DF: PS4 VS Xbone Sniper Elite Framerate test

#151 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (5966 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

PS4 runs at 45 average. PC runs with 50-60 average. Highly intense scene force drops on both. Then shut the fuck up about the PS4 being better than the XB1. It's playing for 10th place.

If you care so much about res and frames, you'd never bother with a console. Not a single person with a brain would buy a console to play games while they care about which resolution, frame rates and texture quality.

On console you can't even choose which one you'd like. The PS4 being better than the Bone on multiplats is simply a pointless and idiotic argument. Again, this is because if one cares so much about the graphical and technical fidelity in which a game runs, they'd get a PC. Sniper Elite is just one of many examples.

You know, like Watch Doges which runs at 900p, high, 30 fps on the PS4. Oh it's better than teh xbone. Yes, and it's weak......still.

The PC version also has drops into 40 FPS on a damn 680GTX stated by DF on ultra,since they claim the PS4 image quality is close to PC on Ultra man that is a huge win for the PS4,no matter what you say the PS4 doesn't have a GPU like the 680GTX inside hell is not even a 660ti like,so yeah color me impress.

The PS4 has bigger drops than the PC version. Even then, you know this means nothing. I told WD runs at 900p, mixture of high an a few ultra/medium pre-sets (if i'm not mistaken) wiht fluctuating 30 frames. My GTX 760 runs it at 1080p, maxed out with a few fluctuating frames, at 30.

That is total bullsh** if you care about frames and resolution that mean that i to fu**ing spend 4k in a PC to play nothing but the fastest and the highest resolution.? WTF man just because people don't want to go PC doesn't mean they don't care about frames an resolution what king of lame ass argument is that.?

4000? Jesus F Christ. A PC that's twice the cost gives you twice the performance. My PC costed about 800 euros. Ofcourse res and frames can matter to people.

What i'm telling you is if it matters to shuch extent that 1080p vs 900p and so on is a deal breaker, than a PC will also have a better version. Therefore, either soemone is a moron or truly doesn't care about it to buy a console. I care about stable 60frames for certain game types, mainly first person view games, like shooters, so having a PC for it is one, among other, reason why i bought it. Let me explain this to you.

The differences in multiplats for the PS4 and XB1 goes like this: (xb1-ps4)

720p vs 900p and 900p vs 1080p.

Slightly superior graphics, by having such things has: better lighting, better shadows, better textures, and so on, which sadly, are so small that it's hard to notice. Same applies to my ultra versions vs high versions on my PC.

30 vs 30 fps or 30 vs 60 fluctuating fps. The PS4 can't output a stable 60 frames for the majority of graphically intensive games

Summary: The PS4 isn't outputting versions that are vastly superior to the bone. Not on the level of last vs current gen. Then we'd be talking.

But if these differences are indeed massive enough to amount to huge, bullshit infested arguments, should i meantion that PC can do:

4k resolution, maxed out pre-sets, AA, AO, 60 stables frames if not higher?

Sure, to achieve all of it at the same time, it costs more, but there lies the issue. If the small, tiny differences between the consoles are so truly important to console gamers that it affects their choice of console, a proper gaming PC that, again, even if only twice as pricy, delieveres the same difference in quality but superior to the PS4, why don't they buy a PC?

You know why? Because they don't really give a shit and probably don't even know the difference.

900p vs 1080p is such a small res bump that even i admit to having an extremely hard time noticing. The reality is that console fanboys arguing about this only do so because of fanboy wars. I know that sound ironic in SW, but atleast when arguing about things such as exclusives, there's a very valid point.

What's the point of arguing res and frames when they both suck at it? PC blows both away without needing that much money, in addition to choice. Unless of course, there isn't a PC version. Then, the PS4 matters because it does become the superior version.

Get it?

If you care about all of this and don't game on a PC when a version is available, you're a hypocrite, because youre still bragging and playing the inferior version of a game while caring for having the superior version. Well, forget hypocrite. One has to be a moron for that.

I would have stayed on the damn PS1 if i didn't like better graphics.

The PS4 vs xbox one isn't not pointless or idiotic specially when the PS4 perform better and cost $100 less than the majority of people payed for an xbox one.

XBone costs the same now.

Again total bullsh** the xbox user base basically was compose of graphics whores,since the first xbox landed,train that fallow with the more powerful than 2005 PC xbox 360,the reason why so many lemmings refuse to let go the graphics argument and hold tied to DX12,cloud,ESRAM and all that crap is because they care.

Then you're a fucking hypocrite, like mosr PS fans. Don't pull the same BS lemmings did last gen now. Specially because you know that if the bone was stronger than the PS4, you wouldn't give a fuck about specs again. You're using arguments that you didn't care about last gen

So don't tell me that just because i want to buy a console it most be an under power piece of crap,if graphics were no important in console people would have not jump on the PS4 at record pace.

Specs did matter for the PS4, but it was mostly the price. Remember when they announced the price, the crowd went crazy? Most console gamers don't look into the technical aspects of a console. Unless there is an extreme difference in power between them, which there isn't right now (50% isn't extreme), it's price that helps that inicial impact, which MS is fucked to have to recover. It already stayed it's imagine. Like backtracking on the Kinect. LOL

Funny thing is that half of steam can even fu**ing run Watch dogs the game requires a damn DX11 GPU and a quad core CPU when 47% of steam have dual cores and only 12% or so own a GPU stronger than the PS4,so yeah the PS4 may run it at 900p but it runs it,which is more than what 47% of steam users can say about the game and their PC.

Who gives a fuck?

Now cover your self your inner lemming is showing..

I'm a PC gamer that support whichever console delivers more interesting games, that focus on gameplay and interestign features, which, while by an extremely slow margin, XB1 is delievering. MMainly because of Sony's "Graphics because fuck everything else" mantra.

EDIT: For all these "PS4 has stabler framer rates" i bet gamers that don't play on PC probably don't even know how 60fps feels. PS4 and XB1 fans are fighting over techincal jargon that they probably don't even notice while actually playing games.

Yes, it's that stupid. Same applies to PC gamers who don't notice the difference.

#152 Edited by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@R3FURBISHED said:

Destiny runs at 1080p and 30FPS on both PS4 and Xbox One

Embarrassing attempt at damage control.

How is the truth damage control?

Months ago: "Sniper Elite 3 1080p on both platforms using February SDKs! Parity achieved!"

In reality:

- PS4 almost matches PC IQ, running at ultra settings.

- Xbone has lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing

- Xbone closest to delivering 60 fps experience with a 5-10 fps lead over XB1

- Xbone has trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen

- Xbone suffers a lot from tearing

Umm... @R3FURBISHED was talking about DESTINY, and his comment was TRUE. So, again...

How is the truth damage control?

#153 Posted by Heil68 (48743 posts) -

Damn, the most powerful console wins again.

#154 Posted by Dire_Weasel (16311 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@killzowned24: In other news, forumites like "killzowned24" continue to scour the internet in an attempt to find articles to ease their insecurity over their console choice; and hopefully, in their minds, convince others to buy what they have.

Hey, if isn't the guy that said there were "no graphical differences aside from resolution" between multiplatform games on the Xbox One and the Playstation 4.

#155 Edited by GrenadeLauncher (6357 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@R3FURBISHED said:

Destiny runs at 1080p and 30FPS on both PS4 and Xbox One

Embarrassing attempt at damage control.

How is the truth damage control?

Months ago: "Sniper Elite 3 1080p on both platforms using February SDKs! Parity achieved!"

In reality:

- PS4 almost matches PC IQ, running at ultra settings.

