Updated:03:56 AM EDT Jul,25
POPULAR CHAT TOPICAreal Fundraising Resumes In
Risen 3 - "Back to the Roots
Mike Read has left Crytek (C
Battlefield: Hardline Delaye
TechNews - Western Digital's
Doom likely won't be shown t
Cryptic letter from Vladimir
Steam's Weekly Top Sellers
TechNews - Microsoft to cut
QuakeCon DOOM Impressions
Microsoft closes Xbox televi
New Doom To Be Unveiled Toni
Hazard Ops Announced
Divinity: Original Sin Patch
Battlefield 4 - Dragon's Tee
Tekken 7 Officially Announce
Solarix Kickstarter Campaign
Steam's Weekly Top Sellers
Aliens, Trolls & Dragons - g
Microsoft Flight Simulator r
TechNews - Intel Core i7-479
(c) 1997-2014 Box Network Ltd.
last 10 comments:
| Battlefield 4: Xbox One vs. PS4 Frame-Rate Tests - preview|
|(hx) 09:09 AM EDT - Oct,29 2013 |
| The chaps over at Digital Foundry have posted an in-depth analysis of Battlefield 4 visual fidelity and performance between the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and the PC. They do stress that both console versions are being run on development kits and are still in development.
All in all, we can only give a preliminary outline of how Battlefield 4 will run on next-gen consoles, but there's plenty here that should remain the case for the final release in November. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that, in this near-finalised state, the PS4 offers a superior experience on several fronts. The resolution is higher at 1600x900, as compared to the tried and tested 1280x720 on Xbox One, suffering as it does for more visible aliasing artefacts. Visually, the PS4 has a marked advantage with ambient occlusion effects too, which simply isn't matched on Microsoft's platform with the build we played.
It's a shame that the upscaling issues on PS4 pull it back from absolute dominance in terms of image quality and performance that the metrics suggest we should be getting. However, the games are running at equivalent to high settings on the PC version, while cut-backs in lighting, effects and draw distance mean we can play through the campaign at an almost uninterrupted 60fps. It can be argued that the image quality could have been raised a notch to the PC's ultra setting if not for this ambitious refresh target, especially given the frame-rate's struggles in multiplayer. On balance though, the performance is solid, if not quite optimal for 64 player maps at present.
On the merits of what we've seen so far, Battlefield 4 is already set to be a formidable launch window effort from DICE. Our observations so far reveal a clear gap in fidelity between PC and PS4, and again to Xbox One, but sub-pixel break-up aside, based on what we've seen so far, the Microsoft console manages to hold up despite the undeniable, quantifiably worse metrics in terms of both resolution and frame-rate.
While we've been able to come to some interesting conclusions thus far, we have to stress that this is far from the definitive, final word - it's an assemblage of observations on image quality and performance acquired outside of standard conditions and indicative only of the build we saw at the event, running on development hardware. We will be revisiting the game on retail consoles and giving the Xbox One Kinect and multiplayer modes the vigorous testing they deserve. Over and above that, despite all the next-gen excitement, we shouldn't forget that there are still the current-gen versions of the game to cover too. Our Battlefield 4 coverage is far from complete - there's much, much more to come.
|Apathy Curve||(12:45 PM EDT - Oct,29 2013 )|
|I do love me some nasty console wars. It's like watching two retarded fat kids fight over a smashed lollipop: I don't really care who wins, so long as there's blood and tears to savor.|
|djnforce9||(01:46 PM EDT - Oct,29 2013 )|
|Apathy Curve> I do love me some nasty console wars. It's like watching two retarded fat kids fight over a smashed lollipop: I don't really care who wins, so long as there's blood and tears to savor.
It's basically a troll heaven there with PC gamers joining in as well. All that matters to me (as I said in my comment on that video) is that most of the time, both systems run at a solid 60FPS which makes hardware differences negligible and is a massive improvement over previous gen titles.
|Csimbi||(02:22 PM EDT - Oct,29 2013 )|
|It's clear from the video that PS4 always has a 2FPS advantage - which is negligible, but FPS junkies will pick up on it.
Both consoles seems to suck equally bad in physics performance; somewhere near the end of the movie when the ceiling comes down, FPS drops to 40something on both.
Yeah, I'm for PC, so let me troll a little bit.
Massive improvement, schmassive improvement. It's still 5 years (or so) behind PCs.
What's the situation when you attach a 4k TV?
Any of these pump out at least 30 FPS at 4k?
I'd think they upscale from 1080p and 720p respectively at least - if so, what's the sustained FPS rate in that case?
You surely don't want to tell me that if I buy a 4k TV I won't be able to use it, right?
|Koogle||(03:20 AM EDT - Oct,30 2013 )|
|"It's basically a troll heaven there with PC gamers joining "
I hear my calling..
Why the fuck are they comparing frame rates when both are running at different resolutions... jeez if they were doing it like that then they should have at least emphasized that fact by showing the Xblows one in a smaller picture frame :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd
That way fantards of the crapbox one can have it run in there faces when they say oh but it 'looks better' on the crapbox :DDDDDDD yes sure it does you moronz.
p.s Fuck Sony aswel.