[DF] Monster Hunter World: PS4/PS4 Pro vs Xbox One/Xbox One X Comparison + Performance Test

That he is. On what planet is the 7700K a shit CPU lol? The old-ass 2700K still holds up well to this day and takes a dump on console CPU's yet I don't see him talk shit about the sad excuse consoles have for a CPU.

Because of the security exploits on older Intel CPUs.

X1X Graphics mode (Increased LOD) runs about the same as PS4’s performance mode.

But somehow the fanboys take this as a win for PS4?

I like my PS4 too, but lol

@Xplode_games: No i did watch the video and you sound like a rabbid butthurt fanboy. The pro has better detail and higher resolution vs slightly better IQ. Since it overall looks best on the PRO and will have about 10x the user base the PS4 is clearly the way to go. Resolution mode on PS4 pro is the best way to play it.

So the devs either suck or sabotaged the X1X version.

far from the best dude.

@commander: It looks best in resolution mode on the Pro and runs better in that mode as well. Im sorry but the Pro wins this. I own both the Pro and X1X so for me its not about fanboy bullshit its about picking the better version. Thats why i got Shadow of War on X1X and i will get MH on PS4 pro.

you're making the wrong decision, x1x has better image quality and better performance overall. They clearly say the xbox one x looks better than the checkerboard rendering on the ps4 pro, and it has a more stable framerate.

Of course. He's getting it on a console.

@commander: The IQ difference is minimal and the Pro has more detail. I plan on playing in resolution mode and in that mode it runs better on the pro.

@Juub1990: Enjoy it on PC where the community will be a Ghost land.

@loganx77: Your ability to see the future is duly noted. It still plays like trash on consoles. I assume since you haven’t mentioned it playing better in the future, it will still play like trash.

This is what high-end Monster Hunter graphics look like on PC at 60 frames per second.

Actual gameplay and real-time benchmark.

Not only is all of this on PC, but uses CryEngine 3. It's far superior to Capcom's MT Framework.

The only real downside is, the game is an MMO and officially for the Chinese market, though there are English patches.

@Juub1990: Its over 30 fps. A patch could easily lock it so i dont think thats trash.

- PS4: 1080p, frame rate hangs around 30 but can drop a lot

- XB1: 864p, frame rate averages at 26-ish FPS in the forest area

-Clipping is visible a bunch

- Distant enemies render at lower FPS (so they look jittery at a distance)

- Motion blur used is not very good quality

- Lighting and contrast levels are weird at times

- Temporal reconstruction is used on base consoles too.

- Noticeable loss in image quality when moving camera.

- 1080p on PS4 looks sharp when standing still but becomes blurry when moving. Same for XB1.

- No option to cap FPS to 30

- Frame time spikes all over the place.

- XB1 performance generally below 30 most of the time. Generally the worst performing version.

-Frame rate mode: Pro avg 40 FPS and below during combat. XBX avg is higher than Pro but still feels jerky due to hitches and frame time.

I'm sorry but that's trash.

@Xplode_games: All I’m seeing is a 500 dollar “true 4K machine” that is barely an upgrade above the competition, yet the competition has a bigger community and a richer library to boot.

Enjoy.

@Juub1990: Im runnig it on a pro which will fix some of the issues. But if you think all that will be fixed on PC with a Capcom port you will be in for a rude awakening.

The laster race checking in I see LOL.

that's not the only downside, the artwork is much more simplistic as well. Not to mention I don't like mmo's and I'm quite sure a lot of monster hunter fans don't like their game to be an mmo.

Console gamers couldn't give a flying **** about a pc when you have something like the xboxone x or even the ps4 pro.

The matter of the fact is, I can play monster hunt world right now and you can't but at least you will have something do when red dead redemption 2 releases.

Lems have been rekt. Paid $100 more for 3fps advantage, worse resolution, and less detail, damn ?.

? PotatoBoneX, the worlds most powerful water cooler strikes again!

^ ^ This, pretty much.

"? Bu...bu...but muh highest quality pixels!!1"

I have to agree with everything you're saying, especially about the artwork. MHO is now years old and MHW is new.

Which makes me want to see MHW running on a high spec PC at 60fps, 4K, and maxed out settings.

I also wonder what a future MH game might look like and how it might animate on next gen consoles.

It is a bad port job but did people honestly not expect these?

Developers have 4 systems to work with (Xbone S and X, PS4 and Pro)

Development costs time and money so from a pure financial and time point of view there will be loads of instances in the future where X get's this kind of treatment.