- Xbone has lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing

- Xbone closest to delivering 60 fps experience with a 5-10 fps lead over XB1

- Xbone has trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen

- Xbone suffers a lot from tearing

Umm... @R3FURBISHED was talking about DESTINY, and his comment was TRUE. So, again...

How is the truth damage control?

Screaming and crying about "parity." Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 also has paper parity between consoles and was also taking advantage of a newer SDK with more mature development. Oh look, it sucks on the Bone.

StormyJoe destroyed once again. He makes it too easy.

#156 Posted by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@Dire_Weasel said:

@StormyJoe said:

@killzowned24: In other news, forumites like "killzowned24" continue to scour the internet in an attempt to find articles to ease their insecurity over their console choice; and hopefully, in their minds, convince others to buy what they have.

Hey, if isn't the guy that said there were "no graphical differences aside from resolution" between multiplatform games on the Xbox One and the Playstation 4.

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

I didn't know you took my posts as word of God.

#157 Posted by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@R3FURBISHED said:

Destiny runs at 1080p and 30FPS on both PS4 and Xbox One

Embarrassing attempt at damage control.

How is the truth damage control?

Months ago: "Sniper Elite 3 1080p on both platforms using February SDKs! Parity achieved!"

In reality:

- PS4 almost matches PC IQ, running at ultra settings.

- Xbone has lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing

- Xbone closest to delivering 60 fps experience with a 5-10 fps lead over XB1

- Xbone has trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen

- Xbone suffers a lot from tearing

Umm... @R3FURBISHED was talking about DESTINY, and his comment was TRUE. So, again...

How is the truth damage control?

Screaming and crying about "parity." Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 also has paper parity between consoles and was also taking advantage of a newer SDK with more mature development. Oh look, it sucks on the Bone.

StormyJoe destroyed once again. He makes it too easy.

Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 is a 6/10 in best case review scenario. Hardly a good example. Lets see what happens this Christmas with more reputable titles.

#158 Edited by Riverwolf007 (24424 posts) -

lol.

df went from biased paid off fanboy site to gospel in sw? (wonder why hurk hurk hurk)

anyway who even needs them anymore?

the ps4 is going to dominate multiplats this gen even worse than the 360 did last gen.

#159 Posted by ermacness (7199 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

@tormentos said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

PS4 runs at 45 average. PC runs with 50-60 average. Highly intense scene force drops on both. Then shut the fuck up about the PS4 being better than the XB1. It's playing for 10th place.

If you care so much about res and frames, you'd never bother with a console. Not a single person with a brain would buy a console to play games while they care about which resolution, frame rates and texture quality.

On console you can't even choose which one you'd like. The PS4 being better than the Bone on multiplats is simply a pointless and idiotic argument. Again, this is because if one cares so much about the graphical and technical fidelity in which a game runs, they'd get a PC. Sniper Elite is just one of many examples.

You know, like Watch Doges which runs at 900p, high, 30 fps on the PS4. Oh it's better than teh xbone. Yes, and it's weak......still.

The PC version also has drops into 40 FPS on a damn 680GTX stated by DF on ultra,since they claim the PS4 image quality is close to PC on Ultra man that is a huge win for the PS4,no matter what you say the PS4 doesn't have a GPU like the 680GTX inside hell is not even a 660ti like,so yeah color me impress.

The PS4 has bigger drops than the PC version. Even then, you know this means nothing. I told WD runs at 900p, mixture of high an a few ultra/medium pre-sets (if i'm not mistaken) wiht fluctuating 30 frames. My GTX 760 runs it at 1080p, maxed out with a few fluctuating frames, at 30.

That is total bullsh** if you care about frames and resolution that mean that i to fu**ing spend 4k in a PC to play nothing but the fastest and the highest resolution.? WTF man just because people don't want to go PC doesn't mean they don't care about frames an resolution what king of lame ass argument is that.?

4000? Jesus F Christ. A PC that's twice the cost gives you twice the performance. My PC costed about 800 euros. Ofcourse res and frames can matter to people.

What i'm telling you is if it matters to shuch extent that 1080p vs 900p and so on is a deal breaker, than a PC will also have a better version. Therefore, either soemone is a moron or truly doesn't care about it to buy a console. I care about stable 60frames for certain game types, mainly first person view games, like shooters, so having a PC for it is one, among other, reason why i bought it. Let me explain this to you.

The differences in multiplats for the PS4 and XB1 goes like this: (xb1-ps4)

720p vs 900p and 900p vs 1080p.

Slightly superior graphics, by having such things has: better lighting, better shadows, better textures, and so on, which sadly, are so small that it's hard to notice. Same applies to my ultra versions vs high versions on my PC.

30 vs 30 fps or 30 vs 60 fluctuating fps. The PS4 can't output a stable 60 frames for the majority of graphically intensive games

Summary: The PS4 isn't outputting versions that are vastly superior to the bone. Not on the level of last vs current gen. Then we'd be talking.

But if these differences are indeed massive enough to amount to huge, bullshit infested arguments, should i meantion that PC can do:

4k resolution, maxed out pre-sets, AA, AO, 60 stables frames if not higher?

Sure, to achieve all of it at the same time, it costs more, but there lies the issue. If the small, tiny differences between the consoles are so truly important to console gamers that it affects their choice of console, a proper gaming PC that, again, even if only twice as pricy, delieveres the same difference in quality but superior to the PS4, why don't they buy a PC?

You know why? Because they don't really give a shit and probably don't even know the difference.

900p vs 1080p is such a small res bump that even i admit to having an extremely hard time noticing. The reality is that console fanboys arguing about this only do so because of fanboy wars. I know that sound ironic in SW, but atleast when arguing about things such as exclusives, there's a very valid point.

What's the point of arguing res and frames when they both suck at it? PC blows both away without needing that much money, in addition to choice. Unless of course, there isn't a PC version. Then, the PS4 matters because it does become the superior version.

Get it?

If you care about all of this and don't game on a PC when a version is available, you're a hypocrite, because youre still bragging and playing the inferior version of a game while caring for having the superior version. Well, forget hypocrite. One has to be a moron for that.

I would have stayed on the damn PS1 if i didn't like better graphics.

The PS4 vs xbox one isn't not pointless or idiotic specially when the PS4 perform better and cost $100 less than the majority of people payed for an xbox one.

XBone costs the same now.

Again total bullsh** the xbox user base basically was compose of graphics whores,since the first xbox landed,train that fallow with the more powerful than 2005 PC xbox 360,the reason why so many lemmings refuse to let go the graphics argument and hold tied to DX12,cloud,ESRAM and all that crap is because they care.

Then you're a fucking hypocrite, like mosr PS fans. Don't pull the same BS lemmings did last gen now. Specially because you know that if the bone was stronger than the PS4, you wouldn't give a fuck about specs again. You're using arguments that you didn't care about last gen

So don't tell me that just because i want to buy a console it most be an under power piece of crap,if graphics were no important in console people would have not jump on the PS4 at record pace.

Specs did matter for the PS4, but it was mostly the price. Remember when they announced the price, the crowd went crazy? Most console gamers don't look into the technical aspects of a console. Unless there is an extreme difference in power between them, which there isn't right now (50% isn't extreme), it's price that helps that inicial impact, which MS is fucked to have to recover. It already stayed it's imagine. Like backtracking on the Kinect. LOL

Funny thing is that half of steam can even fu**ing run Watch dogs the game requires a damn DX11 GPU and a quad core CPU when 47% of steam have dual cores and only 12% or so own a GPU stronger than the PS4,so yeah the PS4 may run it at 900p but it runs it,which is more than what 47% of steam users can say about the game and their PC.

Who gives a fuck?

Now cover your self your inner lemming is showing..

