Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2018]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Next up on the DF articles is Metal Gear Survive: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-survive-playstation-xbox-final-code-analysis

PS4 uses 1600x1080 horizontally upscaled, a 16.7% reduction from MGS5.

4Pro seems to be 1088x1440 with reconstruction to 2134x1440 but shows odd dithering artefacts:

"However, switching your Pro to 1080p output matches the base machine's native 1600x1080, ironing out any remaining kinks in frame-rate and eliminating those reconstruction artefacts. There's no way to choose which mode you get, short of adjusting the front-end option setting. However, the upcoming firmware 5.5 will allows 1080p users to access the higher resolution mode. Whether they want to is another thing though. After all, we will be looking at a 1600x1080 image constructed to double horizontal resolution, upscaled to 4K, then downscaled to 1080p. Expect improved temporal stability at the expense of blur."

Xbox One X, subpar showing because of poor base Xbox One engine despite using native 2560x1440 res:

"Meanwhile, matters improve significantly on Xbox One X, where users get the highest resolution output of the bunch - a native 2560x1440, with no reconstruction shenanigans. Performance also hands in a vast upgrade over the standard Xbox version, but once we enter 'The Dust', frame-rates start to suffer in a way that we just don't see on the PlayStation platforms. Bearing in mind the X's hardware spec boosts compared to Pro, the upgrade is clearly sub-par, but it does seem to be another example where a poor base version of a game translates into a mediocre X release. "

DF conclusion paragraph:

"The Dust is different and distinctive perhaps, but it's not enough to justify the surrounding, rather unattractive gameplay - the first few hours of which concentrate heavily on setting up fences and poking zombies with sticks. And there's a real sense of a profound lack of imagination here: by transporting the characters into a new dimension, Konami was effectively given a blank slate, to create a brand new open world that could push the Fox Engine into producing results we've never seen before. What we get instead isn't a bad game as such - and as the Eurogamer review explains, some may well get a good deal of enjoyment out of Survive. But from our perspective, it's a step in the wrong direction both conceptually and technologically - and despite the reduced price-point, we had hoped for more."

 
However, unlike the Pro version, there's no way to select a 1080p output.
Unfortunately less options on XBX according to DF. Quite ironic situation ! particularly when Pro will soon get system downsampling.

After all those lengthy articles about how great the system downsampling is on XBX and how awful the lack of system downsampling was on Pro... Will they make as much articles complaining about the lack of manual 1080p option on XBX ?

Which means only Pro gamers can play the game at locked 60fps vs unstable on XBX (particularly in the Dust level, constant ~55fps).
 
Well, these are the kinds of teething problems that make mid-gen consoles a benefit to the next generation: Sony and MS will know the kinds of resolution and performance guidelines to have in place.

It's a messy situation, but it should settle down soon enough, especially now that system level downsampling is now available on both mid-gen consoles.
 
Unfortunately less options on XBX according to DF. Quite ironic situation ! particularly when Pro will soon get system downsampling.

After all those lengthy articles about how great the system downsampling is on XBX and how awful the lack of system downsampling was on Pro... Will they make as much articles complaining about the lack of manual 1080p option on XBX ?

Which means only Pro gamers can play the game at locked 60fps vs unstable on XBX (particularly in the Dust level, constant ~55fps).
There’s no reason to. DF has no reason to pick sides. Everyone knows what the Xbox One X is, it is marketed as a 4K machine, it’s focus shoukd be mostly 4K quality or 4K performance. Anything else is irrelevant.

Developers are responsible for making “any” modes they release to run well.

You’re trying too hard to put 4Pro and XBX as being the same type of device when it’s getting more clear over time they are not.

4Pro is a better PS4 experience.

XBX is the 4K experience of XBO. There’s nothing really to say more on that matter.

4Pro will always continue to be criticized heavily mainly because they launched a system with entirely mixed messaging. They can’t decide what they want it to be and everyone has a different opinion of what it should be.
 
XBX is the 4K experience of XBO. There’s nothing really to say more on that matter.
Ahem, well if thats the case then its not living up to its promise, see Brits last post , XBX version = 2560x1440 (and sub 60fps)
if they did focus at 4k you you suggest they should do then they would be struggling to hit 30fps, is that what gamers want? I assume not
 
Bearing in mind the X's hardware spec boosts compared to Pro, the upgrade is clearly sub-par, but it does seem to be another example where a poor base version of a game translates into a mediocre X release. "

1088x1440 vs 2650x1440 = +143%

One of the largest difference ever seen in pixel count. This sentence is pure nonsense... i'm sorry... what did you expect ? 143% more pixels + higher settings + better framerate ? :nope:

They made bad technical choices, but they clearly pushed the X to the max. There are no excuses.
 
1088x1440 vs 2650x1440 = +143%

One of the largest difference ever seen in pixel count. This sentence is pure nonsense... i'm sorry... what did you expect ? 143% more pixels + higher settings + better framerate ? :nope:

They made bad technical choices, but they clearly pushed the X to the max. There are no excuses.

