Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

Completely locked 60 fps on the current gen systems? That's pretty impressive considering the photorealistic visuals they are going for. The biggest issue is maybe the low precision FXAA employed, but it's not even that bad.

I hope DF does a comparison between MGSV and GZ to show how the engine advnaces in between the games.

 

Man the comments in that thread are brutal...

 

992 is a strange one... at least, there was a consistent 31/40, which should rule out either 3/4 (30/40 -> 960) or 4/5 (32/40 -> 1024). Strange thing.

 

For the life of me I can't think of any technically reason why the XBOX One version is running at 720P only given what is being pushed on screen (not much..). The game shares the exact same assets on all 4 platforms, only sports sub-par FXAA, low-res textures, poor implementation of AO (or no AO at all..can't figure out yet).

Looks like politics: Japanese developer favoring Japanese console which shouldn't hurt it's reputation given that it's only a demo...

 

Brutally honest? I consider this game a special case, the difference between the xb1 and ps4 version simply seems to big to be just down to hardware. But man, it's really a total and utterly brutal smack down.

 

Or, it can be just the hardware.

 

You sound bitter. How about those American politics? COD makes exclusive deal with MS and gets the 720P version of COD...

 

It is more likely that, as with some developers, they are having issues fitting their framebuffers in the 32mb ESRAM provided. I suspect that it will that some time before it becomes less of an issue with devs. At least until the tools mature, and enough best practice emerge. Of course the PS4 also has more resources so that will always be a factor.

 

Twice the resolution and atmospheric effects on top .

 

Then why does the 360 version run better than the PS3 version?

 

Without the audio its only like a 15gb game which isnt a lot these days.
could the difference in res between the 2 consoles not be down to cpu or gpu power but the fact xb1's gpu doesnt have the bandwidth a game with alot of high res textures at a high resolution ?

 

I expect at least 900P for the Xbox One version of Phantom Pain, I guess they were time limited to adapt the engine to the Xbox One ESRAM.

 

I have found one technicall reason - 16 rops

 

I really dont see the 16 rops being the limiting factor. The 32 rops in the Ps4 are overkill.
Being that there are a few games running 1080p 60 fps on the X1 it seems more likely an issue with the esram. In the Df interview with Ms it was stated that 16 rops were chosen to match the systems available bandwidth. If you were to add 16 more Rops to the X1's gpu it still most likely would have trouble with 1080p 60fps because of bandwidth.

 

Agreed. Not to mention ROPs only come in powers of 2. You are either just below the requirement for ROPS, or well overkill.

If Xbox One was slightly under, the GPU clock boost may have put them just over.

I'm not sure how demanding Left 4 Dead is on fill rate, but if 4870 with 16 ROPS can do 2560x1600 with 4x AA at 62.8fps, I'm inclined to believe there are enough ROPS to do 1080p @ 60fps. The question is how much are modern engines taxing fill rate, is it more or less the same, or has the landscape changed.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2856/12

Edit for comparison sakes.
Radeon 4870
16 ROP
Core speed: 750MHz

12.0 Gigapixels

vs

Xbox One

12.8 Gigapixels.

 

We have some armchair developers in here I see.

 

lol, is it not true? I will fully admit, I am arm chairing this

 

What the heck happened to this thread?

 

The thing is the only 1080P 60 fps games on the XB1 aren't using a deferred renderer, any game that does seems to have to drop resolution.

 

I agree, deferrend rendering + 1080p and 16 rops are not sufficient