Call of Duty and Battlefield are higher-res on PS4 than Xbox One
Initial reports pegged PlayStation 4 as more powerful than Xbox One. But, will the differences between the two consoles make much a difference? Apparently, two big multiplatform games both run at a higher resolution on PS4 than on Xbox One: Call of Duty and Battlefield.
Initial reports pegged PlayStation 4 as more powerful than Xbox One. But, will the differences between the two consoles make much a difference? Apparently, two big multiplatform games both run at a higher resolution on PS4 than on Xbox One: Call of Duty and Battlefield.
"Wanted to confirm that for Xbox One we're 1080p upscaled from 720p. And, we're native 1080p on PS4," Infinity Ward's Mark Rubin said on Twitter, confirming rumors that were bubbling online. "We optimized each console to hit 60 FPS and the game looks great on both."
Digital Foundry also had a chance to take a look at both Xbox One and PlayStation 4 versions of Battlefield 4. Once again, the Xbox One version runs at 720p, while PS4 runs at 1600x900, giving it about 50 percent more pixels.
It does appear PS4 has the edge in terms of power, but will the difference between 720p and 1080p sway the average gamer? Or, will customers look at the price tag, for which PS4 still holds the advantage against Microsoft?
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Call of Duty and Battlefield are higher-res on PS4 than Xbox One.
Initial reports pegged PlayStation 4 as more powerful than Xbox One. But, will the differences between the two consoles make much a difference? Apparently, two big multiplatform games both run at a higher resolution on PS4 than on Xbox One: Call of Duty and Battlefield.-
Haha, kudos Shacknews for waiting for confirmation. Most other websites shot their load at the first rumor.
-
Still don't understand why MS chose to go with ESRAM instead of beefier hardware. From what I've heard, the ESRAM is expensive and, at least until devs have more time with it, more difficult to code for.
I'm sure over time we'll begin to see the gap get smaller and smaller, but out of the gate MS has it's work cut out for it.-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Awwww sheeit. lol
-
I was wondering how much difference this would make so I did a comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/47024
While the difference between a 1080p and 720p movie is massive, Ghosts doesn't actually have enough detail to make a huge difference. There is a significant difference in the visual quality of the screenshot in areas with detailed textures (the thing on his head, the strap on his shoulder, the material in his pants, the wall with the exit sign etc). However, in other areas there isn't enough detail in the textures that the resolution matters that much.
That said, Ghosts isn't exactly a next-gen title and the graphics are pretty poor. I think where the Xbox One will really suffer is with real next gen games because it simply won't have the horsepower. If it has to render Ghosts at 720p what will happen with truly next-gen games with demanding graphics?-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
there's no indication that the PS4 games at 1080p (native or upscaled) get to just be the same as the Xbox One version but with higher resolution. There's finite power availabled and that resolution increase comes with a loss in other areas of visual fidelity if you look at the comparisons between the two. In any case, the truly next gen games will be better optimized on both systems as time goes on, same as always.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Yea but display resolution is far more important. Higher display resolution will easily improve the texture quality and look even for current gen games when bumped from 720p to 1080p.
-
-
You have no clue what you are talking about stop plz. Current gen consoles would hugely benefit first from higher render resolution before adding higher resolution textures. BOTH of those require more video memory.
-
-
Yeah... no. That's completely wrong. I think your average person can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. But if you double the size of the textures in a game... that will very obviously increase the quality. If somebody's face goes from a blury mess to a clear image of a face... everybody can tell the difference. Once you are 720p and above, I think texture quality is definitely more important if they had to choose between the two.
-
Example to back up your point: I recently bought Condemned for the PC, and have it running at my monitor's native resolution (1440x900), and everything is turned all the way up. And yet, the textures are muddy as hell, and it looks a bit like ass. I don't actually have a problem with it, because I've been playing for years, and I remember games that look like that, even having a fondness for the style. I also really like the relatively blocky style of 3D from the early-2000's, late-90's, but I can understand people who can't stand it these days.
