The Framerate Analysis Thread part 2

Dargakis said:
maybe you should try the ps3.
MLB09 and GT5, all 1080p60, and they look great too!
Click to expand...

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is rendering at 1280 x 1080p60 ingame, it's then horizontally scaled to 1920 x 1080p60 for video output. So it's not true 1080p.

But, yes, to be correct, you didn't mention a 'P' or 'Prologue' but only 'GT5' ;). So who knows about the full Gran Turismo 5. Maybe it will render at 1920 x 1080p60 natively. Who knows ;).

Furthermore it seems you forgot about wipEout HD. It's 1920 x 1080p60 ingame most of the time. But sometimes it drops to a lower resolution than 1920 x 1080p:

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=58
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wipeout's solution is pretty good. I love the game. CoD's devotion to 60hz has been drool inducing as well. And that's not even real HD.
 
user542745831 said:
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is rendering at 1280 x 1080p60 ingame, it's then horizontally scaled to 1920 x 1080p60 for video output. So it's not true 1080p.

But, yes, to be correct, you didn't mention a 'P' or 'Prologue' but only 'GT5' ;). So who knows about the full Gran Turismo 5. Maybe it will render at 1920 x 1080p60 natively. Who knows ;).

Furthermore it seems you forgot about wipEout HD. It's 1920 x 1080p60 ingame most of the time. But sometimes it drops to a lower resolution than 1920 x 1080p:

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=58
Click to expand...

correct! I forgot it. in wipeout it can change dynamically. and gt5:p is only 30 fps in replay. But MLB and GT5 show that great graphics, resolution and framerate is possible within this generation of consoles. (although those games have been years in the making to be fair)
 
Is MLB The Show really 1080p? Why would it default to 720p? Either way, this is the best looking sports game I've ever seen. :oops:
Some of the players don't look very similar to their real-life counterparts, but the visuals overall are excellent. Looking at replays and zooming in on uniforms, they are incredibly detailed. Animations, lighting and even the crowd looks great. Very clean looking game too. Only problem I saw, was that there are some collision issues once in a while.
 
Comparison up tomorrow for RE5. I've got the PS3 version and honestly, the first 3 minutes did not look promising and looked below 25Hz. The rest of the game had very few noticeable dips.

The 360 game does run at a more consistent frame rate. Too bad they didn't optimize the game as well as DMC4, which ironically had 60Hz cutscenes on the PS3.
 
DMC4 massively pared back the features of the Framework MT engine in order to run at 60fps. The engine is designed for 30fps.

Yes, I'm just polishing up the Eurogamer RE5 feature now. Frame rate is an issue throughout the game on PS3, especially in the mass zombie attacks.

The main issue with the frame rate is that 30fps is clearly divisable by the 60Hz output of the console. It looks smooth on Xbox 360. The PS3 game fluctuates at any given point, meaning that it's prone to variable judder.

I won't pre-empt myself too much though. Read the full thing later!
 
Ok, so it runs at 1920x1080p/no AA and 1280x720p/2xMSAA. Interesting that they chose to default to 720p. I'll see how it looks at 1080p when I get a chance to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
grandmaster said:
DMC4 massively pared back the features of the Framework MT engine in order to run at 60fps. The engine is designed for 30fps.

Yes, I'm just polishing up the Eurogamer RE5 feature now. Frame rate is an issue throughout the game on PS3, especially in the mass zombie attacks.

The main issue with the frame rate is that 30fps is clearly divisable by the 60Hz output of the console. It looks smooth on Xbox 360. The PS3 game fluctuates at any given point, meaning that it's prone to variable judder.

I won't pre-empt myself too much though. Read the full thing later!
Click to expand...

Fair enough ;) I didn't know that about Framework and DMC4 certainly looked great in addition to running and looking a hair better on the PS3. Anyway, despite the dips in RE5, they were never an issue gameplay-wise even on harder difficulties. They did bother me during areas of little activity where judder happened.

Looking forward to the feature since there are other differences between the two versions. There is an image quality discrepancy present as well.

EDIT: Great, so despite the improved frame rate over the demo, the same differences stand between the two final versions. DMC4's performance really gave me false hope that history will repeat itself.

Still unlike LP, the game is more than playable and there isn't a significant difference control response time-wise. Touch of disappointment indeed, considering the PS3 game's debut in Japan recently (better than RE4).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having read the EG and Digital Foundry articles and having played the demo on PS3, I must add (and this goes mostly to EG), that the "better gaming experience" is... well VERY subjective.

It might drop frames, yes, but it doesn't drop them so excessive, that playing the game suffers from it... Far from it. Well, I am not very subjective to variable framerates (having played PC and Amiga games for all my life basically^^), but still... I find the verdict to be highly biased. The difference is just negligible. I actually hate screentearing more than a lower framerate.

But since this actually is not the place to discuss this, I won't divulge into anything here.

I'd like to know, how many polys RE5 has. Especially the characters (and cutscene models). It sure does look good! Hopefully my copy arrives soon^^ It was sent out today^^
 
TheWretched said:
Having read the EG and Digital Foundry articles and having played the demo on PS3, I must add (and this goes mostly to EG), that the "better gaming experience" is... well VERY subjective.
Click to expand...

It is subjective - some people are driven absolutely nuts by visible tearing, but are happy with a stable image and the occasional frame skip. Others are the opposite, and don't seem to notice tearing but occasional frame skips do their heads in, in equal measure.

I don't think the articles are very clear on exactly how the output varies depending on the vsync setting - for example, one output is described as "essentially locked at 30fps" ... "despite some screen tear". If the actual torn frame percentages across a number of videos were included in this comparison (as they have been with pretty much every other analysed game) then it would be possible to ballpark what the words "essentially" and "some" mean in this context for ourselves.

Thinking out loud-taking instantaneous framerates out of a video with tearing, and computing what the resultant frame skips would have been had vsync been on, would be an interesting experiment. If that was possible then it might be the only way to directly compare framerates regardless of vsync setting?
 
I've explained my reasoning behind the 'game experience' comments many times before, and I think it's in this feature too. If people want to define their own parameters, then more power to them. However, as I've said, I think that smoother refresh rates and thus more visual feedback from your input make for a more satisfying game experience. Tearing can have a big impact on IQ, but the frame rate tests show that the actual amount of torn frames is minimal.

This is not to say that the PS3 game is unplayable or anything like that. Simply that the 360 version feels smoother and more responsive. Where the technical decisions Capcom has made benefit PS3 is in the cut-scenes, which are prone to much more tearing on 360, certainly in comparison with in-game. As control input is not an issue here, I think they work better on PS3.

I think what is worthwhile to point out is that these features *are* subjective but they do give you the data to make your own determinations. If you want to disagree with what I think, that's absolutely fine. But the bottom line is that EG asks me to include recommendations for those who own both consoles and that's what I do. In the case of RE5 I didn't find this particularly difficult.
 
Not in the short term. There may be an engine analysis similar to the Riddick and Killzone ones though and there you'd get the frame rate analysis 'for free'. I'm also keen on MGS4 engine analysis since it is a somewhat unique piece of technology (unique in being for a single game only).
 
catisfit said:
It is subjective - some people are driven absolutely nuts by visible tearing, but are happy with a stable image and the occasional frame skip. Others are the opposite, and don't seem to notice tearing but occasional frame skips do their heads in, in equal measure.

I don't think the articles are very clear on exactly how the output varies depending on the vsync setting - for example, one output is described as "essentially locked at 30fps" ... "despite some screen tear". If the actual torn frame percentages across a number of videos were included in this comparison (as they have been with pretty much every other analysed game) then it would be possible to ballpark what the words "essentially" and "some" mean in this context for ourselves.

Thinking out loud-taking instantaneous framerates out of a video with tearing, and computing what the resultant frame skips would have been had vsync been on, would be an interesting experiment. If that was possible then it might be the only way to directly compare framerates regardless of vsync setting?
Click to expand...

Well you know, V-sync have 2 side of a coin.

  • The Good>>>>>V-sync get rid of Screen Tearing
  • The Bad>>>>>>V-Sync also add Input Lag

Screen tearing will happen only if & only when the framerate get unstable, so it's better to leave it off when the game rarely drop below the target refresh rate for better response gameplay.
 
Probably a stupid question, but why isn't their an analysis of the MP portion of games is it because its hard to tell the difference between latency and frames dropping?
 
Mr Deap said:
Well you know, V-sync have 2 side of a coin.

  • The Good>>>>>V-sync get rid of Screen Tearing
  • The Bad>>>>>>V-Sync also add Input Lag

Screen tearing will happen only if & only when the framerate get unstable, so it's better to leave it off when the game rarely drop below the target refresh rate for better response gameplay.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the additional input lag at most less than a frame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shifty Geezer
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
138 139 140
Replies
3K
Views
246K
Boss
B
L
ARM based Game Consoles on the way?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
8K
Lurkmass
L
R
State of GDeflate *spawn
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Remij
R
BRiT
  • Locked
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
252 253 254
Replies
5K
Views
534K
chris1515
C
G
Nvidia G-Assist
Replies
2
Views
1K
Davros
D
Back
Top