Their comment on YT:
The PS4 Pro version uses a dynamic resolution with pixel counts ranging between 2133x1440 and 2560x1440. The most common resolution on PS4 Pro seems to be 2560x1440, but the resolution is often below this figure during demanding scenes. The PS4 Pro does downsample when outputting at 1080p.
The Xbox One X version uses a dynamic resolution with pixel counts ranging between 2688x1512 and 3840x2160. The Xbox One X rarely reaches a resolution of 3840x2160. The resolution on the Xbox One X varies a lot so it is difficult to get an average figure, but a common range during demanding scenes seems to be between 2688x1512 and 3072x2160.
Eh? They state the common range for demanding scenes for XBO-X, but don't state the common range for demanding scenes on the PS4-P?
Well, no, it's just that it's more subtle than 1440p vs 2160p with those dynamic resolutions.That might make some wonder, like if they have a reason for not stating demanding scenes on 4Pro
Then you figure non-demanding on 4Pro is still significantly less than demanding scenes on 1X. It's clear which machine is the better more efficient system. Some people just seem to be unwilling to admit to it.
Well, no, it's just that it's more subtle than 1440p vs 2160p with those dynamic resolutions.
What is a problem on Pro I think is the lack of memory compared to XBX so the max res on Pro is often 'capped' at 1440p. Here again and similar to Titanfall 2 the usual resolution on Pro is 1440p while XBX rarely ever hits 2160p. It's like comparing the efficiency of a GPU by comparing average framerate of a capped game and uncapped game. That's not fair.
But if we compare minimum resolutions on both machines, then we'll see which machine is really more efficient. Here The XBX outputs 32% more pixels using the minimum resolutions and the resolution is much more consistent on Pro and fluctuates a lot on XBX. Really it's like comparing a game with capped and uncapped framerate ...
But actually in this case framerate is higher on XBX in most cases so they should have used a more aggressive dynamic res on Pro.
Eh? They state the common range for demanding scenes for XBO-X, but don't state the common range for demanding scenes on the PS4-P?
Regards,
SB
Eh? They state the common range for demanding scenes for XBO-X, but don't state the common range for demanding scenes on the PS4-P?
Regards,
SB
Well, no, it's just that it's more subtle than 1440p vs 2160p with those dynamic resolutions.
What is a problem on Pro I think is the lack of memory compared to XBX so the max res on Pro is often 'capped' at 1440p. Here again and similar to Titanfall 2 the usual resolution on Pro is 1440p while XBX rarely ever hits 2160p. It's like comparing the efficiency of a GPU by comparing average framerate of a capped game and uncapped game. That's not fair.
But if we compare minimum resolutions on both machines, then we'll see which machine is really more efficient. Here The XBX outputs 32% more pixels using the minimum resolutions and the resolution is much more consistent on Pro and fluctuates a lot on XBX. Really it's like comparing a game with capped and uncapped framerate ...
But actually in this case framerate is higher on XBX in most cases so they should have used a more aggressive dynamic res on Pro.
Getting one Arthur Morgan to do what you want is challenge enough!I imagine most users on PS4-P probably don't notice the softness to this extent as they don't play it side by side with an XBO-X.
Getting one Arthur Morgan to do what you want is challenge enough!