inFamous: Second Son Hardware Performance

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

Edit your thread OP. The game never dips to the 20s. It runs mostly into the 40s and dips into the 30s according to DF.

Done.

#53 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14737 posts) -

He already admitted he made a mistake with the framerate guesstimate, no need to crucify the dude.

#54 Posted by lostrib (40148 posts) -

@AM-Gamer: prove it

#56 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38218 posts) -

Rendering techniques change over time. People get better at coding and utilising the hardware in place so games perform better over time

#57 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: Do you enjoy sounding like a fool? You just compared the PS4 to a gtx265? Infamous SS would bring a similar spec pc to it's knees. That's why it blows AC4 out of the water visually and still performs better.

#58 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6689 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

Do you enjoy sounding like a fool? You just compared the PS4 to a gtx 265? Infamous SS would bring a pc with similar specs to it's knees. That why it destroys games like AC4 visually and still performs better.

Yeh well, the PS4 has similar specs to a midrange laptop, so aint that hard. HiDef also has a fair point, Infamous drows WAY under 20 if you are in heavy combat and pans the camera around wuickly, or is high above. It is not some kind of slo mo effect, it is the game bogging Down, if you want more worrisome notions you should try to play "Mercenary Kings on your PS4, and tell me how the framerate is, or even Resogun when large numbers of ships or lands gets destroyied.

It is fair to point out that those are relatively rare drops, but they DO happen, which is unacceptible. ANd ignoring such issues due to blind fanboyism is borderlike insanity right there.

#59 Edited by Alucard_Prime (3203 posts) -

Not surprised about this inconsistent framerate, that's what happens when your #1 priority is to run 1080p Native. But wait, the framerate is apparently steady when there is no action onscreen...

#60 Edited by lostrib (40148 posts) -

@AM-Gamer: lol, stay mad

#61 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@AM-Gamer: lol, stay mad

its called denial

#62 Edited by ohgeez (910 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Nonstop-Madness said:
  • Optimization doesn't work like that.
  • Second Son doesn't often dip into the mid 20s during battles. There are frame rate tests you can find on the web supporting this.
  • The game runs between 30-40fps for the vast majority of the time. (Low 30s in battles).

I guess I confused low 30s with low 20s. The point is that it becomes choppy during battles.

I think what you got confused is that what you percieve as drops into the 20s in FPS, is just judder. My modded skyrim usually runs around 40-50 but varies GREATLY due to the open nature of the game. I get the same thing even though it barely drops into the 30s ever.

Thats why to some, locked 30fps looks better, while others enjoy the higher, unlocked framerate

#63 Posted by DrkeX (182 posts) -

@blackace: cow logic. They are so dumb

#64 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@Maddie_Larkin: yet you just made a bunch of random crap up in your post. Infamous never goes below the 20s and averages above 30. Just cause you make shit up doesn't make it true. Resogun rarely goes below 60 so if I call BS that's not denial that's just basic facts . But continue to stay butthurt.

#65 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: Yes you are swimming in it.

#66 Posted by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: Yes you are swimming in it.

O yes so much so I look past the fact that the PS4 cant even run these games with the so called 60 fps target trying to push the 1080 gaming and failing. O wait that's you

#67 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: No your the fool that said it was comparable to a gtx 265 wich wouldn't even be capable of running infamous SS without a drastic reduction in detail. Also when you take a game that is without debate in the top 5 best looking games period there is no shame not running it at 60fps.

#68 Edited by Maddie_Larkin (6689 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@Maddie_Larkin: yet you just made a bunch of random crap up in your post. Infamous never goes below the 20s and averages above 30. Just cause you make shit up doesn't make it true. Resogun rarely goes below 60 so if I call BS that's not denial that's just basic facts . But continue to stay butthurt.

congrats that right there underlines that you don't have a ps4 or simply want to stay blind to the fact that the issues exist, IF you never feel a slowdown I call utter bull from a fanboy that Dows not want to know the reality of Things.

Unlike you I have a PS4, and I am not a weak ass fanboy WHO makes up excuses. So why is it that when 10 or so people fight Against you in INfamous SS and just a few uses the concrete power and you look after them with quick motions, that the game slows? if you feel it and notice it so badly something is wrong.

Resogun does NOT have a slowmo effect when major damage uccors, explain that to me kindly? and the abomination called Mercenery Kings outright lags.

