Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hard to draw any conclusion when the PS4 game pushes 56% more pixels than the XB1 game when PS4 GPU is 'only' ~40% more capable. It's logical that in GPU heavy tests the XB1 game would have some advantage (if we have learned anything from past multiplats).

What's really surprising is that the XB1 game apparently never has the advantage when scenes are CPU bottlenecked, considering the insane amount of theories I constantly read about "any bigger resolution would need a lot more CPU work because X", the fact that PS4 has reportedly less CPU cores available for games than XB1 (a fact that is most probably not true anymore since PS4 2.0 update, I pretty sure @sebbbi would know but probably NDA silenced about it), at a lower frequency even, it's really surprising that the PS4 (unsurprisingly) lags behind XB1 only in GPU bottle-necked alpha scenes.

Also this article is talking only about the Single player game in the conclusion, BF being a heavy MP game I think it's a first for DF not to talk at all about the main game mode, the MP mode, in the conclusion. It's a game where the single player is not really the real game.

And finally I think it would be wise to wait for more performance analysis from different sources before stating definitive conclusions about BF Hardline. We have already seen in the past a few articles where DF missed the point in their articles, for various reasons, notably with their Far Cry 4 article and it's now proven wrong conclusion.
 
Ops, second GB the frames average is better on Ps4 for Battlefield-Hardline.

gamingbolt
in terms of frame rate, the PS4 version most consistently hits 60 frames per second in both campaign and multiplayer. The Xbox One version sees more drops but the overall average is at 53 frames per second versus the PS4’s 57 frames average. Interestingly, frame rate drops happen more on large maps like Dust Bowl. Downtown saw a more consistent 60 FPS on the PS4 compared to the Xbox One but overall frame rate performance in both versions mirrors the beta closely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I guess the stupid ps4 file management system that can hamper performance can be used to prove a point if required.
 
Gaming Bolt's article here for those interested. I wonder if the performance is so variable that it's wholly inconsistent and entirely dependent on the interaction of the player. Of course, one of the sites could just be wrong. :yep2:
I think DF tried to be consistent with their frame analysis, so they chose single player in which their frame items can actually line up, and they can spot with reasonable certainty differences in what should be similar load. You don't get the same thing when you test multiplayer. I can't fault them for not using it as a comparison, but they should have tested it if they intend to be a buyers guide for players as multiplayer is a big part of the game.

But this tends to creep up a lot, they did insufficient testing for Diablo 3 as well. End game are T3+ rifts, with 4 players spamming abilities, that's a slide show for my PC at times. So I'm curious as to how well the consoles hold in that type of situation.

But wrt BF:Hardline and the comparison articles, the only thing we managed to pull from a technical point of view was how both consoles handled Alpha Blending. It's nice to know that theory is meeting application.
 
I think DF tried to be consistent with their frame analysis, so they chose single player in which their frame items can actually line up, and they can spot with reasonable certainty differences in what should be similar load.
I'm not apportioning blame, I'm just looking for an explanation.
 
Digital Foundry: Tech Analysis: Final Fantasy 15 Episode Duscae

As expected, it's immediately apparent that we're looking at a sub-1080p presentation here. We peg the PlayStation 4 version at 1600x900 while the Xbox One version turns in an even lower 1408x792. Both versions show plenty of aliasing in select conditions but, on the whole, the game's more natural environments appear surprisingly clean with a strong depth of field effect helping to keep shimmering at bay. Edge-smoothing is rather inconsistent, however, with certain elements lacking any sort of anti-aliasing coverage at all. There's no doubt that the game will benefit greatly from a bump up to full 1080p.
 
Very few of the articles have been written by Richard recently. There are several other writers at DF now.
Yep! But iirc the resolution doesn't matter poem was written by grandmaster himself:) he should instruct better his minions :D

Just kidding....
 
When did he state that resolution didn't matter?
I don't remember this and it would contradict his statement in the 'Resolutiongate' article:

While Digital Foundry has yet to see either next-gen version of Call of Duty, our experience with Battlefield 4 demonstrates that you can easily see the visual difference between them.
 
I don't disagree. I feel like dual GPU setups power are wasted on 200fps or 4K resolution. Would love to see the visual fidelity of a game put those resources towards lighting and shadows. It's still early into this generation, so it might be too early to for me to have the opinion of comrpomising resolution for more graphical fidelity. Right now I'm pretty impressed with the console exclusives and with some multi platform games like AC Unity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top