VGTech Video Technical Discussion [2018]

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?

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?

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.
 
It'd be nice if they also did a proper article. Things I'd like to see more sites do...

Graphs or charts that show time spent at X, Y, Z resolution range. More detailed frametime analysis and charts like you see on some of the better PC benchmarking sites. Hell, even the FPS over time graphs that Hardocp uses (or at least used to use, I haven't gone there in years so don't know if they still use them :p) would be interesting. That could also be adapted for resolution (pixel count?) over time graphs for games with variable resolution.

I hate the whole ambiguousness that comes into play with console game analysis. What does the "most common resolution" even mean? Is it 30% of the time while other resolutions are in use anywhere from 1-29% of the time for each resolution used? Is it 51% of the time? 75% of the time? 90% of the time? It's a statement that is almost completely useless on its own.

Before people think I'm bashing on his comment on the PS4 version of Doom, I'm not. You can apply this anytime a phrase like that is used for any game regardless of platform. And this isn't directed at just VGTech, but Digital Foundry as well.

What's worse is that while it is almost meaningless without additional data, forum warriors are quick to pick up on these things.

Regards,
SB
 
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.
 
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.

But pro has worse 1% and 5% stats. To be honest I'm disappointed that the frame rate is not locked on either comsole. Maybe they needed the min res to drop further.
 
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

The PS4 Pro can hit anywhere between the minimum resolution and maximum resolution during demanding scenes, so it didn't make sense to say the range. The Xbox One X has a relatively large amount of its resolution range that it never hits during demanding scenes which is why I described it that way.
 
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

For what? The Pro jumps between 3 to 3.6 million pixels while the X jumps between 4 to 8 million pixels. The range is so small for the Pro there is really no point in dwelling on 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.

Can’t really compare hardware efficiency of the two machine as you can’t guarantee equal efforts by devs on both ports.

Devs probably have have minimum goals when it comes to the Pro while the X is allowed to run wild because it has enough performance and bandwidth to readily meet or exceed those goals.
 
Ouch the side by side comparison does no favors for the PS4-P.

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.

Regards,
SB
 

I guess it's the standard XB1 used by Vgtech.

So lower resolution and no performances advantage even in cities while there was a slight advantage for the XBS.

Actually, the average framerate is slightly better on PS4, but it's not relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top