Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2017]

[iroboto]

So, Fifa 18 is more optimized than W2 because it runs at 1080 on XB1 ?

And you have to lower the resolution if you want the same result than on PS4. It's completely trivial... there's nothing specific with Esram.

Quality per pixel is a debate that is game dependant. The idea that esram is a limiter to resolution is not correct. There has been significant evidence to show that esram can be worked with if the developers goal is to release a 1080p frame buffer for their title.

 

[Recop]

Tiled deferred is not "just faster" than tiled forward. It's a trade-off (I can't remember it off the top of my head), and therefore the performance difference depends on the performance profile of the hardware. XB1 has a different ratio of geometry: pixel:ALU and bandwidth from the ps4 so therefore it is affected slightly differently.

I don't say deferred rendering is always faster. It was faster in W2 with their specific engine and their specific goals.

And since the PS4 hardware is particulary well-suited for deferred rendering, i can't believe it would affect the PS4 negatively in W2.

 

[iroboto]

And since the PS4 hardware is particulary well-suited for deferred rendering, i can't believe it would affect the PS4 negatively in W2.

I think the assumption here is that deferred has a negative impact because it doesn't run as fast as forward rendering; what's happening here is that it just doesn't run as fast as the forward approach. So forward is just faster in this case overall (perhaps not everywhere) but as a whole, they felt forward since it wasn't being impacted, would overall result in a better experience.

 

[Recop]

There has been significant evidence to show that esram can be worked with if the developers goal is to release a 1080p frame buffer for their title.

You can even hit 4k on XB1 if you want. But it's not my point.

If you want the same result than on PS4, then optimization only means a lower resolution on XB1... there is no specific feature on XB1 like double FP16 on Pro.

I think the assumption here is that deferred has a negative impact because it doesn't run as fast as forward rendering; what's happening here is that it just doesn't run as fast as the forward approach.

Both consoles are too close in my opinion to believe that.

 

[iroboto]

You can even hit 4k on XB1 if you want. But it's not my point.

If you want the same result than on PS4, then optimization only means a lower resolution on XB1... there is no specific feature on XB1 like double FP16 on Pro.

Both consoles are too close in my opinion to believe that.

That was your debate? No one was debating that...ever in this thread

 

[dogen]

I don't say deferred rendering is always faster. It was faster in W2 with their specific engine and their specific goals.

And since the PS4 hardware is particulary well-suited for deferred rendering, i can't believe it would affect the PS4 negatively in W2.

I don't say deferred rendering is always faster. It was faster in W2 with their specific engine and their specific goals.

And since the PS4 hardware is particulary well-suited for deferred rendering, i can't believe it would affect the PS4 negatively in W2.

He says here it favors older GPUs and/or lower resolutions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/926155204038447104

 

[Globalisateur]

It's interesting that E3 I thought started out as CBR; but now we see removal of CBR for dynamic scaling. I guess they felt they TAA with dynamic scaling produced better results than a CBR solution.

Yes, totally. Because IMO they use an improved version of the already stellar temporal AA used in Far Cry 4 (HRAA). We had previously seen with Far Cry 4 that it makes the image a bit 'supersampled' (contrary to many others TAA solution). This Assassin's creed, the whole package, is probably the most advanced tech Ubisoft have ever produced.

Also it's probably much easier to use this solution on all 5 machines (including PC). A good CBR (much better than the very blurry and not clean solution used in WatchDogs 2) would have meant using an advanced technique with ID buffer and such, or only Pro has hardware to help with the proper CBR technique, for others hardware it costs more resources and it's more work globally on all those different machines.

About CBR and its subjective quality it's going to be very interesting to compare The Witcher 3 on Pro and XBX: that is if they use CBR for XBX.

Ubisoft have what I think one of the most impressive temporal AA technique at their disposal (thanks to mainly Michal Drobot who doesn't work anymore at Ubisoft) and finally use it on another franchise (they didn't on AC Syndicate neither in WatchDogs).

 

[function]

Deferred rendering would be faster on PS4 too.

What makes the Esram happy ?

- A lower resolution ? PS4 would be faster at a lower reslution too.

No shit.

But that doesn't mean the same bottlenecks exist with different render target sizes and different pixel to vertex ratios.

