Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[steveOrino]

So differences are:
Higher quality shadows
Slightly better AF
Shader quality difference (SSS/AO)
Higher resolution frame buffer

I guess some things had to be axed for the resolution increase on the X1. I think its for the best because it gives better distance detail during gameplay.

The important thing is that they didn't sacrifice framerate during gameplay to do it which is wonderful because most developers seem to not give a shit.

 

[Nesh]

So differences are:
Higher quality shadows
Slightly better AF
Shader quality difference (SSS/AO)
Higher resolution frame buffer

I guess some things had to be axed for the resolution increase on the X1. I think its for the best because it gives better distance detail during gameplay.

The important thing is that they didn't sacrifice framerate during gameplay to do it which is wonderful because most developers seem to not give a shit.

What about the sky I wonder. The PS4 had some form of atmosphere simulation for GZ which was absent on the XB1 version.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/syst...metal-gear-has-atmosphere-simulatio-31093042/

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Performance Analysis: Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 beta on Xbox One
Faster and more stable than PS4, but what's the catch?

 

[Clukos]

Performance Analysis: Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 beta on Xbox One
Faster and more stable than PS4, but what's the catch?

Weird title for the article, faster would imply higher framerate but both run with a locked 60. More stable pretty much means it holds the 60 fps target. I don't get it

 

[BRiT]

Weird title for the article, faster would imply higher framerate but both run with a locked 60. More stable pretty much means it holds the 60 fps target. I don't get it

Its all in the tail end of the article... sony dips to 50fps, while ms has more stable 60fps but reduced texture clarity.

Comparatively, the vice-like grip on 60fps isn't quite so pronounced on PlayStation 4. Small dips in performance appear more frequently throughout the match, although the mild nature of these disruptions is unlikely to impact the experience for most players. Effects-heavy scenes are where Sony's console is at more of a disadvantage, with frame-rates hitting around the low 50s for short periods of time during gameplay, while the Xbox One version mostly delivers a locked and clean 60fps.

On the whole, from a performance perspective, the results from this beta phase look pretty straightforward. Both versions of Black Ops 3 perform well in the multiplayer component, providing responsive controls that are perfectly suited to the twitch-based shooting. However, Xbox One provides an increased level of stability to performance that comes with a price: image clarity isn't anywhere near as sharp as PS4, and there are gameplay ramifications because of this, just as there were in Advanced Warfare - only this time it's significantly harder to discern long-range detail.

 

[Shortbread]

I wonder how system taxing SP will be...

On balance, at this point in time, the PS4's mostly stable 60fps and native 1080p visuals look to provide the best overall experience - even though Xbox One has more solid performance overall. Given a relatively minor inconsistency in frame-rates as opposed to a constant resolution deficit, we'd take the former, putting the Sony platform in pole position. But we must remember that Black Ops 3 is still in development, and there is further time to tweak. To illustrate, last year saw Sledgehammer instigate a last-minute switch in Xbox One multiplayer from 1600x900 to 1360x1080 - just a two per cent boost in resolution, the presentation helped more by upscaling artefacts only manifesting on one axis. We're sure that Treyarch will be looking at its own range of options for adjusting the presentation, based on player feedback.

I wonder will Treyarch keep 1600x900 in place for the XB1 (solid 60fps performance)? Or go with the sub-1080pr presentation, with an obvious performance drop mostly matching PS4 frame-rate?

 

[Recop]

I wonder how system taxing SP will be...



I wonder will Treyarch keep 1600x900 in place for the XB1 (solid 60fps performance)? Or go with the sub-1080pr presentation, with an obvious performance drop mostly matching PS4 frame-rate?

It's just a Beta, so both versions might have better performances in the final version.

 

[Shortbread]

It's just a Beta, so both versions might have better performances in the final version.

No denying that.

DF wasn't kidding about the clarity differences... http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=176932535

 

[Billy Idol]

What is particular demanding in BO3? What makes it difficult to achieve 1080p@60Hz??

The beta featured the smallest maps ever!

 

[Shortbread]

What is particular demanding in BO3? What makes it difficult to achieve 1080p@60Hz??

The beta featured the smallest maps ever!

The AA sampling is more taxing this time around...

That's very much true. Both the X1 and PS4 versions of the Black Ops 3 beta used SMAA Filmic T2x.
Digitial Foundry misidentified it as FXAA, but you can easily try this on the PC beta - if you toggle between FXAA and SMAA Filmic T2x the difference is huge.

 

[AlNom]

I wonder how system taxing SP will be...

Press A to pay taxes.

 

[Shortbread]

Press A to pay taxes.

Oh you...

 

[djskribbles]

Weird title for the article, faster would imply higher framerate but both run with a locked 60. More stable pretty much means it holds the 60 fps target. I don't get it

XB1 is slightly more stable. The PS4 version had short and rare dips as low as the low 50s but it's mostly locked at 60fps.
If there were any dips in the beta, I certainly didn't notice them when I played on PS4. And there is plenty of time for Treyarch to clean it up for launch. Considering it was a beta, it was very solid IMO.

 

[Allandor]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dishonored-definitive-edition-face-off
AF is missing on PS4 (UE3 Engine?) else only 1080p / 30fps on both consoles. Are the 30fps because of the CPU limit of the older engine?

Don't know why DF prefers PS4 version, as they state that image quality is better on xbox one (AF) and also image quality is better on PS4 (almost no tearing on both but less on PS4).... well

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Don't know why DF prefers PS4 version, as they state that image quality is better on xbox one (AF) and also image quality is better on PS4 (almost no tearing on both but less on PS4).... well

"Slightly better image quality and a closer lock on to the target 30fps update." Obviously they felt the AF advantage for XB1 in some scenarios didn't offset the advantage PS4 had in other scenarios.

 

[Clukos]

This AF debacle is hilarious. Sony need to fix that asap, kinda glad i don't buy multiplats on Ps4

 

[Globalisateur]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dishonored-definitive-edition-face-off
AF is missing on PS4 (UE3 Engine?) else only 1080p / 30fps on both consoles. Are the 30fps because of the CPU limit of the older engine?

Don't know why DF prefers PS4 version, as they state that image quality is better on xbox one (AF) and also image quality is better on PS4 (almost no tearing on both but less on PS4).... well

Yes they have being a bit evasive about this (no hard minimum fps numbers and no "faster and more stable" subtitle) but apparently the XB1 drops quite regularly during special abilities, we can see a 24fps drop during one of those on the video at 1:34, the PS4 almost never does.

Mild tearing on the Xbox One appears, causing some light judder during combat and when performing special abilities - such as the blink move - while similar disruptions are practically non-existent on PS4.

 

[Shortbread]

This AF debacle is hilarious. Sony need to fix that asap, kinda glad i don't buy multiplats on Ps4

Why blame Sony (again), for something developer(s) forgot to implement?

 

[Clukos]

Why blame Sony (again), for something developer(s) forgot to implement?

If it was the case of one developer i would agree, almost 2 out of 3 multiplat releases have AF problems. It might be an easy fix but Sony need to step up and help those devs out.

 

[Lalaland]

If it was the case of one developer i would agree, almost 2 out of 3 multiplat releases have AF problems. It might be an easy fix but Sony need to step up and help those devs out.

And as multiple reports indicate they already have with additional documentation, AF is obvious if you care about image quality but crappy AF is one of the most common IQ problems across the board. Honestly given that most QA is about 'did you fall out of the world' and the obviously limited budget assigned to it I'd imagine AF is waaayyyy down the list of priorities for everyone involved, esp given the more prominent framerate issues on XB1 it wouldn't surprise me if most effort went there rarther than worrying about IQ issues on PS4.