• Make base game for Xbone and increase resolution on PS4 (This has resorted in some PS4 versions being shit)
• Make base game for Pro and increase for X (This has resorted in some X versions being shit)

It's something I've been saying since like, forever..... the only time you'll really see X offer a big jump is on first party games.

@commander: WTF has RDR2 got to do with any of this? I also thought you had sold your PS4.

Based on this one game?

You need to look further my friend. The X stuffs the Pro in many games.

It is not as if Capcom can't or won't release updates during the lifespan of the game to improve visual issues and performance. It will just take time. I'm not really disagreeing with you, though.

Native 1720p is way better than 1800p checkerboard.

FPS is better on the X

The only thing the pro has is extra bits and that's most likely because the X is being held back by the original Xbox One.

X wins

@metalboi: I hear ya.... I just remember the day when plug and play used to be touted as the main advantage over PC. "I just want to hook up my system and play a game"

Now it's like... "what mode are you in, what model do you have, I have a super UHD tv... lol your TV has the fake HDR you need to have the tv with the real HDR... lol at your crappy TV panel when you won't even see the performance boost with that thing"

In 2011 you could buy an Intel i7 4 core 8 thread processor. This genius thought it was a good idea to spend $350 on a 4 core 8 thread i7 in 2017, LMFAO!

You never destroyed me in any thread. Unless you think destroying me is when I stopped posting in a thread because I have a life to live and you kept posting by yourself, LMAFO! I didn't even read what you wrote but ok little juub, tell me what your argument was so I can school you again like I always do.

@Xplode_games: Won’t bother because you’re a troll. You didn’t even provide an argument to support your point in the first place.

And no you ran away like a little dog. Quit making excuses.

I mean you get 4k image plugging the console to a 4K tv, then you enable frame doubling on tv and bam you get 60fps too

This is such an ignorant statement, LMAO! You really believe that? Look, most games are poorly coded(not heavily threaded) so you won't benefit from a highly threaded CPU.

You call that trash CPU a "gaming" CPU? Damn, you really fell for the marketing. Do you even know why you can do that? Only because most games are GPU limited when you turn up the graphical settings and resolution.

If you like playing your games at low settings and low res, then boy the CPU really starts to come into play but only after 100fps, LMFAO!

Here's the funny part, in all highly threaded apps and games, your CPU is trash and gets beat by budget AMD parts. Why, because AMD Ryzen CPUs have more cores and threads, simple. Your $750 GPU will get bottlenecked by your CPU in a well coded, highly optimized games.

Check the DF video when they compare the 8700k CPU and they noticed dramatic differences in performance in highly threaded games. In the future, this will be more important. If you look to the past and fall for the bs marketing, you will end up buying a $350 4 core 8 thread processor. Watch the video below and learn something.

You don't get it. You're so biased against me you're not aware that you are actually agreeing with me here. Yes, a Sandy Bridget i7 from 2011 is a 4 core 8 thread CPU and it holds up well enough against the 7700k that it would be dumb to buy a 7700k for $350 in 2017. Don't you see what a bone headed move that was?

It's not that the 7700k is a bad processor, I don't think it's bad. I just think it is so damn dumb to pay $350 for it in 2017. Only someone who has no damn idea about CPU technology would do that. Everyone else would wait for Ryzen which killed it or intel's response to Ryzen which was great, the 8700k.

In highly threaded apps and highly threaded games especially in the future, the highly threaded processors are a lot better. To beat his 7700k in that environment, you can do it with a budget AMD part. IT's funny but it's actually true.

I agree with you that he has good single threaded performance for those ventures into the past, LMFAO!

Which is an outright lie.

I correctly pointed out that your $750 GPU is being bottlenecked by your garbage CPU

You called it a garbage CPU and said it bottlenecks his GPU which is completely false. First of all for his CPU to be a bottleneck we need to know his target frame rate. Anything south of 100fps won't be a bottleneck with a 7700K. Are you legit calling a CPU garbage because it might start to struggle at 100+fps? The dude plays at 3440x1440/4K max settings. At those resolutions and settings, the GPU will be a bottleneck before the CPU so I don't know what you're on. You're the guy defending a damn console that struggles to maintain 30fps then go on to thrash a CPU because it might start to struggle at 100+fps. WTF is that?

