Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps

[GotBored]

So the PS4 doubles its FPS. Is it or its users gonna get a prize or something? :laugh: 

 

I think that is the prize.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Again, why?  The vast majority of people that will buy consoles and play these games don't care about those numbers so long as it looks nice and is a good game. Doesn't make sense from a business perspective to expend resources trying to go all out when the group of people that will really appreciate it is so tiny.

 

You do realize that a decent sized chunk of the developers working on any given title work solely with graphics/rendering? Point being resources are already spent/get spent/need to get spent on those developers, and in regards to that part of the title. It's not like it's an area to cut back in. 

 

It's also not like graphics play a part in review scores and have done so since the age of time with gaming  :rolleyes: Heck many reviews have score discrepancies based on graphics alone - See a lot of the early PS3 reviews, Bayonetta is a fairly large recent title that comes to mind. What a weak and reoccurring argument from you to say "no one cares about it move on".

[Jarrichvdv]

Hello,

Why is anyone talking about this? Why isnt anyone talking about the game?

Just the thread title itself...

So the PS4 doubles its FPS. Is it or its users gonna get a prize or something? :laugh: Im glad Sony did a great job with the PS4; MS beat them in the previous gen so now its Sony's turn :)

Come on, its just getting silly.

It's just a vocal minority who talks about this non-important crap.

[riahc3]

Hello,

I think that is the prize.

I guess that changes everything...again?

It's not like graphics play a part in review scores and have done so since the age of time with gaming  :rolleyes: Heck many reviews have score discrepancies based on graphics alone - See a lot of the early PS3 reviews. What a weak and reoccurring argument from you to say "no one cares about it move on".

Reviews are like a *******; Everyone has one and most of them stink :laugh:

And the general consumer doesnt really care if it looks better or worst. They just want to play the game :)

I would play TR because I like the game and Im a fan of the series (and of course of Lara). Where would I play it? I could care less.

It's just a vocal minority who talks about this non-important crap.

Its just that "vocal minority" over and over that appears in the mini-spy with something about console a vs console b. This is WAY worst than any Windows 8 fiasco.

People need to stop worrying about consoles and play games. Thats what being a gamer is :)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Hello,

I guess that changes everything...again?

Reviews are like a *******; Everyone has one and most of them stink :laugh:

And the general consumer doesnt really take if it looks better or worst. They just want to play the game :)

I would play TR because I like the game and Im a fan of the series (and of course of Lara). Where would I play it? I could care less.

 

Is this something that is exclusive to our industry then? All throughout growing up I've witnessed comparisons and arguments about what mobile phone is bigger/faster/better, what car can get to 60MPH 0.5 seconds quicker than the other, what brand of football boots (and I mean "soccer" here) aid in hitting better set pieces, what music band plays heavier metal, and the list goes on.

 

The general consumer is simply a much loved piece in argument as it allows you to paint the whole industry with a big fat brush in align with your opinion. Your opinion is not what's wrong, its incorrectly branding everyone as a "general consumer". Especially on messageboard where the people taking part are anything but general consumers.

[JonnyLH]

I'd love to see the technical breakdown in which parts of the engine it's actually waiting on for longer. Whether its CPU, or GPU even GPGPU with TressFX.

 

I'm going to make a shout and say the FPS difference mostly lies in the final stage of putting the pixels on screen with the ROPs and how they've structured the memory. Very doubtful that the game will exceed DDRs memory BW.

 

Although, this is to be as of expected with a system which simply has more silicon space for the GPU. Whereas the last generation and Ironmans very correct post, that gap won't be apparent this generation because of the same core architectures it runs on.

[riahc3]

Is this something that is exclusive to our industry then? All throughout growing up I've witnessed comparisons and arguments about what mobile phone is bigger/faster/better, what car can get to 60MPH 0.5 seconds quicker than the other, what brand of football boots (and I mean "soccer" here) aid in hitting better set pieces, what music band plays heavier metal, and the list goes on.

The mobile phone that is biggest, fastest ,better is the one that makes phones calls and suits your needs. Doesnt matter how fast a car is because there are speed limits and most people cannot afford F1 cars. The boots dont matter, its the football player. Music band plays "heavier" metal? :laugh: Are your serious?

We have lost gamers and now are moving to just graphic ######. Sad times for gaming :no: Zero innovation, just ###### (more on the developers than the users, because I cannot call them gamers)

I think Im pretty done with this thread not because of anger or because my opinion is right or wrong...its just sad that in 2014 games are related on how they look, not how they are. Typical man mentally when he focuses on the juggs instead of the personality.

Oh well, thats life I guess. Enjoy your graphic textures, ######. We will enjoy good games, wont we gamers?

(Disclaimer: I said ###### as in a way to say people that love something. Im not actually calling anyone a acutal ###### nor am I saying it in a disrespectful manner. I think everyone has a legal opinion and right to like what they want. Dont wanna get misinterpreted and get a warning :) )

[spenser.d]

You do realize that a decent sized chunk of the developers working on any given title work solely with graphics/rendering? Point being resources are already spent/get spent/need to get spent on those developers, and in regards to that part of the title. It's not like it's an area to cut back in.