I'm a PC gamer that support whichever console delivers more interesting games, that focus on gameplay and interestign features, which, while by an extremely slow margin, XB1 is delievering. MMainly because of Sony's "Graphics because fuck everything else" mantra.

EDIT: For all these "PS4 has stabler framer rates" i bet gamers that don't play on PC probably don't even know how 60fps feels. PS4 and XB1 fans are fighting over techincal jargon that they probably don't even notice while actually playing games.

Yes, it's that stupid. Same applies to PC gamers who don't notice the difference.

Dude, one thing you have to realize is that this is going to be an ongoing battle for cows and lemming. It's not all Tormentos fault for flying off the pan handle with comparisons like these because (get this), the industry support this! Just take a look at the TC's link. It's a link from "Digital Foundry". A site who's sole purpose is to compare multiplats between the 2 competing consoles down to the very pixel, and the funny thing is that IGN, GS, Eurogamer, and nearly every gaming website will have a page on their site that directs you to that very exact link that the TC have posted. I don't know if these comparison was around in the PS2 vs Xbox days, but it was in full rampant mode last gen, and Sony with their "120 fps, 4D graphics for 599 US dollars" slogan was all to thank for that. Now, the X1 costed more, until recently (just like the PS3 did) while having noticeable weaker hardware both on paper, and in actual [performance (unlike the PS3), and gaming sites are going to rub this in MS face with multiplat comparisons because they and the gamers got drastic results when the very same thing happened to the PS3 last gen, hence: the PS4. A very powerful, and easy to code for gaming console, that is the EXACT opposite from what the PS3 was, and I'm willing to bet you that the next Xbox will be the very exact opposite of what the X1 is.

#160 Posted by Bruin1986 (1473 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

@scottpsfan14: boring ? don't click on it ? close browser ?

every win should be noted so lemmings can stfu and stop their cloud BS

I wasn't aware this game used cloud computing.

Learn something new every day.

#161 Posted by EducatingU_PCMR (1181 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

Poor consolites, 1080p60 is really a dream for them. Perhaps in 10 years.

Makes you think not to take any developer's claim seriously, Rebellion claimed 1080p at 60fps on both consoles LOL

Even if the console had a R290 still developers would chose visuals over frames,it happen already and it will always be like that.

@xhawk27 said:

You do know that the Xbox One has better Tile shading, physics, and a couple other things. Also the PS4 gpu is now only 28% stronger than the X1.

Hahahaha............

No.....

Rebellion chose 60fps and failed, and so did DICE and other devs.

With consoles you pick good graphics or high framerate, can't have both.

#162 Posted by Doolz2024 (9621 posts) -

Dear God the screen tearing on the Xbone version...how can people tolerate that?

#163 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@Doolz2024 said:

Dear God the screen tearing on the Xbone version...how can people tolerate that?

less resolution, more fps drops and no vsync, they really screwed it with the xbone.

#164 Posted by santoron (8415 posts) -

The only thing shocking ITT is that some MS fanboys are still:

A. Trying to act like this shouldn't be mentioned, after their graphics threads since... forever.

B. Screaming that the systems will be performing equally "Soon™".

You know, these threads disappear a lot faster without all the crying,damage control, and outright delusion.

#165 Posted by leandrro (1047 posts) -

@killzowned24 said:

Some more info.

"On the other hand, things appear a little more ropey on Xbox One, with Rebellion making a number of graphical sacrifices, perhaps in order to achieve native 1080p while targeting 60fps. These mainly come down to a reduction in texture filtering and use of lower-resolution artwork deployed upon surfaces on the ground. Indirect shadowing is also limited to screen-space ambient occlusion, while the PS4 and PC appear to utilise a more advanced implementation known as obscurance fields. This effect takes into account the radius between objects across the entire scene to produce a steady fall off with the indirect shadowing between light and dark areas, whereas SSAO creates a simpler black halo around objects that doesn't take into account such properties."

So not only does it perform way worse, it also looks worse too.

The PS4 game holds up rather well in approaching a 60fps set-up while featuring almost identical graphical quality to the PC game running with ultra settings enabled.

:D

im telling you people, look at the hardware power gap, its wii vs ps3

#166 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14813 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

You'd think we would have vsync in 2014.

We'll have free sync instead for next gen.

#167 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

@tormentos said:

The PS4 has bigger drops than the PC version. Even then, you know this means nothing. I told WD runs at 900p, mixture of high an a few ultra/medium pre-sets (if i'm not mistaken) wiht fluctuating 30 frames. My GTX 760 runs it at 1080p, maxed out with a few fluctuating frames, at 30.

4000? Jesus F Christ. A PC that's twice the cost gives you twice the performance. My PC costed about 800 euros. Ofcourse res and frames can matter to people.

No since What i'm telling you is if it matters to shuch extent that 1080p vs 900p and so on is a deal breaker, than a PC will also have a better version. Therefore, either soemone is a moron or truly doesn't care about it to buy a console. I care about stable 60frames for certain game types, mainly first person view games, like shooters, so having a PC for it is one, among other, reason why i bought it. Let me explain this to you.

The differences in multiplats for the PS4 and XB1 goes like this: (xb1-ps4)

720p vs 900p and 900p vs 1080p.

Slightly superior graphics, by having such things has: better lighting, better shadows, better textures, and so on, which sadly, are so small that it's hard to notice. Same applies to my ultra versions vs high versions on my PC.

30 vs 30 fps or 30 vs 60 fluctuating fps. The PS4 can't output a stable 60 frames for the majority of graphically intensive games

Summary: The PS4 isn't outputting versions that are vastly superior to the bone. Not on the level of last vs current gen. Then we'd be talking.

But if these differences are indeed massive enough to amount to huge, bullshit infested arguments, should i meantion that PC can do:

4k resolution, maxed out pre-sets, AA, AO, 60 stables frames if not higher?

Sure, to achieve all of it at the same time, it costs more, but there lies the issue. If the small, tiny differences between the consoles are so truly important to console gamers that it affects their choice of console, a proper gaming PC that, again, even if only twice as pricy, delieveres the same difference in quality but superior to the PS4, why don't they buy a PC?

You know why? Because they don't really give a shit and probably don't even know the difference.

900p vs 1080p is such a small res bump that even i admit to having an extremely hard time noticing. The reality is that console fanboys arguing about this only do so because of fanboy wars. I know that sound ironic in SW, but atleast when arguing about things such as exclusives, there's a very valid point.

What's the point of arguing res and frames when they both suck at it? PC blows both away without needing that much money, in addition to choice. Unless of course, there isn't a PC version. Then, the PS4 matters because it does become the superior version.

Get it?

If you care about all of this and don't game on a PC when a version is available, you're a hypocrite, because youre still bragging and playing the inferior version of a game while caring for having the superior version. Well, forget hypocrite. One has to be a moron for that.


XBone costs the same now.

Then you're a fucking hypocrite, like mosr PS fans. Don't pull the same BS lemmings did last gen now. Specially because you know that if the bone was stronger than the PS4, you wouldn't give a fuck about specs again. You're using arguments that you didn't care about last gen

Specs did matter for the PS4, but it was mostly the price. Remember when they announced the price, the crowd went crazy? Most console gamers don't look into the technical aspects of a console. Unless there is an extreme difference in power between them, which there isn't right now (50% isn't extreme), it's price that helps that inicial impact, which MS is fucked to have to recover. It already stayed it's imagine. Like backtracking on the Kinect. LOL

Who gives a fuck?

I'm a PC gamer that support whichever console delivers more interesting games, that focus on gameplay and interestign features, which, while by an extremely slow margin, XB1 is delievering. MMainly because of Sony's "Graphics because fuck everything else" mantra.