-
I can't believe this ignorance where do your read this stuff? It's truly astounding. You double the texture detail you NOT going to see it because there isn't enough pixels being rendered to even SHOW IT. 720 is already a huge limiting factor for current gen consoles games here is dark souls at 720 and 1080 with zero change in textures. These are scaled perfectly like they would be on your tv and how it would look between the 2 resolutions. Uncompressed as well.
720p >http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7391/10587375763_ba0f32a97e_o.png
1080p >http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3685/10587375143_d3913351e1_o.png
This is a close up shot. Any out door or longer range details would even be more beneficial for high resolutions but even here you can see that 720p isn't even sufficient to show the details of current gen textures. Hell a 1080p is starting to be a limiting factor pc games because the textures are so high resolution.
-
The fallacy with your last statement is that if the monitor is native to the resolution you're running the game at, the textures WILL look better if given better resolution. Your examples are of upscaled 720p, but in proper context, it looks fine. I highly doubt any PC gamer is going to run their games at a lower resolution than their monitor allows, if they can avoid it. That would be silly.
-
You could create a similar effect by just increasing the internal render resolution effectively super sampling the image. Far better idea then wasting time developing better textures when they are already missing out on what they have crafted.
-
-
[deleted]
-
This isn't something I read, this is something I know through experience, and reading and logic. You are talking about three different things: texture resolution, screen resolution and scaling and mashing them together in a way which shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. The image degradation you are showing in your example above looks like it's mostly due from scaling an image from it's native resolution. The idea that texture resolution is directly related to screen resolution is also ridiculous. The only way the pixels in a texture have any relationship to screen resolution in a 3d scene would be if the camera was looking at a flat surface with a texture on it and the texture was matched perfectly pixel-per-pixel to the monitor. Which... is probably never going to happen. As soon as you tilt, rotate, zoom the object a bit, the resolution of the texture has no relationship to the resolution of the screen. You could have a 640x480 monitor and play a game with 8000x8000 textures and I guarantee you and swear on ghost of Lou Reed that game is going to look WAY better than the same game with the same screen with 320x320 textures. Higher resolution textures means more detail, which not only means the images wrapped around 3d objects look more crisp and easier to read... it also means the bump mapping, normal mapping, material passes are going to look that much better as well. The idea that you can't view a 720p texture unless you have a 720p screen is like... second grade logic. It makes NO sense.
-
I have presented evidence you have presented "feelings". Come back when you have sure fire visual proof. How is it worth the investment of developing higher resolution textures when they are NOT even being displayed close their true detail as they are.
-
3d modeling, 3d animation, texture design was my career for about 4 years before I switched networking. So it's more than just my "feelings". Besides, your images are not evidence because they are both the same size which means they were scaled by something and they are therefore inaccurate.
-
They were scaled directly by the game rendered by its internal res. No Photoshop used. No magical texture data is going to show up if it was not scaled. No information is lost and it 100% identical how it looks on your screen if you put it in full screen on 1080p display running 720p... maybe even better because of the correct scaling.
-
-
I alt tabbed out of my game and it looked the exact same as the photo. I even changed the game to not scale to 1080 at 720 and it looks even more blury then the photo.
-
-
-
-
Step 1. Install Deus Ex.
Step 2. Run the game at 640*480.
Step 3. Find a nice looking vista and capture an image of your screen.
Step 4. Install a high res texture pack made by fans.
Step 5. Run the game again this time with the high res texture pack.
Step 6. Find the same location in-game and screen capture again.
Step 7. Return here and show us your results.
Step 8. You better tell us that you see no difference between the two screenshots.
Step 9. Kill yourself.
Step 10. Profit! All proceeds go to the shack collective in advance of needy white elephanters.-
I love step 9
-
-
-
-
Of course you can't believe the ignorance. That is the surest sign of your own ignorance. High resolution textures EASILY make a puny display of only 640*480 pixels appear beautiful and detailed. At a point, higher absolute frame buffer is required to see the full detail of high res textures, but more detail even at a low frame buffer is obvious. Anyone who has played with a detail slider or swapped out original game textures with high res fan made textures knows this.
-
-
-
Look how wrong you are. Just look.
-
Show me your brilliance sir.
-
-
-
With perfect scaling and here is a comparison from 720p vs 1080p as a segmented view as it would be viewed on your screen. All settings are the same with no AA or other enhancements and no compression. So much texture detail lost.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3807/10584715104_9ed44ea0c2_o.png <720
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7410/10584659545_121c0ba829_o.png <1080-
Eh. My TV is native 720p, but allows overscaling to 1080p. That's what I do with my 360, because it smooths out the jaggies I get when I run it in 720p. And yeah, I suppose you have a point, but then again, not everybody has a full 1080p set. Also, these are launch titles. Remember what launch titles looked like on the 360 this past gen? Yeah. As devs get a better hang of the tech and development tools, the games will improve visually. This shit takes time.
-
Just the fact that those two images are the exact same size on the screen shows that this obviously is not a 1 to 1 comparison. If one image was rendered at 720 and we are seeing the actual pixels rendered, then the image should be smaller. Scaling an image, no matter how you do it, will always loose some quality.
-
-
-
Resolution doesn't have to increase every generation. The first 20 years of video games were at one resolution: 240p. Wasn't until the dreamcast that most games were rendered at 480p or 480i. The recent generation was mostly sub 720p games too (internal res of 540p, etc.). So if we're getting true 720p games now then we've actually improved.
-
revisit this post in 6 years and tell me if you still agree.
-
-
[deleted]
-
He needs more p's man.
-
-
-
-
no excuse! all these console companies are just slacking off!
-
-
-
Google it. SD TV's have always been capable of progressive scan at half resolution. It's the same refresh rate, and that's what all the old consoles (and arcade games) used.
-
It is nothing more complicated than skipping every other line when drawing 480 lines. Any crt can do it. This, incidentally, is the real reason that you see what people erroneously call "scan lines" on classic older games, it's the resultant black horizontal line between each coloured line of pixels. It was probably originally implemented more to save memory than any artistic concern, but the result looks great--on a CRT. On an LCD, not so much, and does have the effect of making the whole image appear to be much smaller than it really is.
-
-
-
-
-
Considering DICE and the CoD guys couldn't get their games to run at full 720p on the previous gen hardware, I'm not sure if these are the benchmarks we should be using for the next generation of consoles.
Xbox 360:
Call of Duty 3 = 1040x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Black Ops = 1040x608 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 = 880x720 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Battlefield 3 = 1280x704
PS3:
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Black Ops = 960x544 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 = 880x720 (dynamic? Instances of 832x624..., post-AA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Battlefield 3 = 1280x704 (MLAA) black bars
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241-
Yeah even the solitaire guys figured out how to run at 1080p last gen! Hell even the menus for both 360 and and PS3 ran at 1080p!
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
I love how defensive your posts are.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
I don't hear many people talking about wanting to get either of these games at launch for either system (yet we still get endless discussion on them). Personally I think COD looks bad on both systems and I think BF4 looks very good on both systems, but still getting it on PC instead.
-
-
hilarious that an unreleased console has already been leapfrogged by a mid-range PC. granted, they usually do need a couple of years to maximize code...is this the first time this is so apparent? ps3 and 360 still had some games about 6 months into release that had visuals PC couldn't match at the time.
-
[deleted]
-
-
maybe it was just exclusives that the pc didn't get. i was especially impressed by that tony hawk skateboard game because of the DOF.... something i had never really seen before on PC. even later on, AC1 was damn impressive...and i didn't really have anything to compare it to on PC...until it came out on PC later on...or did they come out at the same time?
-
-
-
-
-