And averaging in over thirty Means that the curve goes both ways math ingrate. and from your own beloved digital foundry "There are certainly plenty of circumstances which can knock performance into the 20's" So it is NOT rare, if you even bothered playing it you would know it, still I call fakeboy of fanboy on your lack of evidence otherwise (or even bother playing the games). And will still stand by the notion that 20s don't feel adequate from time to time, first checkpoint when in Seattle? yeh lagfest when I was there.

There is a reason why the game gets a 30 fps Lock option, it certainly aint to make the game slower. So go out get your fanboy goggles off, and resogun does indeed go under 60 if you manages high combos. Go dl mercenery Kings, its free off PS+

Instead of calling bull you might want to do reserch. Fakeboy.

#69 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: Also when you take a game that is without debate in the top 5 best looking games period there is no shame not running it at 60fps.

LOL.

#70 Posted by Tighaman (1031 posts) -

It takes more gpu power to run 900p 60fps than 1080p 30fps so that's x1 power to ps4 power and I never see any judders or even pop ins in not one of my x1 games and I see it infamous.

#71 Edited by stereointegrity (10767 posts) -

@Tighaman said:

It takes more gpu power to run 900p 60fps than 1080p 30fps so that's x1 power to ps4 power and I never see any judders or even pop ins in not one of my x1 games and I see it infamous.

IS THIS A JOKE OR ARE U SERIOUS...what game on xbone is 900p 60fps

dead rising 3 had more pop in then GTA4

#72 Posted by tdkmillsy (1603 posts) -

Question

If you had the choice would you run it at a lower resolution for better frame rate.

Bet the answer is yes and I bet the reason is you couldn't tell the difference (especially 900p / 1080p) and you want the FPS.

Sony and its fans are obsessed with 1080p.

#73 Edited by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@Maddie_Larkin: My gamertag is "thesterls" feel free to check out my Platnum trophy in infamous SS as well as the rest of my games in my PS4. And no DF performance analysis shows the game barely ever drops below 30fps. Is there slowdown? Yes but it NEVER goes below the high 20s and averages around 36fps. I never see any slowdown in resogun outside of when you complete a level and that does appear to be a slow down effect. As for mercenary kings I haven't played more then 5 min of it but if it does lag I put 100% of the blame on the devs as It looks like 16 bit garbage. Learn the difference between slow down and unplayable you don't have a fps counter and you already proved you were full of shit on infamous.

#74 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: lol? The game looks stunning as every review states. Thanks for proving you don't own it.

#75 Posted by tyloss (829 posts) -

@Maddie_Larkin: a What do you get out if lying?

#76 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: No your the fool that said it was comparable to a gtx 265 wich wouldn't even be capable of running infamous SS without a drastic reduction in detail. Also when you take a game that is without debate in the top 5 best looking games period there is no shame not running it at 60fps.

Please tell that to all the multiplatform games that run and look better on the Pc.... best looking games lol you have to be kidding Sony fanboy. 265 runs BF4 at 1080 with ultra settings 40 fps average without mantle.... I like to see the PS4 run BF4 on ultra at 1080.... O wait it cant

#77 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: Also when you take a game that is without debate in the top 5 best looking games period there is no shame not running it at 60fps.

LOL.

it is the joke lol , the hardware cant handle the resolutions nor the graphical settings when framerate fluctuates and drops during intensive scenes. Just like on BF4, ISS, KillzoneMP , tomb raider the list continues. They need to do one of two things cap the fps or lower settings or resolutions to reach ether 60 fps or 1080 it seems it cant do both without running into framerate issues.

#78 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/radeon-r7-265-vs-geforce-gtx-750-ti-which-is-best-for-1080p-gaming

Lol um yea that's not true. I guess you are talking about a R7 265 which averages 30fps vs the PS4 which averages 60 fps. A GTX 265 is even worse either way your wrong.

#80 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/radeon-r7-265-vs-geforce-gtx-750-ti-which-is-best-for-1080p-gaming

Lol um yea that's not true. I guess you are talking about a R7 265 which averages 30fps vs the PS4 which averages 60 fps. A GTX 265 is even worse either way your wrong.

lol , ps4 does not average 60 fps try again runs 900p and uses a slww of medium high and ultra settings

take away 4x AA you get 40+ fps

or

bf4-fps

or

disproved.... try harder

#81 Edited by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: It has it at a consistently playable frame rate all while pushing amazingly high quality assets , it's not hard to understand.

