PS4 'isn't quite as powerful as Epic was hoping for,' Digital Foundry reports
By comparing the first Unreal Engine 4 tech demo, running on a PC equipped with an Nvidia GTX 680, with the latest presentation running on a PlayStation. By analyzing the two, minute differences where the PS4 comes short can be found.
Although Epic Games publicly has high praise for PS4, the wizards at Digital Foundry have determined that maybe "the next generation of console hardware isn't quite as powerful as Epic was hoping for." How did they come to this conclusion? By comparing the first Unreal Engine 4 tech demo, running on a PC equipped with an Nvidia GTX 680, with the latest presentation running on a PlayStation. By analyzing the two, minute differences where the PS4 comes short can be found.
"The biggest casualty is the omission of real-time global illumination, which produced some really impressive lighting in the original presentation," Digital Foundry writes in their report. "GPU particles are fewer in number, depth of field has been significantly retooled and isn't quite as impactful on PS4, while object-based motion blur appears to have been removed. The flowing lava effect had real depth and texture to it in the original PC version - on PS4, it's significantly flatter."
While PlayStation fans will undoubtedly be disappointed in the analysis, Digital Foundry does note that the differences can be the result of the relative newness of PS4. "The DirectX 11 API is very mature while the PS4 tools and APIs are still in their initial stages of development--it's going to take time for devs to fully get to grips with the new hardware." Thankfully, being based in x86 should make development on PS4 mature much more quickly this time around.
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, PS4 'isn't quite as powerful as Epic was hoping for,' Digital Foundry reports.
By comparing the first Unreal Engine 4 tech demo, running on a PC equipped with an Nvidia GTX 680, with the latest presentation running on a PlayStation. By analyzing the two, minute differences where the PS4 comes short can be found.-
-
yeah wtf?
-
Damn, too slow.
-
-
-
Without Epic the 360 would have sucked since it was Epic's prodding which got MS to double the RAM from 256 to 512.
-
I can't imagine how much different things would have been in the 360 had launched with only 256MB. Night and day difference really.
-
We'd probably already have the 720?
-
And it would be less powerful than what Sony is putting out for the PS4, but probably still more powerful than the Wii U, so they'd be stuck in a similar position again.
What I meant though is how much the industry as a whole would be different if 256MB had been the bottom for so long, the PS4 would look like a monster system compared to the 360 then and the Wii wouldn't have looked so bad (although still pretty bad).
-
-
-
-
-
But the VP just commented that the PS4 was like the "world's best PC!"
-
-
On some of these digital foundry bits I can't see much difference either but this one just lept out at me, particularly the particle effects on the dudes face, the lighting differences, and that lava.
-
-
-
-
The lighting was really different in some scenes. Otherwise, very similar.
-
Did you look at the lava looking all glassy and flat vs. the PC version? Or how many more sparks there were on the close up of the dudes head? Or the snow flurry effect missing from the open door?
-
Yeah, sure, but the lighting was the one difference that mattered most. I don't get that excited about embers and snow flakes, but global lighting effects are really important.
-
The difference between http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PS4_003.png and http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PC_003.png
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PS4_005.png and
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PC_005.png
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PS4_004.png and
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PC_004.png
and http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PS4_002.png and
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/8/8/5/0/PC_002.png are pretty drastic on the particle effects and texturing fronts, albeit they're much harder to see in motion than these stills.-
-
PhysX is on the 360 and that uses PPC cpu's and AMD, the issue might be that Nvidia doesn't want to put PhysX on the newer consoles though if they actually are using PhysX at all in the first place. I would have to guess that it's the limits of the rendering power of the GPU though, at least in a rather unoptimized state compared to what we'll see down the line.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
more like they'll have a year or two reprieve from being held back
-
I agree, but do consider that it looks "not bad compared" to a 680 (kepler) which is coming up on end of life with Maxwell on the horizon. So think about this, the"next gen" console is almost equivalent to the PC technology that is already becoming outdated today.
And while you ponder that, realize that the life span of the PS4 could possibly be for another 7 years. PC gaming is going to be held back, again.-
Very true. PC usually means higher resolution and framerates, and not much else. Maybe one day it will change.
Far Cry 3 looks way better than on consoles, but it's so poorly optimized that it almost doesn't matter. Stuttering has killed the atmosphere in so many modern PC games.-
It also means higher resolution textures. This has really never changed, not ever, for all time. Not sure how you can see this and find Far Cry 3 looking way better on console. With the framebuffer resolution identical on your PC and your XBox or whatever, the PC textures will just blow the console's textures away. It's like saying "everything is better, but not much is better." Seriously.
-
Hahaha, whoops, meant to say it looks better on PC, but the stuttering holds it back.
-
-
-
-
-
-
You can easily tell that there are marked differences. Still both look great, but the PC version just looks like it has more depth.
-
-
Right now or when the PS4 is released?
-
-
Meh. So just install steam and run steambox on the tv with my current pc.
-
-
-
No the first PS4 dev kits had only 1.5GB of memory available for graphics:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1712366&postcount=111
(phil is a pretty well known developer on Beyond3D)
-
-
-
shady journalism...it makes it sound like Epic said that but Digital Foundry implied that by comparing the tech demos of PC and PS4? and then they go on and say oh hey maybe its cause Epic doesn't know how to optimize for PS4 yet
-
Yeah, very poorly worded. Wadupwidat?
-
-
-
They both looked awesome
-
-
THIS PERSON MAKES A PRETTY GOOD POINT
-
-
You'd think that instead of sitting back and whining like little bitches, they'd be a little more pro-active when developing their "next-gen" engines. But Epic has a habit of saying stupid, ill considered, bullshit that nobody gives a fuck about. They don't like Nintendo. Sony disappoints them. They've alienated the pc crowd and haven't given half a fuck about them since before Gears came out. Well, at least they still have MS's cock to slobber all over. Let's hope, for their sake, that people don't get tired of Gears sequels.
-
Most of these fancy FX that end up as bullet points for certain engine tech are barely noticeable to the vast majority of gamers. Right now, graphics are at a point where they are GOOD ENOUGH.
after I stop noticing "God rays' the quality of the story is still lingering. If that story and/or gameplay sucks, the best graphics on the planet will be long forgotten -
-
I've never owned a console, always been a PC player (my newest has GTX680, older PC has a GTX580). Nevertheless, I am impressed with the PS4's graphics on this UT4 engine demo - it looks pretty darned good, and way better than what I recollect from seeing a few friends' XBoxes. It would be interesting to have a 3-way comparison of PS4 vs upcoming Xbox vs PC.