Thats DF words. As to what did they expect, they probably expected smooth gameplay and not the horrible dips that was delivered. They likely should have aimed for +75% res to have smoother and consistent frames. Its not about pushing hardware to the limits when it has such large negative side affects.
 
Thats DF words. As to what did they expect, they probably expected smooth gameplay and not the horrible dips that was delivered. They likely should have aimed for +75% res to have smoother and consistent frames. Its not about pushing hardware to the limits when it has such large negative side affects.

My sentence was adressed to DF, but i made wording mistakes lol.

But i agree with you, that's why i said they made bad technical choices. They could have easily reach a stable framerate + higher settings at a lower resolution. In my opinion this was acheivable with at least 100% more pixels or even slightly more but clearly not +143%.
 
Ahem, well if thats the case then its not living up to its promise, see Brits last post , XBX version = 2560x1440 (and sub 60fps)
if they did focus at 4k you you suggest they should do then they would be struggling to hit 30fps, is that what gamers want? I assume not
That's an incredibly innocent POV; I don't think even the blind fanboys are that naive of this.

There's a difference between targeted and guaranteed. No way ever was any xbox player guaranteed that all games would play 4K. The hardware should not be judged by the performance of the games that are run on it; it has more than 4x the power and bandwidth of the base model. Making it highly probable that any 900p/1080p on xbox one using xbox one settings to be 4K.
We haven't seen that because developers still to choose the settings that they feel is best for the platform and that's often running significantly higher settings and having the resolution adjust as required.

In this case here:
the base version is 720p
the xbox one x version is 2560x1440
that is... 4x the amount of pixels (hey what do you know)

It's still outputting 4x the resolution over the base model, and the difference graphically is substantial over the base model.

PS4 to PS4Pro is a wide variation of stuff. PS4Pro 1088*1440 before checkerboarding (1566720px) vs PS4 (1728000px). That is 10% less than the base system and you get dithering artefacts or you can set it to (1080p mode (thinking you're gonna get 1080p), and really just get 1600*1080 (not 1080p).

This is confusing, double the power for PS4 for some interesting settings? I assume as a PS4Pro player, this is a baffling situation. How many AAA titles are there today in which the PS4 and the PS4 Pro share 1080p as the same output? 4Pro has had the luxury of being out for over 1 year now, and the resolution is still all over the place. It's not like it settled down to any particular predictable number, which would be better imo for the owners.

So the best I can say is, 4Pro is the best way to experience the Playstation eco system. There are no goals but to be better than the base system, the problem is better is highly subjective as a goal, and looping back to the original comment I made, there's no reason for DF to take sides; criticize the hardware for what it's trying to be, and not what it isn't.

I would be more confused if games on Xbox One X had anywhere close to the same resolution as the base model. In fact I would be outraged as an owner. I didn't buy all this fancy 4K gear to look at 720p-1080p. I want to see resolutions and detail that are higher than 1080p. Thankfully the opposite hasn't happened outside a small handful of select titles.
 
Last edited:
PS4 to PS4Pro is a wide variation of stuff. PS4Pro 1088*1440 before checkerboarding (1566720px) vs PS4 (1728000px). That is 10% less than the base system and you get dithering artefacts or you can set it to (1080p mode (thinking you're gonna get 1080p), and really just get 1600*1080 (not 1080p).

Where did you find these numbers ?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...survive-playstation-xbox-final-code-analysisv : "Its core pixel count seems to be 1088x1440, using a reconstruction technique to give a final resolve in the 2134x1440 range."

I would be more confused if games on Xbox One X had anywhere close to the same resolution as the base model. In fact I would be outraged as an owner. I didn't buy all this fancy 4K gear to look at 720p-1080p. I want to see resolutions and detail that are higher than 1080p. Thankfully the opposite hasn't happened outside a small handful of select titles.

Many X games are disappointing which is a problem for a console costing 500$... it's a worse situation than the Pro in my opinion.

Making it highly probable that any 900p/1080p on xbox one using xbox one settings to be 4K.

How many examples do we have of titles running at 900p on Xbox One and running at native 4k on X ? The only one i know is Killer Instinct...

Edit : deceived by my english skills again. You're absolutely right about the resolutions in Metal Gear. Also, i didn't realize that the Pro resolution was so low... even lower than the PS4 one...
 
Last edited:
And good luck fitting Raven Ridge with HBM onto an AM4 package that will need a built in interposer as well as the RR needing a 1024 bit HBM memory controller. $$$$$$

As great as RR is currently, it's definitely benefiting from the current GPU-ocalypse. I'd just about recommend getting the 2200G, some cheap DDR4 and pairing it with an RX 550 instead of the more expensive 2400G and spending extra green on DDR4-3200.
 