#82 Posted by jake44 (2037 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I've had the game since last Friday and notice that while the game looks amazing, it often dips into the mid thirties during battles. Why is this? Is the PS4 not powerful enough to run the game at a constant 40 FPS? How can we expect titles to look better and run better in the future if it can't handle a game released in its first year? Keep in mind that there isn't much room for optimization since the PS4 is structured like a PC and is subsequently quite easy to code for. What gives?

I don't have a problem with the frame rate. The repetitive side quests is what gets me.

#83 Posted by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: It has it at a consistently playable frame rate all while pushing amazingly high quality assets , it's not hard to understand.

its not hard to understand that the PS4 cant keep stable framerates because of one two things not enough cpu processing power or settings and or resolutions are too high. Not saying that game looks bad just stating the fact that PS4 is not perfect.

#84 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraheri never said it was perfect but it's assets and visuals look amazing. A pc with similar specs would choke

#85 Posted by AM-Gamer (4459 posts) -

@04dcarraher: So you take away AA to hit 40 + that doesn't change the fact the PS4 version is a mix of high and ulta and averages 50 plus. Not bad for a quick port

#86 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

A pc with similar specs would choke

False. I can guarantee a FX 6300 with a 265, or overclocked 7850 could easily match PS4. You also have to realize to that PS4 cpu sucks and that $120 FX6300 is magnitudes faster.

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: So you take away AA to hit 40 + that doesn't change the fact the PS4 version is a mix of high and ulta and averages 50 plus. Not bad for a quick port

Do you realize that with those BF4 tests were with DX11 not mantle? Mantle brings the 265 into the 50's average BF4 was not a really a port, PS4 and X1 use the same hardware standards with very similar API's. Fact is that with BF4 the cpu is the main culprit in bad performance with 64MP maps on both consoles then the PS4's gpu can not handle full Ultra settings they had to lower multiple assets, lod's certain textures, limit resolution to 900p. ISS suffers from fps issues where ether its the cpu or gpu cant handle intensive situations.

From DF

"We've produced a stress test designed to push the engine to its limits. While the frame-rate typically stays north of 30 fps there are certainly plenty of circumstances which can knock performance into the 20s."

"As we noted in the performance analysis, the choice to ship with an unlocked frame-rate has a rather negative impact on the game. While performance generally manages to stay north of 30fps, the resultant judder compromises the fluidity of the visuals and produces inconsistent controller response. With Second Son averaging around 35fps, the player receives little additional benefit as a result of this choice. By limiting the frame-rate to 30fps they could have delivered an open world game with a very consistent frame-rate and controller response. Instead we're left to endure a near-constant judder and unstable performance throughout."

#87 Posted by DocSanchez (1788 posts) -

Did not encounter any performance issues. It was a good advertisement for the PS4. But my prediction of 8/10 was accurate. It was fairly short, and fairly vanilla. The mechanics were sound enough and I liked the variation in powers but its clearly not a big hitter. It will be long forgotten by the time this generation is over. It shows the next gen in a good light without exposing us to it's full potential. A good draw distance and tremendous effects. I just think it was as flawed as the others.

#88 Posted by mems_1224 (47854 posts) -

Damn, thats pathetic. Even Dead Rising can handle hundreds of enemies at once.

#89 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6689 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@Maddie_Larkin: My gamertag is "thesterls" feel free to check out my Platnum trophy in infamous SS as well as the rest of my games in my PS4. And no DF performance analysis shows the game barely ever drops below 30fps. Is there slowdown? Yes but it NEVER goes below the high 20s and averages around 36fps. I never see any slowdown in resogun outside of when you complete a level and that does appear to be a slow down effect. As for mercenary kings I haven't played more then 5 min of it but if it does lag I put 100% of the blame on the devs as It looks like 16 bit garbage. Learn the difference between slow down and unplayable you don't have a fps counter and you already proved you were full of shit on infamous.

well you can check my gamertag KarmaHaven, and see how far I playied before I began waiting for the crap to get patched.

