DF: PS4 VS Xbone Sniper Elite Framerate test

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 **** 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 ****?

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 **** 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.

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

@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.

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

How is the truth damage control?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

No.....

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

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

You'd think we would have vsync in 2014.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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"

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!?

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.

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You'd think we would have vsync in 2014.

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.

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.