DF takes a look at the new 60fps mode for Fortnite's Battle-Royal gameplay: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-fortnites-new-patch-really-does-deliver-60fps


In addition to the introduction of a dynamic framebuffer, a few visual tweaks also help to reduce the rendering load, with reduced shadow quality present across all consoles when running at with 60fps engaged when compared to the older half-refresh mode. Motion blur is also removed on PS4, Xbox One and Xbox One X. However, curiously, this is definitely not the case on PS4 Pro, which retains the effect across all modes in the game.

By contrast, the Xbox One X is the most powerful console of the bunch and it delivers some really impressive results. Our lowest recorded resolution comes in at 1152p, rising to 1728p at peak, with 1440p the most common measurement we found. The contrast between the base and enhanced consoles is quite remarkable - Xbox One X works nicely on a 4K screen despite its shifting sub-native pixel count, but the lower resolutions on the base model leads to a very soft looking game.

Both PS4 and Pro aim for native 1080p with the enhanced model using the extra GPU power to layer in additional effects, including enhanced draw distances. In complex areas, resolution on PS4 falls to around 756p at its lowest, with Pro coming in at around 900p or just below. However, with that said, pixel counts are generally higher across the run of play, with PS4 regularly hitting 900p, and Pro achieving 1080p.

Players are essentially given a good range of options here: improved image quality on the standard 30fps mode, but a genuinely impressive full-refresh alternative delivered by the new patch. However, one thing to stress is that 60fps is essentially exclusive to the Battle Royale game mode, not the Save the World option that Fortnite originally launched with.

~~~
Some Notes from DF's picture comparison captions:

Dynamic resolution and temporal reconstruction are present across all platforms. PS4 operates between around 756p and 1080p, while PS4 Pro ranges between 856p to 1080p. Both versions hit their peak resolutions pretty often but drop below in complex scenes.

There's a large gap in image quality between Xbox One and Xbox One X. The standard console operates between around 600p to 900p, while the X has a range between 1152p up to 1728p with 60fps enabled. The more powerful X tends to stabilise at around 1440p, while the standard Xbox One regularly operates in 792p territory.

PS4 Pro retains motion blur when operating in the 60fps mode, while the effect is only available on base PS4, Xbox One, and Xbox One X when playing at 30fps.
 
I find that interesting for a few reasons.

1) I wonder if the PS4 Pro has motion blur at 60fps solely because they're targeting 1080p, or if any Pro specific hardware features factor into it too.

2) An occasionally sub-1080p image on the Pro. I recall seeing some guidelines a while ago - maybe they were fake news - in which it was stated that 1080p is the minimum resolution at which games must run on it.
This hits a low of 856p. So the guidelines are either nonsense, loosely enforced, or dynamic resolution throws a spanner in the works.

3) A mainstream game, which, on every console, has two framerate modes! I hope this is a sign of things to come. It would be very nice if this was a standard feature next generation.

4) Going by that which I've read, PUBG still doesn't perform all that well. For Fortnite to release a 60fps mode seems like a genuine, and well calculated, attempt to further establish itself as the better battle royale game.
 
Could it be an artistic decision? Such as the X1X being able to render at a higher resolution mitigating the need for motion blur?

Or is it just that they need time to tweak the dynamic resolution of the X1X so that they can include it?

Personally, I don't much care for it. I turned it off in the Witcher 3 as soon as I found the option.

I'm still curious though, if any Pro specific features make anything like this easier/cheaper. Much like the PS2 was capable of better particle effects than its competitors. Less powerful overall, but the EDRAM gave it the edge in this one area.
 
DF looks at the X360 Enhanced Forza Horizon on the Xbox One X - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-forza-horizon-back-compat-looks-stunning-at-4k

The original Forza Horizon looks stunning on Xbox One X at 4K
No remaster required: another beautiful back-compat showcase.

Microsoft restarted its programme of Xbox One X enhancements for Xbox 360 games this week with four new titles - Forza Horizon, The Witcher 2, Crackdown and Fable Anniversary Edition. We're seeing the same 9x resolution boost on all releases in concert with improved performance where appropriate, but it's the first game in this new line-up that's our focus today. Image quality in Forza Horizon is off the charts in the transition to ultra HD and there are a couple of further, surprising enhancements that caught our eye.


Forza Horizon is an exceptionally strong release for the X-enhanced back-compat line-up, and we're looking forward to testing the other releases. What we can say is that the tearing in the Witcher 2 is gone and performance has improved, and we're particularly fascinated to see how CD Projekt Red's vast range of engine revamps and optimisations fares at 4K resolution (3840x2016 to be exact, up from the original's 1280x672) and how that all compares to the 4K PC experience. And then there's Fable Anniversary Edition and the classic Crackdown 2 - both blighted by bouts of poor performance on original hardware. Can Xbox One X deliver both the resolution boost and a lock to target frame-rate? Or does the X emulator's performance mode actually find some use here? We'll have answers very soon.
 
Could it be an artistic decision? Such as the X1X being able to render at a higher resolution mitigating the need for motion blur?
No, higher framerate perhaps you could argue it then theres less need for motion blur (as thats what happens in real life)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top