What is there to learn about slowdown and unplayable? if it happens often it is unplayable. the 60 fps salestalk is a bad move for them as is, as a game that goes from 60 then crashes to the 20 is a really horrible experience. Nor is it a matter of disliking a console, the first patch they made for it, made it somewhat more stabile, but after a series of serious slowdowns at a securitypoint made me put the system on standby till they either fixed a solid framerate, any at that.

Basicly My PS4 is more or less on standby untill they make games playable on it with stabile framerates, prefer them having a solid 30 over fluctating fps which chokes any gameplay in its tracks.

#90 Posted by topgunmv (10310 posts) -

Oh look, another infamous thread full of hermits and cows making stupid claims.

#91 Posted by TheTruthIsREAL (765 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

Damn, thats pathetic. Even Dead Rising can handle hundreds of enemies at once.

This post made no sense.

@Maddie_Larkin said:

well you can check my gamertag KarmaHaven, and see how far I playied before I began waiting for the crap to get patched.

What is there to learn about slowdown and unplayable? if it happens often it is unplayable. the 60 fps salestalk is a bad move for them as is, as a game that goes from 60 then crashes to the 20 is a really horrible experience. Nor is it a matter of disliking a console, the first patch they made for it, made it somewhat more stabile, but after a series of serious slowdowns at a securitypoint made me put the system on standby till they either fixed a solid framerate, any at that.

Basicly My PS4 is more or less on standby untill they make games playable on it with stabile framerates, prefer them having a solid 30 over fluctating fps which chokes any gameplay in its tracks.

You're so wrong. If you're not, prove me wrong.

#92 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6689 posts) -

@TheTruthIsREAL said:

@mems_1224 said:

Damn, thats pathetic. Even Dead Rising can handle hundreds of enemies at once.

This post made no sense.

@Maddie_Larkin said:

well you can check my gamertag KarmaHaven, and see how far I playied before I began waiting for the crap to get patched.

What is there to learn about slowdown and unplayable? if it happens often it is unplayable. the 60 fps salestalk is a bad move for them as is, as a game that goes from 60 then crashes to the 20 is a really horrible experience. Nor is it a matter of disliking a console, the first patch they made for it, made it somewhat more stabile, but after a series of serious slowdowns at a securitypoint made me put the system on standby till they either fixed a solid framerate, any at that.

Basicly My PS4 is more or less on standby untill they make games playable on it with stabile framerates, prefer them having a solid 30 over fluctating fps which chokes any gameplay in its tracks.

You're so wrong. If you're not, prove me wrong.

look it up, the net is at your fingertips and google is your friend. infamous second son is pleagued by slowdowns, and its not the only game. you even have multiple quotes in this thread from DF in this thread alone.

#93 Posted by btk2k2 (437 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

False. I can guarantee a FX 6300 with a 265, or overclocked 7850 could easily match PS4. You also have to realize to that PS4 cpu sucks and that $120 FX6300 is magnitudes faster.

I doubt it. It would consume more power for a start so the fps/watt would no match the PS4. Semantics aside I doubt that such a system would keep up with the PS4 long term. I think for the multiplats that have been released so far it might just about hang on but as the devs stop with the cross gen titles that will change.

Tomb Raider is an example of that. The PC version gets 19FPS min, 40FPS avg and 68FPS max when using a 7870Ghz Edition and a 4.8Ghz i7 3770k. Granted that is at maximum settings but the PS4 version gets 33FPS min, 51FPS avg and 60FPS max, try hitting those numbers on that 265 + FX6300 PC with the same or better IQ and running with a 60FPS cap, I bet it cannot be done.

The other example is ACIV:BF which is just a bad port on the PC, however bad PC ports are quite common so you really need to brute force your way past it to be on par IQ and frame rate wise.

Ultimately I doubt a PC like the one you have mentioned would be capable of keeping pace with the PS4 and I think it would already be behind in a few games.

@04dcarraher said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@04dcarraher: So you take away AA to hit 40 + that doesn't change the fact the PS4 version is a mix of high and ulta and averages 50 plus. Not bad for a quick port

Do you realize that with those BF4 tests were with DX11 not mantle? Mantle brings the 265 into the 50's average BF4 was not a really a port, PS4 and X1 use the same hardware standards with very similar API's. Fact is that with BF4 the cpu is the main culprit in bad performance with 64MP maps on both consoles then the PS4's gpu can not handle full Ultra settings they had to lower multiple assets, lod's certain textures, limit resolution to 900p. ISS suffers from fps issues where ether its the cpu or gpu cant handle intensive situations.

