Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

[imaxx]

. Or rather, one has to choose nVidia graphics or AMD audio

er... I do miss this. Unless you refer to PhysX or the new game framework which, honestly, I see it going the same road of PhysX.

To me, the choice was simple - a better audio, especially now that I must use headset. But was the same when I was using 5.1 - Graphic is not all.

I do not really care of raw performance/watt (unless you keep your GPU 100% all time mining, of course), and PhysX in a few games which I likely will never play - is unsubstantial to me.
Cool audio is not.

 

[function]

Fifa 15: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-fifa-15-face-off

Basically a draw, aside from the bugged DoF and extra content on the Bone.

With this and Destiny, MS's efforts to "catch up" are paying off, at least on the big titles.

 

[Boxercide]

Fifa 15: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-fifa-15-face-off

Basically a draw, aside from the bugged DoF and extra content on the Bone.

With this and Destiny, MS's efforts to "catch up" are paying off, at least on the big titles.

Also, the framerate drops on the MS console during the 30 fps lead in segments.

EDIT: From the article "But with all the additions being made, there are already signs that the thin end of the wedge is dividing the PS4 and Xbox One versions. The omission of motion blur from the Microsoft release, for example, plus a few occasional frame-rate dips during cut-scenes, suggests the weight of these engine advances is starting to take its toll. It's rare to see a break in parity between the modern entries in this series, but FIFA 15 marks the first time a more obvious distinction can be made."

 

[Globalisateur]

Fifa 15: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-fifa-15-face-off

Basically a draw, aside from the bugged DoF and extra content on the Bone.

With this and Destiny, MS's efforts to "catch up" are paying off, at least on the big titles.

It's not the DOF, it's per object motion blur which is completely missing on XB1, not a bug as it was there on the demo so it means the devs removed it...for a reason.

Add that the occasionnal 25fps drops during the cutsenes and DF concluded that it was in fact a technical win on PS4:

PS4 version's technical advantage

And no more usual parity like with the previous Fifa 14:

It's rare to see a break in parity between the modern entries in this series, but FIFA 15 marks the first time a more obvious distinction can be made.

I suggest you to re-read the article.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not the DOF, it's per object motion blur which is completely missing on XB1, not a bug as it was there on the demo so it means the devs removed it...for a reason.

From the DF article:

In a curious twist, the Xbox One's FIFA 15 demo features the effect - and at no apparent performance penalty. What's just as strange is that this Liverpool versus Manchester City demo actually loads on first booting the Xbox One retail disc with the effect intact, but once the match is played out, motion blur is switched off for the main game (a bug perhaps?). In all, this is the only major technical division between the three versions - with the PC release retaining the effect.

So the effect is in fact present but disappears. This looks like a bug rather than a graphical conspiracy

 

[function]

EDIT: BEATEN INTO SOUP!

There's no meaningful distinction between the two, aside from the motion blur. A few dropped frames during an intro is neither here nor there.

This is what DF had to say about it:

In a curious twist, the Xbox One's FIFA 15 demo features the effect - and at no apparent performance penalty. What's just as strange is that this Liverpool versus Manchester City demo actually loads on first booting the Xbox One retail disc with the effect intact, but once the match is played out, motion blur is switched off for the main game (a bug perhaps?).

So it's in the retail version when you first boot it - with no apparent performance penalty - then it just turns off. Either way - whether it's meant to be in or out - it's a bug.

So aside from that, given the improvements and the fact that the PS4 is about 40% faster in shader bound operation ... that's naff all difference.

Diablo 3 didn't quite make it, but then Destiny did, and now so has Fifa. What's next? And can Sony reassert their GPU superiority?

CoD Face Off will be interesting. Have a feeling that the PS4 will reassert itself there, but not by the +150% of last year.

 

[DrJay24]

EA sports games are the last place to look for graphics pushing.

 

[Starx]

Meanwhile, both the PS4 and Xbox One handle in-game playback perfectly; if it's in default view, the 60fps line is held to a tee. However, the Xbox One does occasionally suffer from drops to 25fps during match build-ups locked at half rate, noticed when panning past each team's line-up. It's unusual - and doesn't affect gameplay - but by comparison the PS4 never misses a beat here, whether it's running at a 30 or 60fps cap

Do Digital Foundry even watch their own videos?

