Higher resolution is a visual advantage obviously.
Oh my goodness.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry: Just Cause 4 Analysis: Every Console Tested: Xbox One X vs PS4 Pro, PS4 vs Xbox One
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
OP
OP
You are probably spot on.
Considering MS asked Digital Foundry to do the tech breakdown and reveal the hardware, it's clear they pay a lot of attention to these tech comparisons.
Well in the face off I haven't heard any complaints about the shitty IQ. We should rejoyce because it's better than a weaker hardware? Lot of people here exchange the IQ for 1080p or less in the same X hardware.
I could be wrong but I heard a lot of emphasis because it beats the Pro resolution but IQ not seems exactly that ideal on the X too. I think should be worth to mention stuff like this. It's not like a X user play the game neck to neck with the Pro and said: "well it beaten the Pro, that's enough for me."
Last edited:
Yes and yes brilliant thanks! Loading sorted so now ill just wait for the motion blur toggle patch then will buy this
There's shitty IQ on all versions. Who said you needed to rejoice? You've been acting like a victim throughout this thread and it's truly bizarre.
It's clear in the OP that the Pro has the best performance and X has the highest resolution.
It's pretty simple really.
Decent results for the mid gens, apart from the odd frame drops on the X and the pros Res does not look the best. The base consoles are looking rough
I'm act like a victim because I said they should put more emphasis to talk of the bad IQ indeed just to prize the better IQ on the X? O.O It seems just a normal criticism. Just imagine a person who buys the game because hearing the IQ is notable better of the Pro, he expects a decent IQ and, then, discovers the IQ is shitty also on the X. Of course I'm annoyed to hear stuff like this in a tech analysis.
Last edited:
I wasn't commenting on the 1X Vs Pro, but just more so how when looking at it running on my 1X I swear it looked somewhere around 1080p just with how underwhelming the IQ is. To hear that is (even just sometimes) runs at native 4K is quite surprising to me, especially when I'm still seeing jaggies on screen occasionally.
Pro aside, my point is why the video doesn't goes in deeper in the IQ issue because like you said, I think IQ is quite terrible on the X and if it's so higher res compared the other version, what's going here.
Last edited:
Agreed and truthfully, having played it for several hours on the X, I haven't noticed even the slightest hitch in framerate.
So true, what's hilarious is Xbox tried to push the narrative of performance is more important than resolution snd they got ripped apart.
Now a one frame drop over twice the pixels is more important.
DF continues to say "base" Xbox One (Richard says "vanilla" in this video) when they are actually testing the S model.
Either stop doing that, or actually include the REAL base model, DF.
It was on the market for more than 3 years. There are probably a lot of users who are being misled by your videos (if there is a 2-4fps difference between Base and S).
Either stop doing that, or actually include the REAL base model, DF.
It was on the market for more than 3 years. There are probably a lot of users who are being misled by your videos (if there is a 2-4fps difference between Base and S).
What???? Drops to 720p on PS4? It's not that the PS4 is that outdated and many games are proving that but this game is really very badly optimised and it seems this is worse than the previous game. What about the horrendous eye harming motion blur? Did thay announce that they will correct it.
on the contrary, they optimized the game engine towards performance and every machine outside of the xbox base adheres to it. Its the same with games like Nioh adhering to 60fps at the cost of resolution.
Dynamic resolution prioritizes dropping resolution (less noticeable) over dropping frames(more noticeable).
Well I can understand prioritizing performance since the last game was running so badly in this aspect, but dropping to 720p? Really? That is really low even for last-gen. I don't know what they did about AA but JC3 and Mad Max were suffering a lot from it. Dunno if the heavy use of motion blur is used to mask aliasing. I think the engine itself is not well performing tbh. And to think that Rage 2 is using this engine instead of the excellent ID Tech 6 which close to perfectin every aspect. I really hope Rage 2 won't suffer the same.
Luckiliy the mid-gen consoles are a boon to save the situation by bruteforce.
If you look at the actual metrics between the specs that 2-4 fps you mention could invariably only ever happen in a shading-related GPU-limited scenario on a 60 fps title. AKA - not very often given how CPU limited and how bandwidth limited the system is.
?? Last gen 720P was like the best you could hope for from most games.
Also you're jumping to conclusion believing iDTech 6 to be perfect in every aspect when we've not seen it do anything other than corridor shooters with small boxy areas. Let alone do an open world game.
Blame the publishers, not the developers. They're just doing what they're told regarding not having time to optimise or getting to decide when the game is in a fit state to release.
On topic I don't get the complains about the visuals. Watching the DF video in 4k and the game looks grand. Not the best looking game on the market but for the amount of carnage and physics based simulations going on it's quite the technical achievement imo.
There are still games that went above 720p and and even 1080p.