From DF

"We've produced a stress test designed to push the engine to its limits. While the frame-rate typically stays north of 30 fps there are certainly plenty of circumstances which can knock performance into the 20s."

"As we noted in the performance analysis, the choice to ship with an unlocked frame-rate has a rather negative impact on the game. While performance generally manages to stay north of 30fps, the resultant judder compromises the fluidity of the visuals and produces inconsistent controller response. With Second Son averaging around 35fps, the player receives little additional benefit as a result of this choice. By limiting the frame-rate to 30fps they could have delivered an open world game with a very consistent frame-rate and controller response. Instead we're left to endure a near-constant judder and unstable performance throughout."

Trying to find every edge case scenario and lowering the IQ to make sure those edge cases hit 30/60FPS is stupid as you are leaving IQ on the table for the other 99% of the game. I was playing ISS last night and the only time I notice frame drops is when you use the special attacks and those are scripted anyway so its not like the low FPS has an effect on gameplay, all of the combat sections I have played so far have a perfectly acceptable frame rate. The bottleneck is blatantly the GPU though when rendering a lot of action, it is not like the game is that CPU intensive.

BF4 was a launch game, based on older SDKs with less optimised drivers and the engine had not had the mantle tweaks done to it yet. Now the consoles are not running mantle but the API is very very similar in that it is capable of reducing the CPU load considerably. I bet if they were releasing the console version now both PS4 and Xbox One versions would look and play better than what we have at the moment.

It would not surprise me if the work AMD was doing with Mantle is the reason they went with the 8 core Jaguar CPUs rather than going for a 4 module Steamroller CPU like the very first leaks suggested. That change saved them a lot of power and a lot of die area enabling a much more powerful GPU to be used.

DF seem to change their tune on unlocked frame rates depending on the game they are analysing.

Just as with the Xbox One release, the bigger issue with any surge of alpha effects is the dips in performance they can bring. For this release, gone is even a hope of holding at 60fps, and instead the 360 pushes out between 30 and 50fps when the frame-rate is unlocked. It's an uneven level of response that makes control less dependable than a perfectly locked 60fps, though still much smoother than a cap at 30fps.

I think they find it OK in multiplayer games where it does improve controller response time but in single player games they prefer the consistency of a locked frame rate. I think they massively overstated the issues in ISS though as I would not say that I have to endure the judder or unstable performance as to be honest I have not noticed it at all and from my POV it plays perfectly smoothly in all the scenarios I have been in so far. Perhaps being a PC gamer for over a decade has made me immune to unlocked frame rates though.

Ultimately, prior to launch you were in denial about the performance differences between PS4 and Xbox One, or atleast the impact of those performance differences. Now you can see them plain as day and you are trying to scale back the PS4 advantage by saying it is too weak to handle 1080p, despite the fact that apart from BF4 all games are 1080p and for the most part they seem to handle fine at 30FPS with some hitting close to 60FPS.

The fact is the DR3 on Xbox One runs at 720p and still has frame rate drops into the teens, Ryse runs at 900p, is not open world and also drops into the teens/low 20's. If either of the consoles is having performance issues it is defiantly the Xbox One and not the PS4.

#94 Edited by 04dcarraher (20091 posts) -

@btk2k2:

TR on PS4 is no where running max settings or is it running full blown TressFX 1.0 as the Pc version has too that's the key points PS4 is running tressfx 2.0 that is more efficient version for the PS4 however does not have the same amount of effects so its not a correct comparison. Then AC4 is a UBI game made by the same piss poor team from AC3 not using more then two threads from the cpu.

In ISS it can be both the cpu and gpu limiting the games performance depending on effects and amount of npcs, and other things going on. Then BF4 Its impossible to get the PS4 or X1 to run or look much better then what their doing now it is the lack of processing power behind the jaguar cpu's and then the gpu's themselves cant max the settings and try to keep a 40+ fps average its physically impossible for the hardware. Blaming the game being a launch title lol it proves that the hardware is lacking to produce 1080 60fps standard.