 

[Goodtwin]

When I look at DF's test, its not about the said game being graphically impressive, but instead how it stacks up across the various platforms. For example, Call of Duty is hardly the pinnacle of technical perfection PS3, but that doesn't make the test irrelevant, since its really about how it stacked up the 360. It also gives the viewer some kind of idea which platform is easier to develop for. Outright technical prowess is typically demonstrated by the exclusives. The majority of multi plat games looked and ran better on the 360 than they did the PS3, and that could lead you to believe the 360 is the more powerful platform, but in my opinion there are a few exclusives for PS3 that outclass anything on the 360. I know that's somewhat subjective, but that's how I feel about it. Multi plats are convenient to compare since they are the same game, but don't really showcase the hardware at hand. Of course the PS4 and X1 share a lot more in common than the 360 and PS3 did, so the gap in power on paper should translate to better visuals and performance on the PS4, unless the X1 is the target platform, and then ported to PS4 which would most likely result in parity across the board.

 

[function]

I'm not sure that judging how powerful hardware is based on your feelings is terribly subjective.

Normally people benchmark hardware to get an idea of how powerful it is; they compare the same operations or algorithms on different configurations. In the case of games consoles, games are the most important benchmark. Us mortals can't get our hands on devkits to test different areas of performance (and if we could we wouldn't have a damn clue what tests to create or how to create them!).

PS3 and 360 were quite different, with the 360 faring much better on common software.

PS4 and Xbox One are far more similar, though still with a couple of interesting differences. Where the differences show, and where they don't, are as interesting as the hardware differences.

Based Digital Foundry.

 

[function]

Probably to do with the camera change or restarting gameplay...? Perhaps setting up a different mode for the rendered after the player presses to start the free kick, or the player AI starting up with a more intensive first pass to re-establish suitable gameplay states ...?

 

[Goodtwin]

I'm not sure that judging how powerful hardware is based on your feelings is terribly subjective.

Normally people benchmark hardware to get an idea of how powerful it is; they compare the same operations or algorithms on different configurations. In the case of games consoles, games are the most important benchmark. Us mortals can't get our hands on devkits to test different areas of performance (and if we could we wouldn't have a damn clue what tests to create or how to create them!).

PS3 and 360 were quite different, with the 360 faring much better on common software.

PS4 and Xbox One are far more similar, though still with a couple of interesting differences. Where the differences show, and where they don't, are as interesting as the hardware differences.

Based Digital Foundry.

Well, what I consider to be the best looking game on a console may not be the one that you are the most impressed with. For example, perhaps some people feel Halo 4 is more impressive than Killzone 3, perhaps I see it the the other way. That's where things get to be a bit more subjective. Im not savy enough to really pick apart a piece of software. There could be tons of effects that are totally faked and baked, but I wont pick up on that and the end result looks very good to me. Where as someone else may have an eye for those types of things, and because of that, its not that impressive to them.

 

[Shortbread]

EA sports games are the last place to look for graphics pushing.

This.

Plus, EA is more than likely using the middle ground strategy of keeping things balance between the two. I don't see EA pushing XB1/PS4 beyond a set minimum that both systems are capable of performing quite equally. It's a good strategy for a multiplatform publisher... no sales loss over one platform version being mediocre graphically.

Some will call it parity... some will call it catching up... I call it, EA making money as usual.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Kind of weird that they suggest the lack of motion blur is a bug, and then at the end of the article suggest it is a sign of a gap between the two systems. Those two ideas don't really add up, but for someone buying the product, that has the choice between the two systems, you don't really care if it's a bug or intentional. The fact is it's not there. Not sure being hopeful they patch it is a great strategy as a consumer.

 

[function]

Well, what I consider to be the best looking game on a console may not be the one that you are the most impressed with. For example, perhaps some people feel Halo 4 is more impressive than Killzone 3, perhaps I see it the the other way. That's where things get to be a bit more subjective. Im not savy enough to really pick apart a piece of software. There could be tons of effects that are totally faked and baked, but I wont pick up on that and the end result looks very good to me. Where as someone else may have an eye for those types of things, and because of that, its not that impressive to them.

