Well they did it right in many aspects except cpu, pricing is pushing it too much but no deny Microsoft did it right but so did Sony, for 400€ Pro is a great value but cpu holds it back.
DigitalFoundry: Are Your Xbox One Games (Non X Patched) Improved? Loading, Visuals and Perf Compared
- Thread starter Dancrane212
- Start date
Well they did it right in many aspects except cpu, pricing is pushing it too much but no deny Microsoft did it right but so did Sony, for 400€ Pro is a great value but cpu holds it back.
I'm finding the non-patched improvements the most impressive, even knowing how much further a recompiled game can push things. We're seeing noticeable IQ improvements alongside drastic texture, loading, and performance improvements unpatched. 16xAF alone pushes some of these versions to the top.
There's not much more you can ask from hardware.
There's not much more you can ask from hardware.
No the Pro was a total half-assed step we didn't get anywhere near this kind of improvements on patched or unpatched games. Boost mode helped a little bit but only a little, we're talking a few fps here and there with some games and things like removing screen tearing from yakuza 0. I don't recall getting 30+ seconds slashed in load times in any game.
Wow, I actually thought the Halo 5 they were showing was patched, that's an amazing difference without the patch.Dynamic resolutions maxing to 1080p along with the 16xAF. Quite a difference to say these aren't even patched versions.
The PS4 didnt have the minute long loading times though. You cant ignore that part of the reason the jump is so high os because the base Xbox one was kinda weak
To be fair, the ps4 versions often run better then the xbox versions, so the gap is way bigger for Xbox to Xbox X.
I actually am with him on this one. -- I truly believe Sony could have waited a year to give ps4 owners a much more substantial upgrade. No denying that many feel that ps4pro is not really the ps4 upgrade they were waiting for.
In Witcher 3? It most certainly did. Witcher 3 had infamously long load times on PS4.
Yes, the X has a better GPU and more memory bandwidth to reduce load times. So doesn't all of that fall under my initial comment regarding it being a year later and $100 more expensive? This is how video game hardware works. The more time passes, and the more money you spend, the more performance you're going to get.
The pro does what it does well a year earlier and cheaper...lol at this hyperbole. Yeah a year later and $100 more expensive allow more improvements, cool, Pro is not half assed, and it will sell more. which is waht a product ultimately is supposed to do. In fact, Checkerboard is awesome, and the year head start means sony once again is in a better position.
Citation needed, based on? If XoneX is so much better than i assume it will sell way better than? The Pro sets out and does what it needs to do very well.
I stand corrected then, i remember the loading times being the pivotal point in PS4 Xbox comparisons because god they take forever on Xbox and its the MAIN reason i never "fast" travelled
Really good improvements all around. Hope they do a similar video covering 360 and OG Xbox BC titles.
Better CPUs weren't really an options. Both MS and Sony did the best they could with what they got to work with and did a pretty good job. Doesn't really make much sense to raise the price by a substantial amount when these machines are designed to run current gen software.
Better CPUs weren't really an options. Both MS and Sony did the best they could with what they got to work with and did a pretty good job. Doesn't really make much sense to raise the price by a substantial amount when these machines are designed to run current gen software.
Did you play the PS4 version? It definitely had that sort of load times.
Edit: Shoot, accidental dogpile. I didn't see the other posts.
eh? You think a $500 xbox is gonna outsell a 399 or cheaper pro in europe, ROTW, Asia and WW? Even the Us is doubtful.
Great video.
Shame about the CPU, but hopefully that will be a focus for the next gen.
Still these are nice improvements for games with dynamic resolution, and the loading time improvement is great. Although as noted, after patches 4k textures might make those longer.
It's too bad Microsoft didn't have this kind of focus when they launched the One.
Shame about the CPU, but hopefully that will be a focus for the next gen.
Still these are nice improvements for games with dynamic resolution, and the loading time improvement is great. Although as noted, after patches 4k textures might make those longer.
It's too bad Microsoft didn't have this kind of focus when they launched the One.
No worries. I dont have a PS4 and was going based on my memory back in the day where people recommended the PS4 version over the Xbox one due to loading times, but It seems like i was wrong and ps4 was bad as well, just not THAT bad
Nah. I was questioning your assertion that a products only purpose for existing is to sell more than the competition
Let's hope next gen CPU's are not holding them back as much,
I never said that, I said it is designed to sell, in that way sony has done a better job..no?
You aren't wrong on this front. I disagree that the Pro isn't a half assed step. It's felt like a waste of money on my end. That's on me, though. I could have stayed with my OG PS4 and rode it out until PS5. I don't feel that way with the jump between One and X.
The Pro is hardly a half assed machine. Considering the hardware in the unit, it does exactly what should be expected.
Why is the Pro even coming up in this topic?
Yeah the Pro is outstanding, and having it out a year earlier, at 399 was a very smart move, it's the opposite of half assed. You know why it got brought up.
The xbox one was weaker than Ps4 so the jump would be higher anyway, and the extra year allowed more improvements, not sure what's so special about that? I mean it's pretty standard stuff.
OP
OP
360 Games are detailed in the hardware review. Screen comparisons of the 4 4k supported games as well.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-microsoft-xbox-one-x-review
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-microsoft-xbox-one-x-review
A fucking minute faster loading in Witcher 3? Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeettttttttt that is so goddamned good. And that is Witcher 3 unpatched, maybe patched it will even improve over that. And man, BF1 is a massive difference. Isn't it 720p on Xbox One?
There is still a noticable boost by almost all game in terms of fps. JC3 is the exception to the rule.
The difference in the universal improvements here between the 1X and the Pro really show how much thought the companies put into their mid-gen revisions, respectively, even totally ignoring the gap in 4K performance between them.
Two additional generations of backwards compatibility getting this sort of treatment would have felt unbelievable a year ago. This is more than "the icing on the cake," that's a substantial offering.
Two additional generations of backwards compatibility getting this sort of treatment would have felt unbelievable a year ago. This is more than "the icing on the cake," that's a substantial offering.
And the 3DS has sold more than the Pro. What's you point again?
While the xbox was somewhat weaker I think the argument could also be made that the jump with the X is higher compared to both systems. PS4 going from 1.8 to ~4.3tf just didn't provide the kind of jump needed to make a lot of noticeable improvements like the jump to 6 did with xbox. I also think MS did a better job at designing the hardware to incorporate a lot of these changes on a system wide level whereas Sony didn't do anything and left it all up to each developer.
I never said it wasn't standard. I'm just stating how I see it. Pro is fine, but wasn't necessary for Sony, I feel. MS needed X just to stay relevant to a degree. It's a weird middle ground.
I think the GPU side of things is right there with the Pro and X, be surprised if native 4K isn't the buzz word of next gen, but a beefy CPU is the next step. Been lacking for a while. Cell 2 for PS5, Cerny.
Richard should've tested "fast travel" in FF15. It's ridiculous on base PS4.
No it shows what an extra year of hardware improvements and being $500 can give you....This narrative that "Pro" was half assed or not thought out well is hilarious.
Because someone accused pro of being half assed...and that's the way the convo went. Read the convo maybe?
Why are you talking about sales of the Pro in a Digital Foundry Performance thread about load times and framerates on the X1X?
Love my Pro. But I agree Sony could've waited and got similar results.
The forced 16xAF for Halo 5 does wonders for the textures. Can't wait to see their analysis of the patched version