Having a locked frame rate is totally dependent on what kind of dips and averages are you getting.

prior to launch i was not in denial lol, Ive always stated the X1 is slower and is on average 30-40% slower. hell i was suggesting the next xbox would have been weaker because of TDP limits back in 2011/2012. Now the fact that BF4 runs 900p and 720 on X1 suggests they are around 30-40% slower. Also you cant gauge all games equally to prove the PS4 being 50% faster or higher because for example With TR there was two totally different dev teams working on each console version so you cant confirm if one team did their job good or the other one just slacked.

Both consoles are suffering from lack of processing power on the cpu side and both consoles are suffering from the large allocation of memory and cpu for the OS and features. Then their gpu's aren't up to the tasks at hand to produce the highest framerates and graphics possible. Fact is that on both consoles they are pushing the consoles too much to please the crowd. Sony is basically promoting PS4 as a 1080p console with 60 fps aim when most of the games barely make it to 60 let alone only average in the 40's. then MS is in defense mode because they underestimated what Sony would do with the PS4 saying things like resolution does not matter and dx12 is going change the playing field along with the cloud. No matter how much BS Sony or MS spew their consoles are nowhere near the level they should be to last more then few years. The hardware gap from the get go was two years apart from pc.

#95 Posted by dinb (1133 posts) -

I didn't notice slowdowns but it makes my ps4 fan loud.

#96 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4792 posts) -

@GrenadeLauncher said:

@Mkavanaugh77 said:

@GrenadeLauncherSo it runs at 40 fps but a patch will make it run at 30fps?

isnt that a downgrade?

Wind your neck in, lemming. Unlike with the Xbone's SD resolution and slideshow framerates, it's optional.

Teh almighty supa computa PS4 can only do good looking games at 30FPS. Keep clinging to resolutions, like it's the only thing that's important. Bu bu bu bu on par wid teh PC lol.

Link:

"The choice to ship with an unlocked frame-rate has a rather negative impact on the game," wrote Linneman. "While performance generally manages to stay north of 30fps, the resultant judder compromises the fluidity of the visuals and produces inconsistent controller response. With Second Son averaging around 35fps, the player receives little additional benefit as a result of this choice. By limiting the frame-rate to 30fps they could have delivered an open world game with a very consistent frame-rate and controller response. Instead we're left to endure a near-constant judder and unstable performance throughout."

#97 Posted by tormentos (19304 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I've had the game since last Friday and notice that while the game looks amazing, it often dips into the mid thirties during battles. Why is this? Is the PS4 not powerful enough to run the game at a constant 40 FPS? How can we expect titles to look better and run better in the future if it can't handle a game released in its first year? Keep in mind that there isn't much room for optimization since the PS4 is structured like a PC and is subsequently quite easy to code for. What gives?

Come on man run this game on PC on a 7870 and you will not run it constant either.

Also optimization has nothing to do with the hardware been PC like or not,but targeting 1 single platforms instead of many,this is a launch game and already beats any console game out there,hand had some visual that have even Hermits on damage control.

#98 Posted by btk2k2 (437 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@btk2k2:

TR on PS4 is no where running max settings or is it running full blown TressFX 1.0 as the Pc version has too that's the key points PS4 is running tressfx 2.0 that is more efficient version for the PS4 however does not have the same amount of effects so its not a correct comparison. Then AC4 is a UBI game made by the same piss poor team from AC3 not using more then two threads from the cpu.

In ISS it can be both the cpu and gpu limiting the games performance depending on effects and amount of npcs, and other things going on. Then BF4 Its impossible to get the PS4 or X1 to run or look much better then what their doing now it is the lack of processing power behind the jaguar cpu's and then the gpu's themselves cant max the settings and try to keep a 40+ fps average its physically impossible for the hardware. Blaming the game being a launch title lol it proves that the hardware is lacking to produce 1080 60fps standard.

Having a locked frame rate is totally dependent on what kind of dips and averages are you getting.

prior to launch i was not in denial lol, Ive always stated the X1 is slower and is on average 30-40% slower. hell i was suggesting the next xbox would have been weaker because of TDP limits back in 2011/2012. Now the fact that BF4 runs 900p and 720 on X1 suggests they are around 30-40% slower. Also you cant gauge all games equally to prove the PS4 being 50% faster or higher because for example With TR there was two totally different dev teams working on each console version so you cant confirm if one team did their job good or the other one just slacked.