Like the Xbox One X's shit CPU doesn't bottleneck its GPU. I also hope you know to this day the 1800X isn't any faster than the 7700K for gaming. In fact, it's overall slower in games so nothing wrong with buying a 7700K in 2017. Prior to my 7820X I had a 4790K clocked at 4.5GHz and it was never ever a bottleneck for my 1080's. You don't know what you're talking about or you're just trolling. I suspect both.

From Eurogamer:

It's also worth stressing that while gaming performance does lag behind Intel by and large, this does not make Ryzen 7 processors 'bad for gaming'.

No it's not, LOL. Checkerboard resolution looks worse than native resolution. That's just a fact. DF even mentioned it in their video. Did you see all of the artifacts and jaggies in the checkeboard version of the game? You don't think that stands out in a quality 4k display? Do you even know what checkerboard resolution is?

I mean people are paying a crapload of money to eliminate jaggies in their games. That's the whole 4X AA you see in games and the high resolutions. Nirvana some think is 4k with high levels of AA. Meanwhile you think a checkerboard resolution filled with jaggies is the best version?

The X version has a native resolution almost equal to the 1800p checkerboard and with real implementation of AA and it looks a lot better on a quality 4k display. The X version is a lot more demanding to run because it's pushing a lot more pixels.

I will do the math so your fanboy brain can understand, see below.

The PS4 Pro version in resolution mode runs at 3200(interlaced) X 1800 = 2,880,00 pixels.

The X version in resolution mode runs at 3072 X 1728 = 5,308,416 pixels.

1080p is equal to 1920 X 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

You see how the X version pushes almost TWICE as many pixels as the Pro version? This is a fact, not my opinion, A COLD HARD FACT! That's why it looks better, DF says it does if you want evidence.

Also notice how the Pro only pushes a little more pixels than the regular 1080 p version meanwhile the X runs OVER 2.5 times the resolution of full1080p.

@Xplode_games: If you had any idea about programming you could see why apps are able to utilize more threads way more effectively than games do, games aren't poorly programmed, I can write a fucking shoddy app in few mins that utilizes 100% of what ever amount of threads you throw at it.

I stopped reading there. You want to move goal posts then go ahead but just as you ignore my points, I will ignore yours. This guy is one of those PC elitists that claim they game at 144 fps. He laughed at only 60 fps in the past. Of course I think he's full of sh!t but I take him at his word so he is bottlenecked with that garbage CPU.

One final note, I guess you don't have the ability to look forward. You only know the past and that represents the future to you. In reality though, games are one of the slowest programs to be updated to high levels of threads but they are getting there as well. When that happens, his CPU every day becomes worse and worse and will always bottleneck his $750 GPU. If he wants an upgrade he can buy a cheap AMD part.

I know BassMan and he's perfectly comfortable with 60fps. Please quote him laughing at 60fps. Even if he did, he obviously games at 144fps only in older games seeing even a 1080 Ti won't reach 140fps at 3440x1440p in recent games. Likewise, the 7700K won't be a bottleneck for these old games either.

His CPU doesn't bottleneck his GPU. That's completely false. Unless his target frame rate is like 200fps in CS:GO, the 7700K won't be a problem. The 1080 Ti will choke way before it.

And dude, the 7700K outperforms the 1800X to this day and you're calling it garbage. WTF is that? Yeah in 3-4 years from now it might start to outdo the 7700K but as it stands, it's still slower and since your predictions are shit and we're not in 2020, saying purchasing a 7700K in 2017 is a bad choice makes you a fool. You pick based on your needs and the 7700K slaughters currently and for the foreseeable future. Even in the future it won't be a bottleneck for 60fps and by the time it becomes one, it'll be so outdated it won't even matter.

You called the 7700K garbage and that it will bottleneck a 1080 Ti and that is false. Please provide evidence for your claims or GTFO.

You're selective reading is god damn laughable...

From the Digital Foundry article

Xbox One X, however, resolves at 1728p, a clear 4x boost to the base hardware's 864p, with the same reconstruction-style artefacts seen on base hardware

When the X loses it still beats out the Pro. It is disappointing and would be better if they optimized it more. But let's be real, this will happen from time to time especially with Japanese games.

Why am I not bothered even though I may buy the game? Because even with this disappointing port, it's still better on the X than the Pro. That is on launch date, it will only get better with subsequent patches. Disappointing would be playing the game on the regular Xbox. Although the regular PS4 owns the standard Xbox, it still would be a disappointment to play it on that.