If a specific optimization makes the code faster on PS4, then it should work on XB1 too and vice versa.

No. Incorrect. Wrong.

Stop.

 

[Recop]

He says here it favors older GPUs and/or lower resolutions.

The XB1 GPU isn't older than the PS4 one. So, this argument is irrevelant on console.

So at best, deferred rendering is faster at XB1's resolution but it would also be faster on PS4 at the same resolution...

 

[function]

The XB1 GPU isn't older than the PS4 one. So, this argument is irrevelant on console.

So at best, deferred rendering is faster at XB1 resolution but it would also be faster on PS4 at the same resolution...

It's not running st the same resolution. And PS4 doesn't have to work around 32 Mb of estan.

Lower resolution. Plus he's already talked about optimizations relating to the limited amount of esram.

What are you even doing at this point? You're just spamming shit.

 

[Recop]

No. Incorrect. Wrong.

If we compare the XB1 vs XBOX, the difference between both machines is as expected by the specs.

Esram is not a problem for the X. In fact, the gap seems even larger for the exclusives titles : Forza 7 and Gears 4.

It's not running st the same resolution.

I never said that they run a the same resolution. But at the same resolution than on XB1, deferred rendering would also be faster on PS4 .

Anyway, i don't believe that the comment made by Tiago Sousa is relevant on console.

 

[dogen]

The XB1 GPU isn't older than the PS4 one. So, this argument is irrevelant on console.

So at best, deferred rendering is faster at XB1's resolution but it would also be faster on PS4 at the same resolution...

They run at different resolutions. Maybe the difference is enough to push deferred over the edge.

Why do you care so much to argue about this when you don't know any more about why they used it than we do?

 

[dten]

Using 1750p that's 48% more pixels pushed by XBX much of the time. Which is "Impressive resolution boosts over PS4 Pro" according to them.

It looks like the upper bound is 3584x2016 for the X but it rarely hits that. If these games will be compatible with future hardware, this is actually a nice bonus. In fact, if they had gone ahead and made it 2160p as an upper bound even if the X couldn't render it consistently, they would have future proofed themselves.

 

[iroboto]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/928772948017668096

Interested to see DF return to this.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Not from digital foundry but I found this video showing Witcher 3 running uncapped on Xbox one X and I think it shows how much work ms put into refining the Jaguar cores.

 

[Allandor]

Not from digital foundry but I found this video showing Witcher 3 running uncapped on Xbox one X and I think it shows how much work ms put into refining the Jaguar cores.

Well it is still in the high 30th if you go to the cities. Most of the game is GPU-bound but in some places (like novigrad) it is just the CPU that limits and you only get a slight boost there. But maybe they deliver a performance mode with 60fps in the fields and 30fps in the cities. That could work well.
Also currently the game only uses have of the GPU. So even a res-bump at >1080p and 60fps would be possible in all locations.
But I think we "just" get a res-bump (& texture & effects) when the patch arrives.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Well it is still in the high 30th if you go to the cities.

Only novigrad was shown and that's the most taxing area in the game for CPUs. I saw 37-48 fps. Considering it's lacking any cpu performance improvements that came with patches (I think there's 50 of them?!) and even the FX 8350 dips under 60 in Novigrad on the fully patched release, I think it's highly impressive what's happening here.

I'm also not a fan of locking the framerate when a game is frequently in the 40's, I don't like sacrificing responsiveness for consistency. Mid to high 30's though, yeah i'd lock it to 30.

 

[Jay]

I don't really like fluctuating or mid 40's type frame rate.
But what I would be in favor of is a a toggle, so that you could run the game as hard as it can and let VRR or next gen hardware deal with it.
Or in your case, run it in the 40's etc.

3 or so modes with a few toggles is acceptable for console gaming in my eyes.

 

[Scott_Arm]

 

[Johnglen]

Agreed. In order for X1X to stand out further they would need more graphical options or even higher fidelity assets. But I think most people will be comfortable with this. A great win for Ubisoft here and in many ways 4Pro. They got a great amount of benefit here with less costs.

Apparently the game has been severely downgraded on the pro , with the latest patch that is supposed to improve performance, after the df comparison video. There’s a riot going on in the Ubisoft forums. Though , truth be told , even in this comparison video I don’t see the great win for the pro (with much lower resolution and worse frame rate) .