You forgot that Rgae was running using IDTECH 5 and the game was open world and it was on last-gen too.
IDTECH6 is even much better optimised that IDTECH5 and this is a fact. We can only expect good results regardless of the type of games.
Those games were far and few and were the exception, saying 720P was low for last gen is a disingenuous statement when it was the norm, additionally there were considerably more games running under 720P than over 720P.
Rage also dropped resolution like mad to as low as 640x720 and it had absolutely no normal maps, one of the worst texel density last gen, no shadows and about zero real time lights. Just because idTech 5 had an open world game doesn't mean idTech 6 is capable of doing on the same while managing to keep visuals and performance at the same level as other idTech 6 games. Look at other idTech 5 games, the linear ones that ran far worse than Rage did.
Point being, there is absolutely no reason to think idtech 6 is perfect. people thought Frostbite was the perfect engine because we saw how well Battleffield and Battlefront looked and ran, but funny enough Frostbite is the reason why Mass Effect is now pretty much a dead franchise.
Edit: Additionally Rage's " open world" was like Farcry 2's open world i.e. a series of interconnected corridors bounded by hills rather than a true open world.
Last edited:
What I meant by 720p was low even for last-gen because last-gen was marketed to run games in FULL HDbut we got 720p and below it and at that time most of TV were Full HD already and not HD Ready, already so the output was already low even for that time. The hardware were overestimated compared to the needs of games. In fact there are even some games like demon Souls, Yakuza games and Ni No Kuni were alreayd having very high res assets and etxtures but they were masked by the overall output resolutions. The games looked so great with emulators when tested. that is why Yakuza games had almost o hurdle being re-released on PS4 becasue they already have solid bases.
You mean The Evil Within. Yeah it performed very poorly and even boost mode didn't help that much.
That is why I will give this engine more chance in Rage 2. If it runs well in this game, then it will it be fine, if not then I think this engine should be dropped tbh.
Last edited:
I'm asking whyso many developers don't use more CBR on Pro... Isn't it 1440cbr alternate with native 1440p better than dynamic 1080/1440p?
It's surely better of the others but great is not exactly the proper expression.
You're really not covering yourself in glory in this thread. 1440p to native 4K at a consistent 30fps in an open world game is great, especially after the mess that was JC3.
Is there a checkeboard 1440p? I never heard about this tbh. I don't think this even doable and feasible by calculations or by the process itself. As far as I know there is 2160p CB and 1800p CB and even 1080 CB on base PS4. I think the PS4 Pro is perfectly able to run most game in Native 1440P (or at least dynamic).
Last edited:
I also mean Dishonored 2, TEW2. While eventhough they are both using custom built engine based on idTech 5, I consider those two games to be using a new engine altogether. And even idTech 6 is technically a "modified idTech 5" but idTech 6 atleast due to being developed by id themselves (and having top Crytek coders at their disposal) probably was able to get rid of idTech 5's issues when making the new version. And Wolfenstein TNO had performance issues too btw.
In any case, might I remind you that Mad Max ran flawlessly using Avalanche's engine and on PC it could run on a potato even while looking very good. Rage 2 is basically first person Mad Max in style and is even being made by the same team.
Mad Max on PS4 is very blurry and has many of aliasing but I think the problem would have been solved if ther game ahd PS4 Pro support to increase overall reoslution and the texture resolution like Just cause 4 here. I am more confident Rage 2 will perform much betetr than all.
Looking at the half-full glass perspective it is a technical miracle to have a game so cpu-consuming as JC4 running in the base xone/ps4 and in an enjoyable way. It is a really an amazing job from Avalanche!
I didn't buy JC3.
A lot of people didn't, or did when it was 5€ because, lucky them, no one was holding them at gunpoint to preorder a game or purchase it before reading around.
Developers and publishers have other ways to communicate with the outer world than NPD, they knew what the issues with JC3 were, went and fixed them. Would JC4 selling worse than JC3 send the right message now?
Besides, I don't buy or not buy to send messages. Game is bad, no buy, game is good, buy. That's all the message that's needed.
Is that why you bought a one X, but never buy any games for it?
I don't know why you need to say such stupidish thing.
Last edited:
Battlefront 2 is 1440p CBR. Why shouldn't be feasible? I think 1440p alternate with CBR is surely better than 1080p.
Game is a mess in the IQ on the X too and it's reported to different users. I don't care to be covering of glory if the game as such issue. It's not like pixels counts changes it.
I think it's dynamic 1440p not CB. Both BF1 and BF5 are 1800p CB. I really think 1440p would be so awkward to do. I don't even know how the software or hardware could calculate that tbh.
Ironic, but you're forgiven as English isn't your first language.
I'm just curious why you bought an X if you never buy anything games for it.
I have games on the X. But surely is not your business what I did with my money. Neither if I'm english or less.