It's also not like graphics play a part in review scores and have done so since the age of time with gaming :rolleyes: Heck many reviews have score discrepancies based on graphics alone - See a lot of the early PS3 reviews, Bayonetta is a fairly large recent title that comes to mind. What a weak and reoccurring argument from you to say "no one cares about it move on".

Reviews don't mean ###### if the sales numbers don't back them up, and they typically haven't when it comes to these numbers. You've been spewing this line of nonsense for over eight years despite there being no evidence to back up the notion that these numbers mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

[Skiver Veteran]

Is this something that is exclusive to our industry then? All throughout growing up I've witnessed comparisons and arguments about what mobile phone is bigger/faster/better, what car can get to 60MPH 0.5 seconds quicker than the other, what brand of football boots (and I mean "soccer" here) aid in hitting better set pieces, what music band plays heavier metal, and the list goes on.

 

The general consumer is simply a much loved piece in argument as it allows you to paint the whole industry with a big fat brush in align with your opinion. Your opinion is not what's wrong, its incorrectly branding everyone as a "general consumer". Especially on messageboard where the people taking part are anything but general consumers.

I agree and disagree slightly...

I don't deny that achieving 60fps/1080p is something I wish the XB1 could do as frequently as the PS4 is, it is something that Sony and all the 3rd party devs have done very well. However, had I have known that this was going to happen, I would have still chosen the XB1 despite its lack in this area because of the games. I prefer Forza to Gran Turismo, Halo to Killzone and GoW over things like uncharted, it's just that simple.

So yes, in most cases - bigger, faster and stronger etc is a good thing, I just don't think in this case it's as big a difference as it would be to some of the examples you perhaps gave. 

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I am not sure why people feel that gameplay and graphics cannot be talked about together. That one somehow dismisses the other.
It goes without saying gameplay trumps graphics. Any true gamer knows that gameplay is what makes the game good.
With that said, why she would also not expect the best graphics as well?
 

Also a common defense/argument I see is the One has untapped power. This is true, no doubt. However can the same thing not also be said about the PS4? Or is the overall consensus and belief that developers have somehow already figured out all of the power and capabilities of one system but not the other?

 

And if the defense / argument is somehow "it is only a minority who cares about this," well the minority must be large enough that Microsoft's own VP Phil Harrison deems it necessary to discuss the fact when a game is capable of 1080p / 60 FPS...

 

And I think we have that, I think from a game like Forza 5 - beautiful, stunning game 1080p, 60fps - you can see the performance of the machine on the screen for you to enjoy and luxuriate in, and now do that mental extrapolation and start thinking about what games are going to look like one, three, five or seven years from now. That's really exciting.

 

 

So if no one really cares about it, or it is not important, why is the VP of Microsoft making sure people know about the fact Forza 5 is in fact 1080p / 60fps?

The answer is an incredibly simple one and that is a rhetorical question. Harrison makes it a point to let it be known that Forza 5 is capable of 1080p / 60 fps because it does matter. To say it does not matter and no one cares is simply just crazy talk imho. 

A higher resolution along with 60 fps makes for a better overall experience. This is a fact.
It does not mean a great experience cannot be had if a game is in fact neither of those specifications. No one is saying otherwise. Hell, some of my favorite games of 2013 were not even 720p, but that does not dismiss the fact when a game is both, it creates the better overall experience as the visuals are that much better.

 

So really if it is your opinion none of this matters at the end of the day, you are entitled to that opinion. But to take it one step further and say it is irrelevant to everyone and it is stupid to even discuss such details, that goes against logic.

 

1080p / 60 fps is a selling point. Both companies feel it is a worthwhile bullet point to discuss when talking about their first party AAA releases. So either they are dead wrong and you are all right and / or maybe, just maybe, it is something as consumers we should expect out of this machines, and when they do not reach this goal, we should be slightly disappointed and expect more.

[AeonicVision]

I really don't think that's true when you consider last generation.  The PS3's games at launch looked very poor compared to the 360's.

 

By the end of the generation they were looking on par with each other.

 

That being said I don't think that will be the case this generation.  While I do think the gap will get smaller, the PS4 will probably keep the lead in graphics performance.  On the other hand, I think the Xbox will leap ahead in functionality.  I would probably prefer 720@60 than 1080@30 but it's a marketing game and people make big deals about numbers.  I can't see the difference when I'm playing between 720 and 1080.

This is not a fair comparison for a number of reasons.  Primarily, the reason why the early PS3 games suffered was due to the complicated nature of the PS3's architecture.  Developers had to learn the ins and outs of the PS3 before they could tap it's full potential due to the weirdness that was the Cell Processor.