Both consoles are suffering from lack of processing power on the cpu side and both consoles are suffering from the large allocation of memory and cpu for the OS and features. Then their gpu's aren't up to the tasks at hand to produce the highest framerates and graphics possible. Fact is that on both consoles they are pushing the consoles too much to please the crowd. Sony is basically promoting PS4 as a 1080p console with 60 fps aim when most of the games barely make it to 60 let alone only average in the 40's. then MS is in defense mode because they underestimated what Sony would do with the PS4 saying things like resolution does not matter and dx12 is going change the playing field along with the cloud. No matter how much BS Sony or MS spew their consoles are nowhere near the level they should be to last more then few years. The hardware gap from the get go was two years apart from pc.

The PC version of TR does not have sub surface scattering or the enhanced particle and lighting models used on the DE version, and the sub surface scattering is one of the biggest upgrades in terms of IQ between the versions even if it is not the most resource intensive. Even if the PC was running at the same exact settings as the DE version I doubt it could run at the same frame rate on your FX6xxx + 265 setup as it does on the PS4.

As I said bad ports for PC are relatively common so to make sure you can achieve what they do on consoles you need enough brute force performance to overcome those bad ports and the FX6xxx + 265 does not have enough.

The game has never thrown enough NPCs at me for the CPU to be the limiting factor, not in my experience anyway. Slowdowns occur when there are a lot of graphical effects going on and the scripted special moves are the worst culprit for this but as they do not require any input the slowdown does not damage the gameplay. The worst one I had was when I was fighting about 12 NPCs and I used the Neon power, that dropped into the 20's by my estimation but by the time the animation was over the FPS was back into the 30's.

First of all here you are talking about a 29% difference and you also talk about an 8-15 FPS advantage at best. Now TR:DE has a much larger difference than this, BF4 runs with a 10 FPS advantage on PS4 while also pushing 900p vs 720p on the Xbox One which gives it a much bigger advantage than 40%. MGSV:GZ is 1080p vs 720p and the PS4 version has enhanced atmospheric modelling giving the PS4 a much greater than 40% advantage COD:G is 720p vs 1080p. The only games that fit into your 30-40% bracket (or lower brackets) are sports games and NFS Rivals. ACIV:BF comes close but 900p vs 1080p with enhanced AA is a > 50% advantage so even now you are downplaying the actual PS4 advantage over the Xbox One despite the evidence sitting in front of you.

The CPU will not be the bottleneck for the most part, it might be in 64 player BF maps but with more optimisation like what mantle does that will be reduced, the largest bottleneck by far will be the GPU and the Xbox GPU is a lot weaker than the PS4 GPU and it also has a much weaker memory subsystem.

Now I do not see Sony promoting the PS4 as a 1080p box, I do not see them making statements about how many 1080p games they have nor do I read reports from devs stating Sony are mandating 1080p for all games so can you backup that statement with evidence please. The PS4 is capable of delivering quality 1080p experiences in 30 or 60 fps depending on what the dev wants to achieve. It would have been nice if they gave it a little more oomph but what they have is enough.

The hardware gap to the PC was always going to grow relative to the Xbox 360 generation because the wattage of new GFX cards has gone through the roof. Around the 360 launch period the 1900XTX was top dog, and for purely gfx it was faster than Xenos, it also consumed around 130 Watts of power. Compare that to the launch of the PS4 and the Xbox One where the top dog was the R9 290X with around 250 Watts of power consumption. There is no way, especially after the RROD fiasco, that the console makers would put anything near that in the consoles. 130 Watts gets you into the 7870 Ghz ball park which is just above where the PS4 sits so in reality the main reason the gap to the PC has increased vs older generations is because the power consumption of PC cards has also increased.

#99 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1763 posts) -

Framerate is the same as KZSF in campaign, always 30+. There is also option to lock both games at a steady 30. I really dont see what the problem is... both are 1080p and look good. On PS3 infamous and killzone ran in the 20's...

#100 Edited by sven4057 (9 posts) -

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2014/04/15/sucker-punch-explains-how-it-used-ps4s-8gb-ram-in-infamous-second-son/

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04/14/sucker-punch-seeking-more-ways-to-use-ps4s-ram-cpu-a-bottleneck-but-theres-room-for-improvement/

Considering the amazing results achieved with inFAMOUS: Second Son, we’re left wondering on what the studio will be able to do once they improve CPU and memory usage further. We’re near the beginning of the generation, and things are definitely looking good.