-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How much different will X1 and PS4 multiplats be visually?
- Thread starter RayMaker
- Start date
- Status
Chobel
Member
CadetMahoney
Member
With a 40% GPU advantage we will see significant performance differences at launch with xbone dropping frames, screen tearing and so on. Better lighting on PS4 too.
Ps4 is also easier to program for. So the gap will widen quicker as devs get to grips with HUMA and all the other secret sauces.
When everyone sees better performance on a competitors console yet paying the same price for an inferior version I think it does matter. It's why I hardly bought PS3 version of games this gen. "not wanting to play them" is an extreme metric that has no basis if you can't afford two expensive consoles anyway, there are still plenty negatives having an inferior version of the game.
1 Consumer satisfaction
2 Constantly being reminded on threads how your version is inferior and "getting superior PS4 version", "bone this, bone that" in every single thread in every single multi.
3 Profit
Prince Vultan
Banned
I can see emotionally troubling times ahead for some of my fellow gaffers in Digital Foundry articles next year... unless Rich Leadbetter puts in some olympic level mental gymnastics of course!
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
What am I reading?
Call of Duty Ghosts? Really?
Also, there is more to graphics than 1080p 60fps.
Lighting, Textures, Particle Effects, Physics, DoF, Motion Blur, AA, AF, HBAO, Reflections, Animations, Shadows, Scale, Draw Distance, Loading Times, Uber-sampling, 3D, VR, Polygons, decals, hair rendering, subsurface scattering, etc etc etc etc etc.
Will we see many differences at launch?
No.
ESPECIALLY in CoD Ghosts which barley qualifies as a next gen title.
We should however see improvements in later games, if we don't it will be due to lazy development(that gets thrown around to much but it applies)
The hardware architecture is near identical, but one platform is just more powerful, by a significant amount. No reason not to take advantage of that.
SwiftDeath
Member
Yeah pretty much
Regardless of how DF comparisons go
PS4 multiplats looking better or look the same or even somehow magically X1 looks better
Gaf will be a fun place to watch
I fully expect some PS4 multiplats to look better and almost none look worse
Honestly none should look worse but you never know
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I'm skeptical that there will be much difference.
Third parties just care how many copies they sell total, not how many sell on one platform vs. the other, so I can't see them spending a lot of effort really optimizing games for the PS4 to produce any huge difference in graphics. Cheaper to just develop for lowest common denominator and port over to the more powerful machine.
I'm sure they can just easily scale things up and make things look better, but it will probably only be things the videophiles/graphic's whores really notice.
But maybe I'm wrong. I couldn't care less, not being a videophile type at all and only planning on getting a PS4 (so I won't be doing any comparisons, or looking up reviews that compare versions etc.).
Third parties just care how many copies they sell total, not how many sell on one platform vs. the other, so I can't see them spending a lot of effort really optimizing games for the PS4 to produce any huge difference in graphics. Cheaper to just develop for lowest common denominator and port over to the more powerful machine.
I'm sure they can just easily scale things up and make things look better, but it will probably only be things the videophiles/graphic's whores really notice.
But maybe I'm wrong. I couldn't care less, not being a videophile type at all and only planning on getting a PS4 (so I won't be doing any comparisons, or looking up reviews that compare versions etc.).
Sorry if someone already posted but this article from Digital Foundry covers the comparison theoretically.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-can-xbox-one-multi-platform-games-compete-with-ps4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-can-xbox-one-multi-platform-games-compete-with-ps4
and some people speculate that X1 have just 8 not 16, I was generous enough to put the maximum.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Personally, I expect the difference in raw visuals to be largest at launch, because most games were being developed on PC, which should favor the PS4's simplicity and raw power advantage that the PS4 holds, and disadvantage the more exotic and architecture of the Xbox One.
And then I expect the differences to become more minimal when devs move on to their next projects where they're properly beginning and ending on dev kits, but with the PS4 still having the edge.
And then I expect the differences to become more minimal when devs move on to their next projects where they're properly beginning and ending on dev kits, but with the PS4 still having the edge.
PolarGamer
Member
Was gonna post this. Thread is basically (mostly) uninformed guesswork at this stage.
PS. I'm gonna go ahead and say Xbox Two will beat both.
My guess is that the difference is quite noticeable already, MS wouldn't be upclocking the console if they didn't see the need for it, didn't we have some graphs comparing the GPUs with different benchmarks? A theoretical 40% better framerate is not a small advantage, that is enough for me not to get multiplatforms on the x1, and that's without consideing the architectural advantages of the ps4.
Another thing is that I haven't seen 3rd party devs showing the X1 version of their games.
Another thing is that I haven't seen 3rd party devs showing the X1 version of their games.
AstroNut325
Member
You're a developer correct? I remember you were the first to break the bad news regarding the Wii U specs that triggered mass meltdowns at GAF.
Have you personally worked with either system yet?
the move engine help the gpu...and grant do dont have stalls....
the machine is created to work all together
Chobel
Member
It's bullshit article
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Lol run for your life.
I will, got any specifications for those? no? just vague promises? guess that won't fit on a chart.
but if you do don't forget about the PS4's cpu speed, which isn't known yet or the PS4's audo proccessor (if you want a catchy name to make it sound better like SHAPE call it the ACP) don't forget the VCE/UVD units or the DCE or even the Zlib decompression hardware.
See we can both list things that will be in both consoles that actually have no solid numbers behind them.
Chobel
Member
Even if move engine helps GPU, GPU has max 1.31 Tflops... actually will have max 1.18 Tflops because 10% from GPU goes to OS.
PS4 GPU will have 1.84 > 1.18.
Arkam
Member
Sadly no I am not working first hand with either. I am on a PC only project currently.
That said I talk to my friends and colleagues about the upcoming hardware and their software for them. Most all consider the two consoles to be 'the same' as far as their games are concerned. Only real difference is some Kinect integration on the X1 side.
I wish I knew more details (like frame rate differences, texture res, etc) but they are either being tight lipped or simply dont care
That says alot...
With a 40% GPU advantage we will see significant performance differences at launch with xbone dropping frames, screen tearing and so on. Better lighting on PS4 too.
Ps4 is also easier to program for. So the gap will widen quicker as devs get to grips with HUMA and all the other secret sauces.
When everyone sees better performance on a competitors console yet paying the same price for an inferior version I think it does matter. It's why I hardly bought PS3 version of games this gen. "not wanting to play them" is an extreme metric that has no basis if you can't afford two expensive consoles anyway, there are still plenty negatives having an inferior version of the game.
1 Consumer satisfaction
2 Constantly being reminded on threads how your version is inferior and "getting superior PS4 version", "bone this, bone that" in every single thread in every single multi.
3 Profit
when this will happen we will see
right now ..forza is 1080 60 fps driveclub no...but should be easy to pull that on the ps4..damn
I don't think it's fair to say 10% go to the GPU. I think it was more likely that it was 10% at the time before the 53 MHz GPU upclock, so it was used as a short hand.
I doubt the snap-in feature gets more expensive because the GPU gets better. It should be 10% of the old value subtracted from the current TFlop max.
Read here why it isn't a very good comparison and we expect more from DF.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=74541511&postcount=621
CadetMahoney
Member
Hardware wise there's zero reason to think this.
umm no. 40% GPU will mean better performance whilst xbone will suffer from inferior lighting and framerates minimum, Sony will mandate that 40% be utilized over the competition to guarantee easy wins in every face-off even if the dev is lazy and the buffs are marginal.
multiplats face-offs, not budget > budget, weak dev > strong dev.
Chobel
Member
interesting comment from Albert Penello in the other thread
Impeccable
Member
You know it's something I literally haven't thought about until this very second just because I personally am completely blind when it comes to things like tearing/frame rate.
Now that I think about it ... where ARE the Xbox One versions of these games like ACIV?
AdlaiSeven
Member
Using history as a guide, I'd say no.
The fanboy in me says there will be major differences.
The fanboy in me says there will be major differences.
with 40% (or more) of power in your hand trust in me ....a weak dev become a god dev.....the story will be like always....naughty dog will have the edge .........end of the story...
and im sure ps3 users didnt die coz they had 5 fps less in their old console
Dear SenjutsuSage
To me you seem like a reasonable and logical guy. please look at this comparison and tell me that difference is minimal between the two.
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs)
PS4: 1152 Shaders
PS4: 72 Texture units
PS4: 32 ROPS
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues
8gb GDDR5 @ 176gb/s
Verses
Xbone: 1.31 TF GPU (12 CUs)
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues
8gb DDR3 @ 69gb/s+ 32MB ESRAM @109gb/s
if this numbers don't translate into something in real world performance, then what the point of upgrading from GTX 660 to GTX770 ?
what is the point of investing in a better hw if 40% doesn't matter, double the ROPS doesn't matter, 400% the queues doesn't matter?
I don't know, maybe you should go ask them. Because that's exactly what they're doing.
This opinion is clearly backed up by some expert analysis and uses a deep technical understand to thoroughly assess bot consoles and come up with a conclusion based on all of the facts we have at hand, you can tell by all of the reasons given and sources referenced to back up these reasons that this poster is clearly correct and we should pack up this thread and leave now.
I think multi plat games will be close. I think you'll see small advantages in PS4 versions of some games, more stable /consistent framerates perhaps in the most demanding "stuff blowing up all over the screen sections" .. possible you'll see better AA in PS4 games, and maybe more FXAA in XB1 games. Totally just guessing tho.