EDIT: For all these "PS4 has stabler framer rates" i bet gamers that don't play on PC probably don't even know how 60fps feels. PS4 and XB1 fans are fighting over techincal jargon that they probably don't even notice while actually playing games.

Yes, it's that stupid. Same applies to PC gamers who don't notice the difference.

1)It has drops into the 38 on a PS4 which is basically an R265 with 18CU,on PC on a damn 680GTX which is way more powerful also drops to 40FPS case in point both have drops almost identical when that 680GTX is way more powerful than the PS4.

2)No since the argument is better frames with better resolution why settle for a $800 pc when you can have a 3 titan SLI set up,but but but you don't need that right.? Well neither do console gamers.

3)A PC with better performance cost more period,and in the case of this game the PS4 runs it close to Ultra with drops just like damn 680GTX,which is no 7870 or 7950 or 660TI or 760,is something more expensive and stronger.

You care for stable frames,then be prepare to spend some good money,as DF say even the 680GTX has drops into the 40 to 50 when things got hot,that GPU is strong and much stronger than the PS4 one,yet it doesn't have stable frames,so get ready to drop something or lower something in which case you would be in the same place console gamers are.

Neither can PC if you don't have a strong enough GPU or basically lower quality in asses which is basically a trade off as well,that silly notion that because is PC you can do 60FPS is a joke not all PC can,because well not all PC were created equal.

Summary the PS4 deliver better version while costing $100 less,and the gap in frames can be as big as 20FPS with better image quality as well,now look on PC to what amount that difference between PC GPU.

Is the same for Tomb Raider the xbox one did 1080p,but the PS4 version was 20FPS on average faster,and in many instances it was 30 FPS faster 30 vs 60 that is a 100% gap in frames,oh and image quality wasn't the same either the xbox one version had wate down effects and 900p cut scenes.

The performance gap in Tomb Raider between the xbox one and PS4 was relative to that of the 7870 vs 7770 and at times when the PS4 was doing 60 FPS it was 7950 vs 7770 that big the gap was,and this on a console that was $100 cheaper and you still think it doesn't matter you sad lemming.

4)Build me a $400 PC that can do 4K games at 60FPS...ill wait...

You are a buffoon here you are defending a freaking machine that was $100 more expensive yet was getting owned by the PS4 1080p vs 720p and 60 FPS vs 30 and you still trying to pass it as small,but at the same time trying to pass advantages of more expensive PC hardware vs the PS4 as good..

I just build a damn R270 PC it cost me some $400+ without GPU,windows or a damn new HDD,all account probably close to $700 the R270 is just frames away from my damn PS4,which cost me $399,so drop the sh** lemming for what the PS4 cost you can't beat it on PC and you sure can do 4K on PC but you need something very powerful and much more expensive specially if you want high frames and ultra visuals.

5)No because they don't care about PC and several exclusives they like are on consoles as well,the notion that console gamers don't care about graphics is a joke,they just don't care about PC.

6)The PC blows both away IF you have strong enough hardware which 88% of steam doesn't even have,which prove that few gamers actually care or go for expensive hardware.

7)Been a hypocrite is defending a $500 console with weaker specs based on PC specs that cost more than the PS4 that is been a hypocrite,now drop your act you silly lemming,YOU CAN BEAT THE PS4 WITH A $400 PC PERIOD, the xbox one use to cost more and was weaker.

8)Yeah NOW it has 1 month been the same price the other months it was $100 more,oh and how does been the same justify it.? Oh wait your are such i can't imagine you building a damn PC,so you would pay the same for an R270 that you will for a R260x.?

Because if that is ok on your books then you most be a complete idiot,the PS4 is basically an R265 the xbox one a 7770,paying the same price for both is out of the question if you know what your buying.

9)Thats funny the xbox was stronger than the PS2,the xbox 360 was basically tied alto the PS3 edge it,but the ease of use of the 360 keep it a float vs the PS3 in multiplatforms,a few frames and a few pixels where enough to make a thread about the superior xbox version,now some how 720p vs 1080p wasn't enough,better IQ way faster frames isn't either..lol

I argue here graphics last gen dude the PS3 has the betters looking exclusives and some multiplatforms where superior as well on PS3.

10)Really it was just the price.? So when the PS3 shipped in its first 4 months 500K more than the xbox one what was it.? The PS3 was $600 and $500 the xbox one $500.

It wasn't just the price,power,no DRM crap and several other things stir away customers from MS,the PS2 set world records and was more expensive than DC.

20% is enough to make some one pick another GPU on PC,don't tell me 50% is nothing specially when the gap been recorded amounts to more than that.

720p vs 1080p =100%+ difference.

60 vs 30 FPS = 100% difference.

All this on a console that was $100 less and now the same price when the performance is less.

There is a reason why the R265 is more expensive than the R260X and R260 it is more powerful so it cost more,how the fu** the xbox one could cost more or the same as something much stronger..

11)Who gives a fu** you do else you would not be arguing this sh**,so PC is more powerful but as soon as Steam stats are bring to prove you people don't pay for that expensive sh** and mostly buy average or low you say who the fu** cares. lol

So the PS4 runs Watchdogs at 900p again 47% of steam can even run it,and more than those can't run it at 1080p either without giving something up.

You are a sad lemming who pretends to be a hermit,right now the xbox one trials the PS4 game wise in both quantity and score,and is weaker while costing up to last month $100 more and now the same which doesn't make it really better.

If people could buy a Honda Accord for the price of a Honda Civic i don't think the Civics would sell at all,but that is just me thinking that more for less or more for the same is better than less for more or the same,even a 5 year old can deduce that..

#168 Posted by GrenadeLauncher (6357 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 is a 6/10 in best case review scenario. Hardly a good example. Lets see what happens this Christmas with more reputable titles.

So? Doesn't make the hardware any less crap. StormyJoe shifting them goalposts.

Like I said to sts when he tried damage controlling another Xbone disaster, most of the impressions I've heard about this game have been positive.

#169 Edited by sam890 (1108 posts) -
@tormentos said:

6)The PC blows both away IF you have strong enough hardware which 88% of steam doesn't even have,which prove that few gamers actually care or go for expensive hardware.

So the PS4 runs Watchdogs at 900p again 47% of steam can even run it,and more than those can't run it at 1080p either without giving something up.

Stop using Steam statistics it's a horrible source. Where are you pulling these percentages from ?

The BF4 PC @ 1080p is not PS4 = @ 900p

#170 Posted by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 is a 6/10 in best case review scenario. Hardly a good example. Lets see what happens this Christmas with more reputable titles.

So? Doesn't make the hardware any less crap. StormyJoe shifting them goalposts.

Like I said to sts when he tried damage controlling another Xbone disaster, most of the impressions I've heard about this game have been positive.

Lets wait to see what Destiny, Evolve, and Dragon Age are at, shall we?

#171 Edited by I_can_haz (6511 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@StormyJoe said:

Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 is a 6/10 in best case review scenario. Hardly a good example. Lets see what happens this Christmas with more reputable titles.

So? Doesn't make the hardware any less crap. StormyJoe shifting them goalposts.

Like I said to sts when he tried damage controlling another Xbone disaster, most of the impressions I've heard about this game have been positive.

Lets wait to see what Destiny, Evolve, and Dragon Age are at, shall we?

Moving dem goal posts again. Once those games fail to deliver on shitty Xbone hardware it will be let's wait till Halo 5 and Forza 6 lol.

#172 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -

@btk2k2 said:

@ronvalencia said:

@killzowned24:

From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-sniper-elite-3-face-off

"Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead ".

5 fps less against 55 fps = 10 percent difference.

