate drops it's nauseating.

I understand what you are saying though, it's less important than other genres.

Well, the earlier games I expect that, but this one was quite different, I feel. This one I think can get away with it.

An unlocked framerate is an issue in any game you need to look at with your eyeballs, but it's an issue I'm more than willing to put up with if it means a high framerate most of the time.

Most of the time really means all the time ;)
 

Fredrik

Member
I wonder how this news will affect the sales. I preordered the PS4 version after reading the OP. What about X1 owners, will they drop their preorder out of disappointment?
 
I wonder how this news will affect the sales. I preordered the PS4 version after reading the OP. What about X1 owners, will they drop their preorder out of disappointment?

I would never consider not buying over resolution differences, but they are literally offering up 30fps version vs 60fps version. Not sure if want. :)

edit: Yea, I know the xbox one version goes as high as 45 in less intense scenes, but you get my point.
 
An unlocked framerate is an issue in any game you need to look at with your eyeballs, but it's an issue I'm more than willing to put up with if it means a high framerate most of the time.

It's most likely going to be ALL of the time. With the XBone saying they hit 45 and the PS4 dipping from 60, chances are that it will always be at a higher frame rate than what the other can achieve.

Was getting it anyway, but this is some good news too. Just still think I want it digital, I'm enjoying picking up my Vita and remote playing too much to want to swap many discs. Even thinking about cancelling my Diablo 3/Destiny preorders as well.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
I wonder how this news will affect the sales. I preordered the PS4 version after reading the OP. What about X1 owners, will they drop their preorder out of disappointment?

I don't think many people own both (now) current gen consoles for that to happen on a large-scale.
 

keuja

Member
I'm more of a single player guy and I heard good things about TR. Wondering if I should buy the PS4 now for this and AC4...
 
Bomba. I'd trade in my xbo for a ps4, but I want those exclusives... And with a new pc planned for later this year I cant really justify a ps4 too. First world problems!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom