Battlefield 4 on PlayStation 4 looks stunning, with DICE clearly utilising the console’s additional firepower to yield a superior image quality on Sony’s machine. Images are pin-sharp, appearing to run at a native 1080p and fluid 60 frames per second. But while the Xbox One version effortlessly maintains the same frame-rate, the image quality is perceptibly worse, sporting a softer, jaggier look that carries all the hallmarks of a game upscaling from a sub full-HD resolution. My suspicion is that the Xbox One version is rendering natively at 720p before upscaling to 1920x1080, although DICE opted not to confirm numbers when confronted about the resolutions of the two next-gen versions directly.
The differences between the two versions will come as great concern to Microsoft. Just as it appears to be regaining traction from its fumbling Xbox One campaign, the revelation that at least one of next-gen’s major launch titles is noticeably weaker on its console will be enough to threaten to send the platform holder back to square one. It’s difficult to tell how big a problem it may end up being until we’ve compared the complete multiplatform launch line-up it, but if the trend continues with further releases (as last week’s Call of Duty: Ghosts rumour suggests it may well do) even players heavily invested in the Xbox platform could be prompted to starting look elsewhere.
Way more detail here for those interested. I'll try to highlight some stuff but it looks like the Xbox is clearly worse both in resolution and frame rate. PC master race continues to rule them all.
Needless to say, there are some basic differences in image quality that need knocking on the head right away. Chief among them is the hot topic of internal resolution, where we determine that the Xbox One code is indeed running at 1280x720. If this is set in stone for release - as is likely - the Microsoft version is poised to give us the most aliasing of the two next-gen platforms by a noticeable degree, and is only a stone's throw from the sub-720p resolutions of current-gen releases. On the other hand, the PS4 version delivers a whopping 1600x900 resolution in all modes, giving it a 50 per cent lead in output pixels overall. As well as cutting down on jagged edges, this reduces the amount of pixel shimmer we see in motion on complex shaders or thin geometry, with distant power lines, scaffolding and other elements with sub-pixel elements creating unwanted flickering on Xbox One.
But the differences we saw don't just stop at resolution. Both versions are treated to post-processing anti-aliasing too, seemingly equivalent to the refined, high setting on PC. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. As you may notice in our screengrabs, the actual results on PS4 lack the corresponding level of crystal clarity we'd expect of such a significant resolution boost. This should surely be a home run for Sony's console, but what is likely to be a software-based upscale to 1080p delivers less-than-stellar returns, and for better or worse leaves the Xbox One with an often crisper looking, albeit much more aliased image.
Having moved ahead in terms of image quality, there's no doubt that Sony's new platform comes out on top overall in the performance metrics too. This is best demonstrated in matching sequences, such as a cut-scene on a Shanghai river where it commands a constant 2-4fps lead, and likewise during the tearing apart of a battleship. In terms of gameplay, the gap widens further during the cannister explosion on the Fishing in Baku stage, with a disparity at well above these numbers - the PS4 regaining 60fps much faster than the fluctuating Xbox One code. We see occasional XO wins in like-for-like testing too, but in our single-player tests, it is clearly the PS4 code that is in the ascendant.
On the merits of what we've seen so far, Battlefield 4 is already set to be a formidable launch window effort from DICE. Our observations so far reveal a clear gap in fidelity between PC and PS4, and again to Xbox One, but sub-pixel break-up aside, based on what we've seen so far, the Microsoft console manages to hold up despite the undeniable, quantifiably worse metrics in terms of both resolution and frame-rate.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Watch this and tell me if you can really tell the difference...
I was trying really hard to notice a difference and I could barely tell...
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggyformayor
Or this one:
Any differences are very minimal and barely noticible.
I wouldn't ever use youtube or media video feeds to compare things like that. You're tossing in youtube compression (and associated artifacts) which bleed out any kind of difference. Raw 720p/1080p video gets heavily compressed going up on youtube (obviously for reducing size and streaming download issues) - you're better off finding the original raw MP4 files or the actual screenshots that I linked above.
In fact, if you want to use any video you should be going here and running the 1440p feeds so that you try minimize the crazy compression issues in the videos that you had linked. Probably the best easily available feeds right now.
It seems pretty clear to him and to crazy hardcore guys on places like neogaf. Crazy that multiplayer is even remotely close to single player output . . .
But to be fair, some people may still honestly feel better about the Xbone output. I know friends and coworkers that honestly can't tell the difference between HD and SD. They still roll with VCR's and are likely not potential customers for the Xbone or PS4 though.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I will be interesting to see how COD looks in comparison and as we move on from the launch window. If the difference is this big already, I think it will only get bigger over time as teams get more familiar with the systems unless Microsoft tosses moneybags to glass ceiling the PS4 versions.
It can go both ways. They may find creative ways to overcome Xbone lack of ESRAM.
PS3/360 multiplatform titles looked much better on the 360 at launch but the PS3 caught up, and maybe even surpassed the 360 as time passed for multiplatform titles.
It can go both ways. They may find creative ways to overcome Xbone lack of ESRAM.
PS3/360 multiplatform titles looked much better on the 360 at launch but the PS3 caught up, and maybe even surpassed the 360 as time passed for multiplatform titles.
Yeah but the thing was, the PS3 was intrinsically more powerful than the 360, it just had a ####ed up hardware config (both proprietary CPU and GPU, as opposed to 360's more or less PC-like construction) and a bad dev kit at launch. It took a few years for developers to figure out how to harness the more-powerful hardware.
In this case however, both consoles are more or less equally simple to code on, however the XBone seems to have worse hardware, not more complicated hardware.
It can go both ways. They may find creative ways to overcome Xbone lack of ESRAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
In this case however, both consoles are more or less equally simple to code on, however the XBone seems to have worse hardware, not more complicated hardware.
Indeed. I would expect that developers will find ways and Xbone games will improve significantly from launch forward - and just the same for the PS4 games. But comparatively, the Xbone as a gaming system could be behind the PS4 curve for a long time/the whole way if more of these cross platform games show this kind of difference. (And Sony has more first party developers who will probably push their hardware that much more with exclusive games)
In this particular instance, the PS4 is pushing more than 50% of the resolution of the Xbone but the Xbone can't even keep up to the frame rate of the PS4. And the weaker system is $100 more.
Will it matter to consumers? I think it has to have at least some effect. It is even making me think about holding off until a Kinect free version is available (early 2014?)
In a conference call to investors, Electronic Arts' Blake Jorgensen just said that Titanfall is, "for the life of the title," exclusive to Xbox One, Xbox 360 and PC. So the game is not a timed exclusive to Microsoft platforms.
It can go both ways. They may find creative ways to overcome Xbone lack of ESRAM.
PS3/360 multiplatform titles looked much better on the 360 at launch but the PS3 caught up, and maybe even surpassed the 360 as time passed for multiplatform titles.
PS3 was always a more powerful platform than the Xbox 360, it was just a nightmare to develop for. PS4 is also a more powerful platform than the Xbox One, but now some devs are calling it the easiest console they've ever had to develop for
If anything the gap between the two will only get more noticeable (in Sony's favor) in years to come
Meh both still have jaggies and leaves that look fake. XB1 looks a little brighter but the PS3 maybe more accurate colours. Looks like last generation all over again with only very slight differences between console versions and these being rushed launch titles aren't really an indication of either console I hope as I don't see a major improvement over current gen myself. I have both consoles on order and will pick both of them up when they come in but I'm not as excited as I was for the last gen which was the beginning of HD console gaming. Higher resolution and some motion sensing gaming is the only thing these consoles are offering and I'm having so much fun with GTA V which looks fantastic on current gen that I'm just not all that excited. One year from now is when we will probably start getting all the good stuff that show off the power of these new consoled.