10 fps less against 55 fps = 18 percent difference.

Xbox One has issues with "anisotropic filtering" not with texture assets.

The PS4 does not average 55 FPS, it is around 50 FPS, the XBox is around 10-15 FPS worse than this depending on the scene. Since the Xbox One does not have V-Sync enabled there is also a lot of tearing to achieve this lower level of performance. When you do turn V-sync on to remove the tearing the game gets locked at 30FPS with the occasional dip below so you are in the exact same position you were in with Tomb Raider. which is a significant gap. This is defiantly much worse then your 'theory' would have us believe so I repeat, you are WRONG, just admit it and move on to another board where your nonsense can go unchallenged.

@ronvalencia: In answer to your edit, no I do not have problems reading I just disagree. I watched the 5 minute video and there was a near constant 10 - 15 FPS advantage to the PS4 with spikes to 20+ in instances. There were occasions when the game play was not quite synced due to the interactive nature of the game where the frame rates could show higher or lower differences but I eliminated those as they were rendering different things.

Perhaps the video is just highlighting the differences and they edited out the parts where the frame rates were similar but if they did this they need to have a min, max, avg FPS chart as using subjective language in an objective article is not appropriate.

No, DF has stated "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead".

@GrenadeLauncher said:
@StormyJoe said:

Screaming and crying about "parity." Newsflash: Sniper Elite 3 also has paper parity between consoles and was also taking advantage of a newer SDK with more mature development. Oh look, it sucks on the Bone.

StormyJoe destroyed once again. He makes it too easy.

Rebellion has stated Xbox One version would be slightly slower than PS4's version.

From http://gamingbolt.com/sniper-elite-3-closer-to-60fps-on-ps4-may-be-a-bit-slower-on-xbox-one#Li7qCDgcF5DvJKzE.99

"Well as close as possible to 60 frames per second on both the systems, it will probably be closer to 60 on the PS4 but it drops to around 40 and 50, but you won’t really feel or notice it. It may be a little bit slower on Xbox One"

@tormentos said:
@deadline-zero0 said:

1)It has drops into the 38 on a PS4 which is basically an R265 with 18CU,on PC on a damn 680GTX which is way more powerful also drops to 40FPS case in point both have drops almost identical when that 680GTX is way more powerful than the PS4.

1. Sniper Elite 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title. It's NVIDIA's driver problem.

#173 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

No, DF has stated "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead".

Rebellion has stated Xbox One version would be slightly slower than PS4's version.

From http://gamingbolt.com/sniper-elite-3-closer-to-60fps-on-ps4-may-be-a-bit-slower-on-xbox-one#Li7qCDgcF5DvJKzE.99

"Well as close as possible to 60 frames per second on both the systems, it will probably be closer to 60 on the PS4 but it drops to around 40 and 50, but you won’t really feel or notice it. It may be a little bit slower on Xbox One"

1. Sniper Elite 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title. It's NVIDIA's driver problem.

Watch the damn video the PS4 version pull as much as 20FPS lead before V-synch is even apply,after V-synch it could be more since it lock the xbox one version to 30FPS while the PS4 one remain open and can hit 60 FPS,just watch the video for your self and stop riding Rebellions nuts they are damage controlling it..lol

What you expected them to say yeah there is a huge gap in favor of the PS4.?

@sam890 said:
@tormentos said:

6)The PC blows both away IF you have strong enough hardware which 88% of steam doesn't even have,which prove that few gamers actually care or go for expensive hardware.

So the PS4 runs Watchdogs at 900p again 47% of steam can even run it,and more than those can't run it at 1080p either without giving something up.

Stop using Steam statistics it's a horrible source. Where are you pulling these percentages from ?

The BF4 PC @ 1080p is not PS4 = @ 900p

No i will not horrible source my ass,it has close to 80 million users,and like 88% don't have a more powerful than PS4 GPU,hell 47% have dual core CPU,most video memory still is 1GB that says it all..

The PC version of BF4 is not 1080p for the majority of gaming PC out there,at least not at 60FPS or close,unless you go low detail which the PS4 version isn't.

Loading Video...

Yeah blame the PS4 for a buggy ass game...lol

The notion that all PC can play BF4 on 1080p is a joke one...lol

#174 Edited by sam890 (1108 posts) -

@tormet me get a link source of 88% of steam users that have PC's with lower specs than a PS4

#175 Posted by btk2k2 (440 posts) -
@StormyJoe said:

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

Not really. ACIV:BF is resolution and AA, BF4 is resolution and frame rate, MGS:GZ is resolution and atmospheric modelling, Watch Dogs is resolution, frame rate and effects. What other big games can you think of that have been released?

@ronvalencia said:

No, DF has stated "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead".

I am not talking about what they stated. I am talking about what their video showed and that was near constant 10FPS advantage with spikes of 20+. If the video they have is not representative then they need to put a disclaimer explaining why. I would also recommend that they put the frame time graphs in the body of the article and calculate min, max, avg frame rates so that we do not have this subjective language in an objective article. Until they do put in a disclaimer saying that the video does not represent general game play I am going to go with the hard numbers over the subjective language.

@ronvalencia said:

Rebellion has stated Xbox One version would be slightly slower than PS4's version.

From http://gamingbolt.com/sniper-elite-3-closer-to-60fps-on-ps4-may-be-a-bit-slower-on-xbox-one#Li7qCDgcF5DvJKzE.99

"Well as close as possible to 60 frames per second on both the systems, it will probably be closer to 60 on the PS4 but it drops to around 40 and 50, but you won’t really feel or notice it. It may be a little bit slower on Xbox One"

So the numbers prove. As for whether 10-15FPS is 'a little bit slower' is again a subjective opinion. If the game were hitting 100+ FPS then I would probably agree but once you get to the 50's then I think it is more than 'a little bit slower' but everybody has their own take.

#176 Posted by superclocked (5863 posts) -

The opposite is true for Outlast. The XB1 consistently had about a 10 frame per second lead over the PS4...

#177 Edited by GrenadeLauncher (6357 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

Lets wait to see what Destiny, Evolve, and Dragon Age are at, shall we?

And if/when they're guff too, what will your next excuse be?

@superclocked said:

The opposite is true for Outlast. The XB1 consistently had about a 10 frame per second lead over the PS4...

In cutscenes. During gameplay the PS4 had a more consistent framerate. The Xbone version had about four months more optimisation time too. What a joke.

#178 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@sam890 said:

@tormet me get a link source of 88% of steam users that have PC's with lower specs than a PS4

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Calculate the % of GPU stronger than the PS4 dude and tell me 50% of steam have a stronger than PS4 GPU.

some 35% has a video card with 1GB of memory how many GPU with 1GB of memory are stronger than the PS4.?lol

Deny it all you want it is like that.

@superclocked said:

The opposite is true for Outlast. The XB1 consistently had about a 10 frame per second lead over the PS4...

Loading Video...

From where in hell did you pull that Outlast run 10FPS faster on xbox one.? Watch DF video and look which version really fall behinds at most times,alto the game is mostly 60FPS on both.

I see you still making sh** arguments in favor of the xbox one..lol

#179 Edited by superclocked (5863 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@sam890 said:

@tormet me get a link source of 88% of steam users that have PC's with lower specs than a PS4

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Calculate the % of GPU stronger than the PS4 dude and tell me 50% of steam have a stronger than PS4 GPU.

some 35% has a video card with 1GB of memory how many GPU with 1GB of memory are stronger than the PS4.?lol

Deny it all you want it is like that.

@superclocked said:

The opposite is true for Outlast. The XB1 consistently had about a 10 frame per second lead over the PS4...

Loading Video...