I still think MS's big advantage is XBL, and dedicated servers. If Sony can't match that, then I'm not sure crisper AA, or a few dropped frames here and there is gonna be enough to win over many of MS's hardliners. But I'm getting off topic. I think for the most part games will look close, with a slight advantage possibly going to the PS4 versions.
I still think MS's big advantage is XBL, and dedicated servers. If Sony can't match that, then I'm not sure crisper AA, or a few dropped frames here and there is gonna be enough to win over many of MS's hardliners. But I'm getting off topic. I think for the most part games will look close, with a slight advantage possibly going to the PS4 versions.
People keep mentioning "special purpose processors" but nobody says what they do. Here is the slide in question:
And here is the architecture of the audio hardware from the leaked documents:
It's not clear what those 15 processors are, but by conjecture the following list seems plausible to me:
The data move engines are only necessary to manage the dual memory pools (eSRAM and DRAM). They free the GPU from copying data between main memory and eSRAM. Hard to judge those as a benefit if you compare the entire memory setup against a single pool of GDDR5.
Video decoder is nothing special, both systems have one.
The rasterizer and composer is something that you need to compose separately rendered display outputs like the game output and snap output. Again not something that you need, if you don't have that (snap) feature.
The rest are audio functions. And here we don't know what the PS4 can do expect Cerny's two inconclusive sentences, Matt's recent "Ehh…", and the statement that Guerrilla has offloaded audio to special hardware since the initial Killzone demo.
To me, that is not enough evidence to establish any performance benefit of any console due to "co-processors".
And here is the architecture of the audio hardware from the leaked documents:
It's not clear what those 15 processors are, but by conjecture the following list seems plausible to me:
- 4x Data Move Engines
- 1x Video decoder
- 1x AV Out rasterizer/composer
- 1x Audio Control Processor as audio task scheduler
- 1x Audio Scalar Processor for chart/audio
- 1x Audio Vector Processor for Kinect echo cancelation
- 5x SHAPE functions
- 1x Audio DMA
The data move engines are only necessary to manage the dual memory pools (eSRAM and DRAM). They free the GPU from copying data between main memory and eSRAM. Hard to judge those as a benefit if you compare the entire memory setup against a single pool of GDDR5.
Video decoder is nothing special, both systems have one.
The rasterizer and composer is something that you need to compose separately rendered display outputs like the game output and snap output. Again not something that you need, if you don't have that (snap) feature.
The rest are audio functions. And here we don't know what the PS4 can do expect Cerny's two inconclusive sentences, Matt's recent "Ehh…", and the statement that Guerrilla has offloaded audio to special hardware since the initial Killzone demo.
To me, that is not enough evidence to establish any performance benefit of any console due to "co-processors".
U mad cos truth hurts
Impeccable
Member
What are your credentials? (I'm actually serious.)
badcrumble
Member
Gemüsepizza
Member
It's painfully obvious that you have no clue about what you are talking here. Seriously, I cringe almost everytime I read your posts. Guess what, resolution and framerates are not the only thing which matter regarding graphics. Those two games are not comparable, because they are doing different things graphically (one has pre-baked lighting, one has dynamic lighting etc., polycount, different shaders, car / track details etc.). If you want a real comparison, you have to compare actually the same game (a multi-platform game).
:'(
Are you sure about that? A lot of people here, especially going from this thread, seem to think that the difference is going to be minimal.
This post can't be for real, right? Or are my sarcasm detectors seriously malfunctioning?
TetraGenesis
Member
You really need to get your tag changed.
Seems certain to me. You can summon a snapped Metro application at any time. Metro is hardware-accelerated, and Metro apps can perform GPU-related tasks. Hence there must be GPU resources reserved for that snapped application at any time. Resources on XB1 seem to be statically allocated by the virtualization layer, hence the available GPU power to the game partition is 1,18TF.
SwiftDeath
Member
Sadly no I am not working first hand with either. I am on a PC only project currently.
That said I talk to my friends and colleagues about the upcoming hardware and their software for them. Most all consider the two consoles to be 'the same' as far as their games are concerned. Only real difference is some Kinect integration on the X1 side.
I wish I knew more details (like frame rate differences, texture res, etc) but they are either being tight lipped or simply dont care
Interesting to hear to say the least
I imagine Dev mentality determines how games are developed more than anything
I'm looking at these advantages and came to the conclusion that multi-plats will be the exact same on the PS4/Xbone.
LordBaztion
Member
I don't expect to be visually better, I think most developers will just use the same assets on both games. I expect PS4 to outperform XB1 in 2 or 3 years in framerate, screentearin, popup and that kind of sutff barely noticeable that digital foundry talks about.
CadetMahoney
Member
I died inside when I played ps3 bayonetta and skyrim. PS4 is easier to program and more pwerful so I expect the roles to be reversed.
Not enough to make drive club > forza, but enough to make the same game perform better than an xbone version.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked