Like I said don't take my word for it, look back at the forum history. It's all well documented for all to see, what people really thought of visual differences and their importance then compared to today. I would love to understand what's changed to where what was unimportant before is now a deal breaker, maybe you can explain that to me.
*split* multiplatform console-world problems + Image Quality Debate
- Thread starter DrJay24
- Start date
Like I said don't take my word for it, look back at the forum history. It's all well documented for all to see, what people really thought of visual differences and their importance then compared to today. I would love to understand what's changed to where what was unimportant before is now a deal breaker, maybe you can explain that to me.
Pretty sure Daniel Kahneman has all the answers, if not in this book, then one of his others:
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
This is a double edged sword. The other group was exaggerating small difference from DF as a reason why the 360 was an obvious choice. Now we see a difference of 50%-100% more pixels and those same "forum warriors" are saying Joe Sixpack would never see the difference, just pay the $100 more for less performance. MS fans enjoyed the first half of last gen with smug smiles, why would you expect different from the Sony fans?
Which small differences? Frame rate? Texture quality? Resolution? Screen blur? Load times? Or in the case of past COD games on previous platforms, all of the above? The reason I can make posts like the above with relative impunity on this forum is because many of the old timers here know where they really stand, and that I could go into forum past and pick out some of their old posts to make that point.
I don't think a percentage metric is important because not everything carries the same weight. To make that point what matters more to you, 100% more resolution or 50% better frame rate? After a certain point resolution carries the least bang for the buck, something known to developers and proven quite regularly on this forum over the years. So to suddenly see people feign outrage over it is silly, even more so when looking at their past posts over the years.
Now if there were graphical differences or frame rate differences then sure. But for the first two years or so what you'll most likely see is the exact same pixels on both machines for the most part, with the xb1 drawing less of them on some games as needed. When things will get interesting is past year 2 or so when things have finally settled at the dev houses and launch madness is behind them. Esram should be a wash with gddr5, tools should be stable on both, and bottlenecks very similar on both given their overall similar designs. So you'll have a little extra cpu on the xb1 available but I don't think will be hugely relevant. On the other hand there will be a nice amount of extra gpu compute on the ps4 which might be relevant. That's when I wonder if we'll start seeing actual visible differences. By then pc gpu's will be far beyond consoles and the three primary game engines will fully take advantage of that. I'd start wondering then if some of those pc bonuses will trickle down to the ps4. If Microsoft is lucky then the only differences between games will be resolution, that's the best scenario for them because no one by and large will be able to see the difference. If new graphical features creep into ps4 versions then things will get more interesting...although even then one has to wonder if that extra gpu grunt is enough for typical people to notice. For all we know it may just result in games being mostly the same, but ps4 version has better water simulation, or stuff like that.
In any case I don't know why people are spooging outrage over COD Ghosts so much. I mean visually, resolution is the least of it's concerns!
Yes and most people won't know the difference and don't care...
As has been mentioned 720 vs 1080 is not that great of a difference to most people's eyes especially at a distance. Also most people aren't going to be comparing two games side by side. Lastly DVD is low bitrate MPEG2 at 480p not VC1 at 720p. If you compare a VC1 720p encoded movie played back on a good upscaling player the results would look good enough to 99% of people out there. To most people it would look like variations in different Blu-ray movies.
Last edited by a moderator:
snc
Veteran
And how will that happen(the same quality and resolution) if gpu in ps4 is simply much better(2x rops, 1.5x tmu and sp, gigabytes of ram with high bandwitch vs 32mb) ?
Bagel seed
Veteran
There are framerate differences as well. The DF BF4 comparison article points that out pretty clearly.
As ammo for forum warrior battling, ResolutionGate is without a doubt a legit point. Big or small differences, obviously it doesn't matter when it comes down to this aspect of system wars. That's just the nature of interwebs and fandom.
As for what the mainstream will or won't notice, I don't know.
As for people minimizing and downplaying it on a graphics tech enthusiasts forum, I wouldn't have the slightest clue why that happens. Well, maybe a small clue.
As ammo for forum warrior battling, ResolutionGate is without a doubt a legit point. Big or small differences, obviously it doesn't matter when it comes down to this aspect of system wars. That's just the nature of interwebs and fandom.
As for what the mainstream will or won't notice, I don't know.
As for people minimizing and downplaying it on a graphics tech enthusiasts forum, I wouldn't have the slightest clue why that happens. Well, maybe a small clue.
steveOrino
Regular
How so? its only 32 megs.
Not so much anymore, at least not in the console section of the B3D forums.
I mean...
Film comparison to real time graphics nonsense
Resolution doesn't matter, I can't tell!
"Quality of pixels"
Hopefully when the initial hype dies down more frequent rational discussion can occur.
720p vs 1080p
one has 2.25x the number of pixels of the other resolution, somethings not right, true I think everyone agrees the ps4 is more powerful but not *that* much more powerful, no doubt the reason will come out in time
WRT last generation, were there any games at all that ran
1280 x 720 on one platform and 854 x 480 on the other? (this is also a 2.25x difference)
one has 2.25x the number of pixels of the other resolution, somethings not right, true I think everyone agrees the ps4 is more powerful but not *that* much more powerful, no doubt the reason will come out in time
WRT last generation, were there any games at all that ran
1280 x 720 on one platform and 854 x 480 on the other? (this is also a 2.25x difference)
Rops probably won't matter much since I expect games will continue to drop resolution as the generation continues anyways, that's likely the only way you will see more rapid visual advancements on the consoles since they are still both relatively low spec all things considered. Ram bandwidth may not matter as that's the point of the esram design, they were averaging 150mb/s or something like that in their tests so that should be a wash. Good profiling tools will be key to maximizing esram, so people can run builds overnight and have the profiler make suggestions as to what ram gets moved where, when and how. Tmu's only matter if that's your bottleneck, that remains to be seen. Gpu alu's is the big standout here as to what may make the difference. What would have been more interesting to me for COD is not 720p vs 1080p, but running both at 720 and using the extra alu's for more stuff. We can't use exclusive games for comparison because there isn't enough of power difference to really have one exclusive game stand head and shoulders above another, especially when you factor in game genres, art styles, etc. We need a multi platform game that can be directly a/b'd to take the step of going with the same resolution and adding something visually new. I wouldn't really expect that for about 2 years or so.
Don't get caught up in numbers, cache's are supposed to be small, that's by design.
Quality of pixels is everything. If you don't think so then skip this generation and just play an N64 emulator at 1920x1080.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many examples of what most would call "in the noise" differences that when pointed out by DF became fodder for console wars. You must know this, you were present in such discussions for years.
Your subjective opinion on which metric is important is noted, I'm not sure why it is important. I see a bunch of people changing their tune on what performance is noticeable now that their console of choice is on the losing side. It is human nature, but we should stop calling the kettle black.
A 125% advantage in the number of pixels is massive. Even the PS3 didn't have that much of a deficit so it's hardly surprising that this has generated so much news, especially on such an old engine.
I don't see how Esram 'will be a wash with Gddr5' either. MS has some massive issues ahead, but looking at games like KZ:SF, they're going to have to push Kinect hard, because graphically they are likely to be a fair bit behind for the whole gen.
If XB one continues to have a lower framerates aswell, it will be an embarrassment to MS' engineering team.
I don't see how Esram 'will be a wash with Gddr5' either. MS has some massive issues ahead, but looking at games like KZ:SF, they're going to have to push Kinect hard, because graphically they are likely to be a fair bit behind for the whole gen.
If XB one continues to have a lower framerates aswell, it will be an embarrassment to MS' engineering team.
That's one game though, it would be like taking one game last gen that ran 30fps on one and 60fps on the other and extrapolating an entire generation based off that. I'm not a console gamer so I'm not following events in great detail, but are there many other multi platform games that are 720p on xb1 and 1080p on ps4? If there are then yeah there may be some concern there.
I'm going purely by their test numbers which suggested an average of 150mb/s or so. If that's true then it will be a wash. I'm a bit odd like that as I prefer to go by actual profiled data rather that forum posts. On that note I don't really go by exclusive games either, with exclusives I find everyone just sides with their political party and nothing new is really learned there. With any exclusive game I can predict to 95% accuracy exactly which posters here will side with which game, without even ever looking at said game.
You do realize that you had people back then nitpicking every little difference as a reason not to buy who today are acting like differences don't matter. Lets not pretend the hypocrisy is limited to Sony here.....
You do realize that you had people back then nitpicking every little difference as a reason not to buy who today are acting like differences don't matter. Lets not pretend the hypocrisy is limited to Sony here.....
Oh I'm not pretending that, and outside of gaming Sony gets picked on quite a bit like in a/v forums, video camera forums, etc. I'm just curious how something like resolution went from being largely unimportant to being the definitive metric. It seems quite unusual on it's own, and more so with threads like the resolution thread where people can't even tell without someone measuring resolution to begin with.
IMO most people who like playing video games are not very familiar with the technical terms that describe the various effects they see, for many resolution becomes a catch all phrase that covers everything that makes up a good image. I would imagine that often resolution is being used when we should actually be discussing texture quality for example. However that doesn't mean people can't look at images and see for themselves what they like better.
Ironically the black crush in DF samples was seen as an improvement whereas anyone actually technically familiar with what they are looking at would see it as worse. Probably music is one of the best examples of this, someone classically trained might hear something and hate it while the public hears it and thinks its great. Its all about the target audience.
snc
Veteran
How on Earth are you not aware that resolution is probably the single biggest metric gamers know anyhting about? Besides frame rate, it is probably the only thing they can speak about without sounding like IGN staff writers. Subtle stuff like AA solutions, AF, AO, etc. are just buzzwords, but everyone with half a brain know what resolution is. They know their TV is 1080P and PC gamers all know their native monitor resolution. Your sudden surprise that resolution is a known metric is more surprising. Gamers were nitpicking 540P, 600P, 640P, 704P, 720P, etc. all this last gen. Suddenly they don't understand that 1080P is higher than 720P?
