Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
forumaccount
Newcomer
No, it didn't do anything right. SPUs were the only good part of the PS3 design and they were still a screwup in the big picture. It's likely that Sony could have pursued a smarter programming model and got better results with a significantly lower R&D budget. They had an extra year. They should have ended up with a machine that left the 360 in the dust using roughly the same design instead of "well it's not even going to match performance unless you go through this complicated, expensive, and ridiculously time-consuming series of steps and if you spend enough time/money maybe it will even be better."
Looking at PS4 where they won in every important performance category while launching simultaneously, they obviously learned from their big, expensive mistake.
Destiny Xbox 1:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-destiny-xbox-one-performance-analysis
Solid 30 fps. Thank goodness. God bless you, Bungie. You really kicked it up a gear in a short time.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-destiny-xbox-one-performance-analysis
Solid 30 fps. Thank goodness. God bless you, Bungie. You really kicked it up a gear in a short time.
Hmm interested to see how the final versus plays out. Gaming Bolt has declared ps4 easily out shining Xbox within 24 hours of release. If DF indicates 0 difference credibility for them is going to be a problem. Not saying I don't already see a problem with the writing but you know what I mean.
As everyone else, the screenshot comparisons pits limited range RGB against full range. Such comparisons are unrepresentative.
I have seen a couple seemingly pretty hefty FPS dips in my few hours with the game. So it's not flawless. Just a couple though, and they're momentary. There are scenes where ridiculous amounts of effects are going on though.
For example, the scene where you fight three floating witches at once is pretty insane with plasma effects as they all toss massive fireballs at you. Throw in some underlings and it just gets ridiculous. Definitely far more demanding than the early scenes DF is showing. But that is a fair bit into the game.
Funny that they don't see that even the gamma value is wrong (which kills the colors). There should be no difference with those black borders.
seems like some gaming websites do everything to get some clicks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a curious thing. On the PS4 shots, the top border's brightness level is 0 where the bottom border's value is 7. On XB1, they're both 16. 
Don't worry, DF won't do any framerate stress test with this game. Just some (useless) long cinematic scenes, as usual, and a few carefully selected shooting combats.
Lol. If anything DF tends to select only heavy scenes, which might make game performance look worse on average than it really is. Diablo 3 is an exception, where people say they did not represent the heaviest multiplayer scenarios.
As Shifty pointed out, limited vs extended range RGB.
It's Gaming Bolt that has a credibility problem
Cheers
Please stop shitting up the DF thread every single time there is a conversation in flow.
You think that DF are lying to hide how much better your PS4 is. We get it. We got got it after the first 50 or so accusations. The rest were unnecessary.
I like DF and I like the DF thread. All the DF lies/scams accusations do nothing except hurt interesting conversation. I think this is an area that now perhaps requires some moderation...?
I'm more interested in seeing how well the PS3/XB360 versions hold up against each other, and the current generation.
djskribbles
Legend
Well even Rangers said he noticed some hefty dips. Some people at GAF as well, but nothing game-breaking. And DF didn't test very far into Diablo where things really get stressful. It would be nice to see games tested in these situations, rather than earlier on when things aren't as crazy. I mean the whole point is to see how well the games hold up during gameplay, and what they tested in their Diablo analysis wasn't very representative of the game IMO. I am hopeful that DF will test further into the game, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
I literally noticed a couple, as in two if I can remember correctly. They seemed to me to be down to 10-15 FPS though, basically slowdown. But just for a second each time. But IIRC they did correlate with crazy intense scenes. Just keep in mind I'm very framerate insensitive. In fact for some reason I had it in my head that Destiny is 60 FPS, until I read the DF article. That's how little I can tell these things, I cant notice if it's 30 or 60 just by playing. Although when I went from XB1 BF to X360 BF I did notice a big framerate difference so I guess I'm not completely blind.
The thing about asking DF to test intense areas, is as with Diablo they're usually later on in the game, which lets say in some of these games cases could be 20+ hours in. They likely often just dont have time to do all that and get well researched articles out in the first day or two . Note the sections both DF and Gaming Bolt covered, and most graphics comparison by hit seeking sites rushed out in the first day or two, hell they most often literally cover the opening cinema. Basically the beginning cinema of the game. Also I believe Alstrong assists DF, and when the Diablo later areas not being benchmarked was complained about, he intimated it's a time thing.
Yes this is sometimes true as well. For example people are saying DR3 X1 dips to 20 frequently because of one short DF clip, which is true, but I went back and looked and there's a second short DF clip where it holds 28-30 pretty much throughout. Of course both clips are pretty much equally action packed with hundreds of zombies onscreen, which well for DR's case it's the nature of the game. But I made the point back in Titanfall, if you actually were to just take an hour long clip of somebody playing the game naturally the average would probably be 57+ FPS or something like that. We tend to concentrate on the dips in the heaviest action or the worst case scenario. I guess in one sense it's fair, GPU reviews often do the same, place a strong focus on the minimums, and that's what gamers care about. But in another sense it's unfair, to take the worst moment of a game and judge it by that.
shredenvain
Regular
I agree. It consistently happens every time. He does point out a couple of their mistakes on DF's comment section which in itself is great. I just dont see why it is always followed with an accusation of bias. It is possible to have a discussion about a faceoff without trying to drum up a console war.
I just had a thought...DF should start uploading their videos to Gamersyde's site, where much higher quality streaming than youtube is supported.
I've seen DF is now quite popular on youtube, at least some of their videos have over a million views and one over 3 million IIRC. I dont know if they're monetized if they are it could even be profitable, but I understand why they wouldn't want to stop uploading to youtube either way, so, I'd suggest just uploading to both sites.
Assuming Gamersyde could handle the traffic, which very well it might not I suppose.
I've seen DF is now quite popular on youtube, at least some of their videos have over a million views and one over 3 million IIRC. I dont know if they're monetized if they are it could even be profitable, but I understand why they wouldn't want to stop uploading to youtube either way, so, I'd suggest just uploading to both sites.
Assuming Gamersyde could handle the traffic, which very well it might not I suppose.
Bingo
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
- Status
Similar threads