From where in hell did you pull that Outlast run 10FPS faster on xbox one.? Watch DF video and look which version really fall behinds at most times,alto the game is mostly 60FPS on both.

I see you still making sh** arguments in favor of the xbox one..lol

You skipped to a part where the PS4 didn't get whooped? lol.. The Xbox One pulls ahead at 1 second and stays there...

#180 Posted by GrenadeLauncher (6357 posts) -

@superclocked said:

You skipped to a part where the PS4 didn't get whooped? lol.. The Xbox One pulls ahead at 1 second and stays there...

Only it doesn't.

#181 Posted by blackace (21607 posts) -

This thread is still active? lmao!! What a joke. Game isn't even worth discussing. Game is terrible on every platform. Waste of time.

#182 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (7654 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Are we really gonna be doing PS4 vs XB1 threads for the rest of this gen?

We all know it goes PC>PS4>XB1>Wii U.

Leave it there.

Yeah for every game apparently.

#183 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@superclocked said:

You skipped to a part where the PS4 didn't get whooped? lol.. The Xbox One pulls ahead at 1 second and stays there...

Watch the complete video you joke of a poster as soon as the gameplay start the PS4 pulls ahead and is more times ahead,not only that the xbox one pulled like 4 to 6 frames at the start not 10 consistent like you claim but the PS4 does pull 10 FPS ahead at times...lol

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@superclocked said:

You skipped to a part where the PS4 didn't get whooped? lol.. The Xbox One pulls ahead at 1 second and stays there...

Only it doesn't.

I even posted the video and he refuse to admit it..hahahahaaaaaaaa

Is actually the PS4 version the one that pulls 10 FPS at times.

#184 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -
@tormentos said:

@sam890 said:

@tormet me get a link source of 88% of steam users that have PC's with lower specs than a PS4

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Calculate the % of GPU stronger than the PS4 dude and tell me 50% of steam have a stronger than PS4 GPU.

some 35% has a video card with 1GB of memory how many GPU with 1GB of memory are stronger than the PS4.?lol

Deny it all you want it is like that.

@superclocked said:

The opposite is true for Outlast. The XB1 consistently had about a 10 frame per second lead over the PS4...

From where in hell did you pull that Outlast run 10FPS faster on xbox one.? Watch DF video and look which version really fall behinds at most times,alto the game is mostly 60FPS on both.

I see you still making sh** arguments in favor of the xbox one..lol

Any percentage is dependant on the total number.

@btk2k2 said:
@StormyJoe said:

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

Not really. ACIV:BF is resolution and AA, BF4 is resolution and frame rate, MGS:GZ is resolution and atmospheric modelling, Watch Dogs is resolution, frame rate and effects. What other big games can you think of that have been released?

@ronvalencia said:

No, DF has stated "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead".

I am not talking about what they stated. I am talking about what their video showed and that was near constant 10FPS advantage with spikes of 20+. If the video they have is not representative then they need to put a disclaimer explaining why. I would also recommend that they put the frame time graphs in the body of the article and calculate min, max, avg frame rates so that we do not have this subjective language in an objective article. Until they do put in a disclaimer saying that the video does not represent general game play I am going to go with the hard numbers over the subjective language.

@ronvalencia said:

Rebellion has stated Xbox One version would be slightly slower than PS4's version.

From http://gamingbolt.com/sniper-elite-3-closer-to-60fps-on-ps4-may-be-a-bit-slower-on-xbox-one#Li7qCDgcF5DvJKzE.99

"Well as close as possible to 60 frames per second on both the systems, it will probably be closer to 60 on the PS4 but it drops to around 40 and 50, but you won’t really feel or notice it. It may be a little bit slower on Xbox One"

So the numbers prove. As for whether 10-15FPS is 'a little bit slower' is again a subjective opinion. If the game were hitting 100+ FPS then I would probably agree but once you get to the 50's then I think it is more than 'a little bit slower' but everybody has their own take.

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage" comment, 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html Metro 2033 DX11 difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 is about 13 percent. R7-265 is faster than retail 7850.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4 DX11, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

For near best case for X1, I expected R7-265 vs 768 stream processor 7850 level difference between PS4 and X1.

Remember, X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's 2GB GDD5 at 153 GB/s solution hence X1's performance could range from 7770 to near 768 stream processors 7850. X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's performance stability/consistency and it's heavily dependant on the programmer to fix the memory plumbing work.

#185 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

Any percentage is dependant on the total number.

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

Yeah i am sure you will it showed gap as big as 20FPS,not only that you say as we move further into the stage is 45 vs 59 = 23%

But V-synch lock the xbox one version to 30 FPS which mean 30FPS vs 59FPS that is almost double frames 100% gap in frames.

30 if half of 60 = 50% view from this angle.

60FPS is double or 30 =100% gap viewed from this one.

1+1 = 2

#186 Posted by btk2k2 (440 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html Metro 2033 difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 is about 13 percent. R7-265 is faster than retail 7850.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

Then you are blind. There is a near constant 10 fps advantage, sometimes less and sometimes more. I would not call that an "occasional" lead.

o.O really, that is the most stupid dumbfuck argument I have ever heard. 1) They are two different games which will show different performance scaling, 2) the drivers will be different, 3) Toms test games with the same image quality settings but the Xbox One and the PS4 are running different settings making the difference greater. I really cannot believe you even thought that was a sound argument, really... really!!?

#187 Edited by handssss (1901 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

@StormyJoe said:

@killzowned24: In other news, forumites like "killzowned24" continue to scour the internet in an attempt to find articles to ease their insecurity over their console choice; and hopefully, in their minds, convince others to buy what they have.

Hey, if isn't the guy that said there were "no graphical differences aside from resolution" between multiplatform games on the Xbox One and the Playstation 4.

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

I didn't know you took my posts as word of God.

If it eases your insecurity over your console choice, go ahead and ignore instances like this and resolution differences.

#188 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia said:

Any percentage is dependant on the total number.

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

Yeah i am sure you will it showed gap as big as 20FPS,not only that you say as we move further into the stage is 45 vs 59 = 23%

But V-synch lock the xbox one version to 30 FPS which mean 30FPS vs 59FPS that is almost double frames 100% gap in frames.

30 if half of 60 = 50% view from this angle.

60FPS is double or 30 =100% gap viewed from this one.

1+1 = 2

V-Sync lock on Xbox One is an option.

Fixed 30 vs 60 V-sync lock issue wouldn't be a problem if the consoles has AMD's FreeSync (v-sync driven by the GPU) option.

Let's see if HDMI standard catches up to DisplayPort 1.2A and 1.3.

AMD GCN 1.1 hardware already has FreeSync hardware i.e. the GPU side.

The next question is HDMI port's flexibility.

AMD's FreeSync has benefits for current gen consoles IF they add DisplayPort 1.2A (for GCN 1.1) i.e. they can have smooth frame rates that can range from 30 to 60 without tearing or input lag. Insert NVIDIA's G-Sync marketing info here.

Historically, Sony updates their existing PS3's HDMI port with 3D support. Sony has some influence over the HDMI standard.

More info on DisplayPort 1.2A's EDID update for FreeSync from http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=64789

Apparently, HDMI can also carry EDID.

#189 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -
@btk2k2 said:

@ronvalencia said:

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html Metro 2033 difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 is about 13 percent. R7-265 is faster than retail 7850.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

Then you are blind. There is a near constant 10 fps advantage, sometimes less and sometimes more. I would not call that an "occasional" lead.

o.O really, that is the most stupid dumbfuck argument I have ever heard. 1) They are two different games which will show different performance scaling, 2) the drivers will be different, 3) Toms test games with the same image quality settings but the Xbox One and the PS4 are running different settings making the difference greater. I really cannot believe you even thought that was a sound argument, really... really!!?