That's quite a modest and inoffensive opinion you have there, Goodtwin.

We all have our favourites, and what strikes us as better or worse looking might not be based purely (or even at all) on technical achievement.

You can make a good case to say that a faked and baked effect that looks great and leaves processing time for other effects is, in fact, both a technically and artistically sound choice and therefore an achievement.

Platform exclusives aren't by any means necessarily more demanding from a software engineering or artistic point of view. Choosing algorithms and balancing assets for multiple platforms, all with evolving tools and capabilities, is incredibly demanding.

Anyone that lauds the achievements of first and second party developers exclusively ahead of multiplatform developers is not someone who's opinion is balanced, and not someone who's opinions should weight too heavily on you.

 

[function]

Some will call it parity... some will call it catching up... I call it, EA making money as usual.

It's probably some of all three.

Before people unfairly send the lynch mobs out for EA Sports though, bear in mind how much they've achieved across multiple platforms in a short space of time. And then give a thought to the hugely commercially successful "Last of Us" re-release on PS4, that couldn't even maintain 40 fps.

Every developer has time and budget constraints. I think EA are doing okay at the moment, and that people should perhaps withhold their derision and see all developers as motivated but mortal.

 

[zed]

And then give a thought to the hugely commercially successful "Last of Us" re-release on PS4, that couldn't even maintain 40 fps.

I believe you're thinking of the wrong game 60fps game

Our lowest reported reading came in an enclosed room with multiplayer games and saw frame-rate dip to the mid-40s, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-next-gen-face-off

I think this might be the game you were thinking of

So, just like the beta, we see Titanfall frame-rates on Xbox One dip into the mid-30s at its worst, and at those points the rock-solid consistency we saw in the early iterations of the Modern Warfare experience is gone

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-the-last-of-us-remastered
No need to thank me function

 

[djskribbles]

It's probably some of all three.

Before people unfairly send the lynch mobs out for EA Sports though, bear in mind how much they've achieved across multiple platforms in a short space of time. And then give a thought to the hugely commercially successful "Last of Us" re-release on PS4, that couldn't even maintain 40 fps.

Every developer has time and budget constraints. I think EA are doing okay at the moment, and that people should perhaps withhold their derision and see all developers as motivated but mortal.

Huh?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-last-of-us-face-off

Performance compared to PS3 is night and day. Infrequent drops to 50fps (with 46fps being the lowest on record) are the worst of it, most notably during the initial Bloater boss battle. There are occasional dips besides this around flooded inner-city areas, but the experience is predominantly on the 60fps line. Compared to the PS3, with its variable 20-30fps readout, we're looking at a frame-time reading that sticks largely to a sharp, responsive 16ms, while the PS3 routinely dips as low as 50ms.

Even if you're referring to Tomb Raider DE on PS4, that is more like 40-60fps, with an average of probably ~50fps.

 

[-tkf-]

Before people unfairly send the lynch mobs

Why send out lynch mobs, i think the result isn't suprising, actually it is more in line what we expect.

Both platforms have the same basic hardware basis, the PS4 just have more power.
EA develops a game for both platforms, it´s nothing special graphically and it runs fine on the weaker hardware, a few frame drops here and there, but nothing special.

The only thing that this game shows is that EA still aimed to high for the One version if the wanted flawless framerates. The proof is the PS4 that doesn't have the same frame drops.

bear in mind how much they've achieved across multiple platforms in a short space of time.

If you by achieved means being able to dial the XBOX One version down, then yes. I would applaud them if they were able to create a One version that ran flawless and a PS4 version that took advantage of the extra graphical power. What we are seeing now is just the lowest common denominator setting the bar.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Face-Off: Bayonetta on Wii U

Digital Foundry's article is up on Eurogamer: "The new Wii U port takes on the Xbox 360 original - and the infamous PS3 conversion."

Alongside the likes of Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Bayonetta stands out as one of the best ports available on the Wii U. It's clear that a lot of time and effort was poured into this release in order to preserve and in places improve upon the original experience. While it's not dramatically superior to the original Xbox 360 version, we'd have to give it the nod as the definitive version of the game. The elimination of screen-tear, faster loading, and solid performance levels make a huge difference.