The Pro and the X are really the best ways to play this game without being distracted by the graphics. If anyone has a high quality 4k HDR television, then the X is going to outclass the pro because the pro has the artifacts and jaggies associated with checkeboard resolutions.

Not saying the pro is bad, it's a lot better than the base consoles. However, the X even with this bad port is superior and I don't think would be a disappointment in that you won't be fighting with the graphics and framerate to enjoy the game as you would on the base consoles. And you won't be feeling like crap inside when you notice all of the graphical anomalies the checkerboard res on the pro gives you, especially on a good quality large 4k HDR display.

Your entire argument is trash but let's say for one second that you were 100% right. It still would make his CPU absolute garbage even if you only are talking about applications outside of gaming.

Allow me to explain. You are arguing that a 7700k is good enough for gaming and won't bottleneck a 1080 ti except in the most extreme circumstances(and future games). Well, if that's the case then an i7 2600k won't bottleneck the 1080 ti either, but that doesn't mean it's a good all around CPU compared to todays high core and thread count CPUs.

When you look at everything outside of gaming, how dumb is it to buy a 4 core 8 thread GPU for $350 dollars in 2017? A budget AMD GPU performs better in highly threaded apps and for gaming as you yourself argued it doesn't matter anyway because any modern GPU is good enough unless you want to play at over 100fps.

Now with FUTURE GAMES that will be highly threaded, what happens to the only thing you were holding onto?

From the Digital Foundry article....... They also clearly state in the video X has artefacts too.....

Xbox One X, however, resolves at 1728p, a clear 4x boost to the base hardware's 864p,

with the same reconstruction-style artefacts seen on base hardware

>Calls my entire argument is trash

>Proceeds with a huge strawman

Of course a CPU from 7 years ago isn't good compared to modern CPU what kind of dumb shit is that? It still does reasonably well despite being 7 years old and the 7700K is much better so there is no way you can call the 7700K garbage without looking like an idiot. Especially when you've made a career here of defending a console with a garbage CPU that FACTUALLY bottlenecks its GPU.

Can you please show me the budget AMD CPU that outperforms a 7700K in gaming?

As for the future games argument, your predictions are garbage and you're the one who made thread calling for the death of the graphics card lol so nah, ain't taking you seriously here. Do you know how the 7700K will perform in future games? No? Then STFU. If you do, please post links to the future.

The rest of your argument is utter nonsense because we're speaking about gaming and you made it clear in non uncertain terms that his 7700K was garbage and would bottleneck his GPU so why the **** are we talking about apps outside of gaming on a gaming website in a gaming discussion? Not to mention it entirely depends on what he does in other apps and since we don't this point is moot.

Lmao.... I remember when the Q6600 came out and everyone instantly thought mutlti-threading would become massive....... and here we are 10+ years later and it's still not got any real traction in terms of adoption.

I remember the FX 57 I think it was called that was a single core with much better single thread performance and they said that was the gaming CPU. I guess the powerful single and dual core CPUs beat out the Q6600 path. Oh wait. :o

Indeed they did, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme were beaten in game benchmarks by Intels Core 2 Duo's at the time.

What? I don't know what planet you've been living on, but quad cores became quite interesting quite fast. Look at games like gta IV and battlefield series. GTA IV was 2008.

It's not going to be any different now, and the wheels are already in motion. You have to be blind if you can't see that. Cpu's like the I7 7700k are hot potatoes and everyone's looking at the more than 4 cores route. I7 are hexacores now, and there are even I9's. Games like the witcher 3 already use more than 4 cores, and it's only going to get worse.

It's not going to be long before the I7 7700k suffers the same fate as dual cores cpu. That meltdown crap hasn't been solved yet either.

@Xplode_games: I bought the game on the Pro last night. Im playing on a 65 inch 4k screen and the artifacts outside of distant vines is pretty much non existent. You would need to be about 2 feet away from a 65inch screen to notice it. But since were dealing with system wars hyperbole its nice to play in res mode on the pro and still have some foilage.

I highly doubt that since the CPU still runs faster than that in the Pro not to mention the GPU is tons better. This is 100% the devs

I was living on Earth........ There was the odd exception but generally and when working out the ratio of games released VS games that could use more then 2 threads it was obvious that dual core was still the way to go....

Original GTA4 review from 2008..... Dual cores don't seem to be doing such a bad job to me.

Come on quack, you don't have to lie to kick it. The X1X has no problems running any game at 1080p/60. Most games optimized for it run far superior res without problems. Don't you wish you could say the same for the Pro?