1. On certain games, stream processor count scales with frame rate until it hits some bottlenecks. I picked shader heavy DX11 games.

2. Not factoring driver bugs, drivers scales with hardware until it hits some bottlenecks.

3. Rebellion has stated texture filtering issue NOT texture asset issue and "obscurance fields" is also running on X1 (there's a minor issue with X1).

#190 Posted by tormentos (20665 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4 DX11, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

For near best case for X1, I expected R7-265 vs 768 stream processor 7850 level difference between PS4 and X1.

Remember, X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's 2GB GDD5 at 153 GB/s solution hence X1's performance could range from 7770 to near 768 stream processors 7850. X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's performance stability/consistency and it's heavily dependant on the programmer to fix the memory plumbing work.

The xbox one for the 100 time is not Pitcairn based in Bonairne,so if anything is a 768SP 7790 with lower clock speed to.

You insist in tagging the XBO GPU as Pitcairn which is not,it is Bonaire period,that would be like me saying the PS4 GPU operates like a 1152 SP Tahiti,it is a joke drop it is Bonaire 7790 with 768SP and 853mhz,is not Pitcairn stated by MS.

@ronvalencia said:

V-Sync lock on Xbox One is an option.

Fixed 30 vs 60 V-sync lock issue wouldn't be a problem if the consoles has AMD's FreeSync (v-sync driven by the GPU) option.

Let's see if HDMI standard catches up to DisplayPort 1.2A and 1.3.

AMD GCN 1.1 hardware already has FreeSync hardware.

The next question is HDMI port's flexibility.

AMD's FreeSync has benefits for current gen consoles IF they add DisplayPort 1.2A (for GCN 1.1) i.e. they can have smooth frame rates that can range from 30 to 60 without tearing or input lag. Insert NVIDIA's G-Sync marketing info here.

Historically, Sony updates their existing PS3's HDMI port with 3D support.

Yes is an option which the PS4 has always on,so if i was given the choice of turning V-synch off it would probably hit solid 60FPS.

The fact is non V-synch delivers a terrible screen tearing on xbox one,so on is capping time and the game fall behind greatly even agreeing with your 5 to 10 frames,turn more into 15 to 20 with V-synch on,and even worse because the PS4 version can ride as high as 60 and 59.

#191 Posted by btk2k2 (440 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:
@btk2k2 said:
@ronvalencia said:

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html Metro 2033 difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 is about 13 percent. R7-265 is faster than retail 7850.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

Then you are blind. There is a near constant 10 fps advantage, sometimes less and sometimes more. I would not call that an "occasional" lead.

o.O really, that is the most stupid dumbfuck argument I have ever heard. 1) They are two different games which will show different performance scaling, 2) the drivers will be different, 3) Toms test games with the same image quality settings but the Xbox One and the PS4 are running different settings making the difference greater. I really cannot believe you even thought that was a sound argument, really... really!!?

1. On certain games, stream processor count scales with frame rate until it hits some bottlenecks. I picked shader heavy DX11 games.

2. Not factoring driver bugs, drivers scales with hardware until it hits some bottlenecks.

3. Rebellion has stated texture filtering issue NOT texture asset issue and "obscurance fields" is also running on X1 (there's a minor issue with X1).

1) Two different games will show different performance scaling for a variety of reasons so that makes your 'add the differences' idea invalid, end of story.

2) Drivers can be optimised on a game by game basis so comparing different games, with different drivers is changing more variable than just the GPU which is a poor method for testing.

3) The AO is objectively worse on the Xbox One, the AF is a lower level on the Xbox One and the shadows are worse on Xbox One. To achieve all of this the screen tearing on Xbox One is almost unbearable and the only way to get rid of it is to apply V-Sync which makes the differences practically the same as in Tomb Raider DE.

Just accept the fact you are wrong, totally and utterly wrong and we can move on to the next game.

#192 Posted by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@handssss said:

@StormyJoe said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

@StormyJoe said:

@killzowned24: In other news, forumites like "killzowned24" continue to scour the internet in an attempt to find articles to ease their insecurity over their console choice; and hopefully, in their minds, convince others to buy what they have.

Hey, if isn't the guy that said there were "no graphical differences aside from resolution" between multiplatform games on the Xbox One and the Playstation 4.

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

I didn't know you took my posts as word of God.

If it eases your insecurity over your console choice, go ahead and ignore instances like this and resolution differences.

Wow. Trying to use my own argument against me. I should sue for plagiarism. News flash, buddy: most developers agree with me. They literally say the same things I am saying about the difference between the two.

ANd before you go off on "ME pays them for that" or "They don't want to get MS mad at them" - if either of those were true, why would they give the PS4 version a resolution edge?

#193 Edited by StormyJoe (6795 posts) -

@btk2k2 said:
@StormyJoe said:

For the most part, I'm still right. Would it make you feel better if I said "for most multiplats, there is no graphical differences aside from resolution"? I was refering to major games like CoD, Battlefield, etc. But hey, if you want to include such blockbusters like "Sniper Elite", then go ahead.

Not really. ACIV:BF is resolution and AA, BF4 is resolution and frame rate, MGS:GZ is resolution and atmospheric modelling, Watch Dogs is resolution, frame rate and effects. What other big games can you think of that have been released?

@ronvalencia said:

No, DF has stated "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead".

I am not talking about what they stated. I am talking about what their video showed and that was near constant 10FPS advantage with spikes of 20+. If the video they have is not representative then they need to put a disclaimer explaining why. I would also recommend that they put the frame time graphs in the body of the article and calculate min, max, avg frame rates so that we do not have this subjective language in an objective article. Until they do put in a disclaimer saying that the video does not represent general game play I am going to go with the hard numbers over the subjective language.

@ronvalencia said:

Rebellion has stated Xbox One version would be slightly slower than PS4's version.

From http://gamingbolt.com/sniper-elite-3-closer-to-60fps-on-ps4-may-be-a-bit-slower-on-xbox-one#Li7qCDgcF5DvJKzE.99

"Well as close as possible to 60 frames per second on both the systems, it will probably be closer to 60 on the PS4 but it drops to around 40 and 50, but you won’t really feel or notice it. It may be a little bit slower on Xbox One"

So the numbers prove. As for whether 10-15FPS is 'a little bit slower' is again a subjective opinion. If the game were hitting 100+ FPS then I would probably agree but once you get to the 50's then I think it is more than 'a little bit slower' but everybody has their own take.

Jesus Christ...

You guys just never stop the nitpicking differences, do you? Lets face it - you would not know there was a difference w/o digital foundry analyzing each pixel.

#194 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -

@btk2k2 said:

@ronvalencia said:
@btk2k2 said:
@ronvalencia said:

After viewing DF's videos, I agree with DF's conclusions i.e. "Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s".

For "As we move further into the stage", 45 fps vs 59 fps = ~23 percent difference.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196-5.html Metro 2033 difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 is about 13 percent. R7-265 is faster than retail 7850.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

Then you are blind. There is a near constant 10 fps advantage, sometimes less and sometimes more. I would not call that an "occasional" lead.

o.O really, that is the most stupid dumbfuck argument I have ever heard. 1) They are two different games which will show different performance scaling, 2) the drivers will be different, 3) Toms test games with the same image quality settings but the Xbox One and the PS4 are running different settings making the difference greater. I really cannot believe you even thought that was a sound argument, really... really!!?

1. On certain games, stream processor count scales with frame rate until it hits some bottlenecks. I picked shader heavy DX11 games.

