Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2017]

[mpg1]

The hardware argument is oversimplyifying it a bit. It's more about the fact that it is two different companies with two different game engines and many different priorities.

 

[rokkerkory]

GTS lighting is def amazing, the best. I think the smaller scope of the game for GTS shows its benefits in many areas but also has its drawbacks with lesser amount of content, dynamic weather, mods, etc.

It's a kinda wash for me in that sense.

 

[Cyan]

the little details make for the big differences

 

[Nesh]

But at the end, the result can't be the same with a 1,31 TFLOPS GPU... and third party developers have to cut the resolution to keep graphical parity.

Polyphony took a rendering approach allowed by a 1,84 TFLOPS GPU at 1080/60fps and Turn 10 allowed by a 1,31 TFLOPS GPU at 1080/60fps.

On console, everything is a matter of compromise and you can't say that a 500 GFLOPS difference is trivial.

Let me restate what I said. Even though there is a performance gap between the consoles, the rendering choices arent all necessarily tied to the One's performance limitations. We have been seeing these similar approaches (i.e lighting, reflections, materials) since the PS3/360 days and back then the PS3 had a weaker GPU and it had to tick the 1080p vertical resolution on top of that. In addition the PC and X versions will clearly benefit from the extra resources regardless what the choices were made for One

 

[Nesh]

the little details make for the big differences

The PC version clearly benefits from higher res textures and higher res image res but damn the last image is funny

Just checked the video. What's wrong with the physics of that car??

 

[djskribbles]

GTS lighting is def amazing, the best. I think the smaller scope of the game for GTS shows its benefits in many areas but also has its drawbacks with lesser amount of content, dynamic weather, mods, etc.

It's a kinda wash for me in that sense.

It's clear Polyphony's focus was online multiplayer with GTS. Inside Sim Racing says in their review that it's the best online racing experience they've played. Watch their review and you can tell a lot of effort went into it.

Yeah it's light on content, but it will be an evolving title and a lot of content will be added over time. At least what's there seems really polished, unlike GT5 on release.

 

[Recop]

In addition the PC and X versions will clearly benefit from the extra resources regardless what the choices were made for One

No... they won't rebuild an engine just for the X and PC...

Also, developers tend to aim the same goals when power is avaible : PBR, dynamic lighting, more particles, etc.

Forza Horizon 3 is a lot more dynamic than Forza 7.

 

[Recop]

the little details make for the big differences

The first pic isn't at the same distance.

 

[Nesh]

No... they won't rebuild an engine just for the X and PC...

Also, developers tend to aim the same goals when power is avaible : PBR, dynamic lighting, more particles, etc.

Forza Horizon 3 is a lot more dynamic than Forza 7.

I didnt imply an engine rebuild

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No... they won't rebuild an engine just for the X and PC...

Also, developers tend to aim the same goals when power is avaible : PBR, dynamic lighting, more particles, etc.

Forza Horizon 3 is a lot more dynamic than Forza 7.

You do understand that Forza is now using a very scalable engine? Just because there isn't going to be a new engine doesn't mean that quality for XBO isn't going to be less than XBO-X which in turn will be less than PC? Or that entire feature sets can be, but probably aren't, different between the 3 versions of the game?

If you have any doubts just go to most PC games and look at the differences between the lowest setting, the highest setting, and the middle setting of a very scalable game. Something like StarCraft 2 which scales down ridiculously far. Hell, the original Metro 2033 on PC used completely different shader/compute effects for different setting levels.

Regards,
SB

 

[Rangers]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

Of course I guess it's all unfair in the end as one renders on a 6TF console and the other 4.2 (or 1.8 vs 1.2 for the base consoles, etc). But anyway.

DF does mention the difference briefly but it's very late in the video.

Astonishing detail on the tech breakdown, though.

 

[chris1515]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

Of course I guess it's all unfair in the end as one renders on a 6TF console and the other 4.2 (or 1.8 vs 1.2 for the base consoles, etc). But anyway.

DF does mention the difference briefly but it's very late in the video.

Astonishing detail on the tech breakdown, though.

And they use a GTX Titan XP for comparaison but it shows resolution is not all and not so important higher than 1080p and with Checkerboard rendering or temporal upsampler...

 

[Recop]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

It's clearly not unfair. The X is much more powerful and that's it.

Also, the Pro has to run a PS4 game which explains in part the much lower resolution.

 

[RDK]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

Of course I guess it's all unfair in the end as one renders on a 6TF console and the other 4.2 (or 1.8 vs 1.2 for the base consoles, etc). But anyway.

DF does mention the difference briefly but it's very late in the video.

Astonishing detail on the tech breakdown, though.

1800p is 3200x1800 which is cca 5 760 000pixels or i am wrong?

 

[London Geezer]

How can 1800p be 2.9 million pixels when 1080p is 2 million?

 

[chris1515]

1800p is 3200x1800 which is cca 5 760 000pixels or i am wrong?

Yes...

 

[Jupiter]

Checkerboard Rendering renders half of the pixels nativly.

 

[DrJay24]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

Of course I guess it's all unfair in the end as one renders on a 6TF console and the other 4.2 (or 1.8 vs 1.2 for the base consoles, etc). But anyway.

DF does mention the difference briefly but it's very late in the video.

Astonishing detail on the tech breakdown, though.

Welcome to diminishing returns on resolution. The fact that a $400 console can keep up or best the $2500 system is telling. I welcome a real generation, a good CPU and the game mechanics that come with it.

 

[iroboto]

Welcome to diminishing returns on resolution. The fact that a $400 console can keep up or best the $2500 system is telling. I welcome a real generation, a good CPU and the game mechanics that come with it.

I don't believe that system is 2500 USD. Nor was the game designed for that spec profile in mind.

I mean if you told Turn 10, hey all the xboxes are now 12 TF... lol. Dude man, you'd see a completely different game lol. lol I'm not even sure if 12 TF will be next generation GPU numbers

 

[Globalisateur]

Regarding the GT vs Forza upload from DF, it seems a bit unfair to compare a game rendering CBR 1800P (~2.9 million pixels) vs a native 4k one (~8.3 million) (Pro vs X1X). That's almost 3X.

Of course I guess it's all unfair in the end as one renders on a 6TF console and the other 4.2 (or 1.8 vs 1.2 for the base consoles, etc). But anyway.

DF does mention the difference briefly but it's very late in the video.

Astonishing detail on the tech breakdown, though.

That was Pro vs Nvidia Titan X + i7 with max antialiasing (8xMSAA) and max settings.

We'll see how the XBX version will do against Pro soon enough.