Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

Status
Not open for further replies.
What? Do you have anything to back that up except a vague feeling they're mean to your platform preference?
No, I have nothing to back it up. I don't have expensive equipment set up in my home to measure framerates and don't spend time analyzing the differences between different platforms so that take that for what you will.
 
Ubisoft themselves didnt try to sell Rayman Legends on PS4 for $60, it was an old game that didnt really offer any upgrades. They sold it for $40, not $60 like when it launched on Wii U/PS3/360. At the very least, Watch Dogs value to price should have followed this trend.

Rayman was always $40? At least I know I bought it for 39,95 eur.

Digital Foundry are all about finding differences. I'm sure this skews their perspective more than any kind of platform bias.
 
I'm not accusing df of bias, more hamming up the differences somewhat. Would you even notice how much foliage there was on xbox one gta v if there wasn't a whole articvle written on it.
 
Yes, because DF only did the test because the internets™ brought it to their attention.

Cart before horse on this occasion, having said that there is a lot wrong in their face off, which does give people opportunity to bring these accusations up.
 
I'm not accusing df of bias, more hamming up the differences somewhat. Would you even notice how much foliage there was on xbox one gta v if there wasn't a whole articvle written on it.
Doesn't matter whether you'd notice or not. The job of DF is to discover such differences, and as long as people read their articles, there's obviously a market for it which they're serving.
 
Would you even notice how much foliage there was on xbox one gta v if there wasn't a whole articvle written on it.

I thought that was the point of DF - to highlight technical differences? The idea being so folk who can chose which platform may take that into consideration?

edit - beaten and bettered by shifty
 
but seriously what do
What? Do you have anything to back that up except a vague feeling they're mean to your platform preference?
Actually, one sec. I do have one bit of info. I bought a cheap HD3650 off ebay to actually test the performance of what a 160 sp part would perform like. Since the gflops are almost identical. ~170 glfops and the core count is 120 vs 160 yet the hd3650 is clocked about 200mhz higher. It runs like a dog on Splinter Cell Blacklist and I remmeber that honestly performing a lot better on the Wii U before I sold it.
 
I'm not accusing df of bias, more hamming up the differences somewhat. Would you even notice how much foliage there was on xbox one gta v if there wasn't a whole articvle written on it.
Maybe it didn't need an entire article, but they (edit: Richard) also noted the lack of grass on PS3 for the Mafia 2 & Red Head Redemption investigations.

edit: Mind you, it's a crowded month for analyses. Gotta multi-thread the work. ;)

....or something.
 
but seriously what do

Actually, one sec. I do have one bit of info. I bought a cheap HD3650 off ebay to actually test the performance of what a 160 sp part would perform like. Since the gflops are almost identical. ~170 glfops and the core count is 120 vs 160 yet the hd3650 is clocked about 200mhz higher. It runs like a dog on Splinter Cell Blacklist and I remmeber that honestly performing a lot better on the Wii U before I sold it.

How sluggish is it? Wii U actually did ok with Splinter Cell Blacklist. It was 30fps most of the time. If you tried to play it like a third person shooter, thats when it would dip. Still, even when things got crazy, it ran in the low 20's, not mid teens like WD. Perhaps the UE3 engine works pretty well on Wii U.
 
Like in the tens more like. It really sucks tbh. Nintendo might have added some extra TEV units in the latte which explains the increased performance or it might be that contrary to popular belief Ubisoft do optimize games (on colse at least).
 
Like in the tens more like. It really sucks tbh. Nintendo might have added some extra TEV units in the latte which explains the increased performance or it might be that contrary to popular belief Ubisoft do optimize games (on colse at least).
What CPU did you have it paired with? That seems extremely low. I have seen much better benchmarks with the hd6540 gpu, also a 160 spu gpu.
 
Core I5 2500 so defo no bottlenecks on the cpu side. The hd 6540 is 240 gflops so it's not comparable. I've seen the 176 gflops quoted around here and elsewhere, but I'm not sure how that is calculated.
 
I didn't realise just how far ahead of the PS3 version the 360 was in terms of performance. Especially in the shootouts.

When things get hectic the 360 stays far more solid, and doesn't tank down to 20 as easily.
 
I've finished the PS3 version back in the day... I didn't find it as infuriating... but it was noticable. On PS4 now, it's quite a lot better, no question. It was still playable, though.
 
Very interesting Far Cry 4 console & PC framerate test done by NX Gamer (youtube).


The guy has tools to determinate the framerates of both consoles (and obviously PC). In summary:

- Most drops probably occur because of streamed loading of assets, and are present on 3 versions.

Except the opening sequence which is an isolated case, the game performs in fact better on PS4, notably when driving fast where the XB1 can have ~20fps drops.

jo76Ikf.png


- God rays were present on the unpatched PS4 game and has being removed in the patch, not because of performance reason, maybe because it's some nvidia stuff. But those god rays gave the game a washed out appearance so it could also be the reason IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top