2. Not factoring driver bugs, drivers scales with hardware until it hits some bottlenecks.

3. Rebellion has stated texture filtering issue NOT texture asset issue and "obscurance fields" is also running on X1 (there's a minor issue with X1).

1) Two different games will show different performance scaling for a variety of reasons so that makes your 'add the differences' idea invalid, end of story.

2) Drivers can be optimised on a game by game basis so comparing different games, with different drivers is changing more variable than just the GPU which is a poor method for testing.

3) The AO is objectively worse on the Xbox One, the AF is a lower level on the Xbox One and the shadows are worse on Xbox One. To achieve all of this the screen tearing on Xbox One is almost unbearable and the only way to get rid of it is to apply V-Sync which makes the differences practically the same as in Tomb Raider DE.

Just accept the fact you are wrong, totally and utterly wrong and we can move on to the next game.

1. From http://www.anandtech.com/show/7754/the-amd-radeon-r7-265-r7-260-review-feat-sapphire-asus/5

Metro 2033's 7850 vs R7-265 difference is about 11.49 percent, which is close to Battlefield 4's 11 percent difference between 7850 vs R7-265. Different drivers can change the variables but the games I selected has minor variable changes.

2. Metro 2033 DX11 has a strong result for AMD GCNs. As my point 1 shows, 11 percent vs 11.49 percent difference is a joke.

3. Rebellion has stated Xbox One is running the same AO effects and DF spotted "issues". PC version also has issues with shadows and stronger hardware didn't solve it and hopefully they patch it.

Try again since your point 1 and 2 are non-issues.

#195 Posted by silversix_ (16870 posts) -

omg ron came back to SW with his links spam

#196 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia said:

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-265-review,3748-3.html For Battlefield 4 DX11, the difference between retail 7850 and R7-265 is 11 percent.

If you combine the difference between 768 stream processors 7850 vs retail 7850 AND retail 7850 vs R7-265, you get 24 percent difference.

For near best case for X1, I expected R7-265 vs 768 stream processor 7850 level difference between PS4 and X1.

Remember, X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's 2GB GDD5 at 153 GB/s solution hence X1's performance could range from 7770 to near 768 stream processors 7850. X1 doesn't have 768 stream processors 7850's performance stability/consistency and it's heavily dependant on the programmer to fix the memory plumbing work.

The xbox one for the 100 time is not Pitcairn based in Bonairne,so if anything is a 768SP 7790 with lower clock speed to.

You insist in tagging the XBO GPU as Pitcairn which is not,it is Bonaire period,that would be like me saying the PS4 GPU operates like a 1152 SP Tahiti,it is a joke drop it is Bonaire 7790 with 768SP and 853mhz,is not Pitcairn stated by MS.

@ronvalencia said:

V-Sync lock on Xbox One is an option.

Fixed 30 vs 60 V-sync lock issue wouldn't be a problem if the consoles has AMD's FreeSync (v-sync driven by the GPU) option.

Let's see if HDMI standard catches up to DisplayPort 1.2A and 1.3.

AMD GCN 1.1 hardware already has FreeSync hardware.

The next question is HDMI port's flexibility.

AMD's FreeSync has benefits for current gen consoles IF they add DisplayPort 1.2A (for GCN 1.1) i.e. they can have smooth frame rates that can range from 30 to 60 without tearing or input lag. Insert NVIDIA's G-Sync marketing info here.

Historically, Sony updates their existing PS3's HDMI port with 3D support.

Yes is an option which the PS4 has always on,so if i was given the choice of turning V-synch off it would probably hit solid 60FPS.

The fact is non V-synch delivers a terrible screen tearing on xbox one,so on is capping time and the game fall behind greatly even agreeing with your 5 to 10 frames,turn more into 15 to 20 with V-synch on,and even worse because the PS4 version can ride as high as 60 and 59.

1. PC's Bonaire doesn't interact (read and write) with memory at ~150 GB/s. You think color ROPS are the only large bandwidth consumer?

Real games has read/write operations from Z-ROPS and colour ROPS.

Real games has read/Write operations from TMUs.

Xbox One's tiling tricks against it's 150 GB/s ESRAM has near effectiveness to GDDR5 at 150GB/s. X1's tiling trick has downside with increase complexity i.e. the manage/memory plumbing code overheads/efforts are higher.

2. Both Bonaire and Pitcairn has the same dual tessellation, duel rasterization and CU design.

#197 Edited by ronvalencia (15781 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

omg ron came back to SW with his links spam

My referential links habit was from academic land. Atm, I prefer to fry F-35 critics with some real world consequence.

#198 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@ronvalencia said:

@silversix_ said:

omg ron came back to SW with his links spam

My referential links habit was from academic land. Atm, I prefer to fry F-35 critics with some real world consequence.

it's a trick!

the keyboard only goes to f12!

#199 Posted by wis3boi (32095 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

You'd think we would have vsync in 2014.

screen tearing is more cinematic

#200 Posted by btk2k2 (440 posts) -
@ronvalencia said:

1. From http://www.anandtech.com/show/7754/the-amd-radeon-r7-265-r7-260-review-feat-sapphire-asus/5

Metro 2033's 7850 vs R7-265 difference is about 11.49 percent, which is close to Battlefield 4's 11 percent difference between 7850 vs R7-265. Different drivers can change the variables but the games I selected has minor variable changes.

2. Metro 2033 DX11 has a strong result for AMD GCNs. As my point 1 shows, 11 percent vs 11.49 percent difference is a joke.

3. Rebellion has stated Xbox One is running the same AO effects and DF spotted "issues". PC version also has issues with shadows and stronger hardware didn't solve it and hopefully they patch it.

Try again since your point 1 and 2 are non-issues.

1) From that article, at the high settings the Metro difference is 13% (40.9 FPS vs 36.2 FPS) and the BF 4 difference (without mantle) is 8.6% (57.9 FPS vs 53.3 FPS). That shows the games you chose do not have minor variable changes.

2) Except it is 13% vs 8.6% which is miles off and means you cannot just do (7850 prototype --> 7850 retail)% + (7850 retail --> R7 265)% as Metro and BF4 show different scaling and the reviews are using different drivers and different in game settings which is likely be causing bottlenecks in different areas of the from each other further meaning that any comparison has error bars the size of Jupiter and makes it a pointless endeavour.

3) The Xbox One might well be using the same AO effect but the screen shots show something is wrong, perhaps the setting was disabled by mistake in the release code and perhaps a patch will fix it, also possible it will cause a performance reduction so as it stands the AO is worse on the Xbox 1 vs the PS4. The shadows on the Xbox 1 are worse than on PS4, I was not even comparing it to PC so no reason to bring it up. AF is also worse on Xbox One. This is on top of the frame rate deficit and the really bad screen tearing which makes the experience unplayable for some people.

Next time, read the article and do the maths because you just failed really hard here. Like I said, to stop the screen tearing you are in a situation where the differences are the same as Tomb Raider DE which is one of the widest gaps so far. If you can deal with the screen tearing the gap is not as wide but you are still getting worse performance and IQ which is on par with a lot of other releases.

@StormyJoe said:

Jesus Christ...

You guys just never stop the nitpicking differences, do you? Lets face it - you would not know there was a difference w/o digital foundry analyzing each pixel.

Well I can see the difference between 1080p and 900p on my screen. I can also clearly see AO differences. AA and texturing is a bit more subtle and would take side by side comparison to see the difference but it does provide that uncanny feeling of "can't quite put my finger on it but it just looks better somehow".

This is a DF thread, the whole point is the nitpicking differences, they were even more nitpicky last gen but they were trumpeted as the reason to get the 360 > PS3 unless you wanted a blu ray player or the exclusives.