 

In this case, the Xbox One and PS4 use an extremely similar core CPU and GPU, but the PS4 just straight-up has more resources.  Yes, through optimization the Xbox One will improve over time, but the PS4 will always have an insurmountable lead and will always excel unless a developer intentionally denies a game the extra resources the PS4 provides.  Your comparison is unjust because the Xbox One is not struggling due to a lack of familiarity, it just does not have the same horsepower.  The two consoles will not even out over time, although the overall quality of games on both systems will continue to rise.

[LaP]

If there was a choice, I've always preferred 720p @ 60 fps than 1080p @ 30 fps but that's just me.

 

Probably because I've always been a PC gamer, so 60 fps is the usual and long-standing holy grail for us :)

You run your PC games at non-native resolution ???

All PC gamers i know aim for native resolution first. That is the most important thing. No level of hardware upscaling will save you from a non-native res. It will always look blurry enough to be distracting if you are not running at native res. At the end of last gen the blurry look of non-native games is what brought me back to PC gaming (with the 360 controller and later Steam big picture).

The first time i run a PC game i select the native res of my monitor (which happens to be my TV screen). So i select 1080p. Then i play with the quality of gfx to achieve a constant minimum of 40 fps (which means my average fps will be around 50 to 60fps to keep the minimum over 40). I try to keep the texture quality and the drawing distance at the maximum. I reduce things like shadow and lighting first.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The mobile phone that is biggest, fastest ,better is the one that makes phones calls and suits your needs. Doesnt matter how fast a car is because there are speed limits and most people cannot afford F1 cars. The boots dont matter, its the football player. Music band plays "heavier" metal? :laugh: Are your serious?

We have lost gamers and now are moving to just graphic ######. Sad times for gaming :no: Zero innovation, just ###### (more on the developers than the users, because I cannot call them gamers)

I think Im pretty done with this thread not because of anger or because my opinion is right or wrong...its just sad that in 2014 games are related on how they look, not how they are. Typical man mentally when he focuses on the juggs instead of the personality.

Oh well, thats life I guess. Enjoy your graphic textures, ######. We will enjoy good games, wont we gamers?

(Disclaimer: I said ###### as in a way to say people that love something. Im not actually calling anyone a acutal ###### nor am I saying it in a disrespectful manner. I think everyone has a legal opinion and right to like what they want. Dont wanna get misinterpreted and get a warning :) )

Thanks for dissecting my examples and making me feel unhip lol, but you really should get the point behind them rather than try to dissemble them as "nonsense". I know they weren't the best worded, but the sentiment is true, humans compare and debate just about everything. Some things could statistically get rated less important than others, but in our industry technical performance certainly is not bottom of the pile. It just isnt, or we wouldnt have large parts of gaming budgets be assigned to them/have top dogs at PR/marketing screaming about resolution and FPS. One of Microsofts main ad campaigns for Forza was 1080p/60FPS on an image with a skidmark.

I'd like to think box art work or game name even would be less important than how something runs, but you know I guess a box art of a bald space marine does sell well!

MS chose the innards of their box, and people have technical expectations of a new generation like they have every generation. Nintendo often catch flak for example on skimping on HD, more so with the Wii, but the Wii U innards were always going to trail the PS4/One as well. MS may catch flak for their hardware decisions and at the end of the day, people sat down and chose the path they did and felt it right, maybe it is, but you can't not expect any sort of scrutiny when some people ask MS why aren't we level on par here with the competition? Especially after MN and Pennellos responses have clearly been its blown out of proportion and some other quote about 30%/dieing on a sword. MS stir the hornets nest with remarks like that, gamers remember them, and when results go like this with Tomb Raider comparisons are drawn yet once more.

[LaP]

I really don't think that's true when you consider last generation.  The PS3's games at launch looked very poor compared to the 360's.

 

By the end of the generation they were looking on par with each other.

 

That being said I don't think that will be the case this generation.  While I do think the gap will get smaller, the PS4 will probably keep the lead in graphics performance.  On the other hand, I think the Xbox will leap ahead in functionality.  I would probably prefer 720@60 than 1080@30 but it's a marketing game and people make big deals about numbers.  I can't see the difference when I'm playing between 720 and 1080.

It's mostly because games were made for XBox 360 and then ported to PS3. Don't forget the PS3 was released 1 year after the 360. Devs already knew the 360. Games were already optimized for the 360.

This time it's different. Both are released at the same time with the same arch. And it is more than likely current multiplatform games are still made for the 360 which dev tools are closer to the One dev tools than the PS4.

[BajiRav]

The Xbox One has a weaker GPU and on top of that it runs three separate OS"s and uses 10% of its resources for the Kinect alone. It also reserves memory for snap features and runs Windows 8 which isn't a light OS.

 

No one should really be surprised that the PS4 can run games faster and/or can have better graphics, we've know hardware specs for quite a while.

 

I think you should stop talking about Windows 8 and/or OSs in general. It is not your strongest point.

 

Your post really just reinforces what I wrote in mine. The games will look better on both consoles with better optimization but will eventually hit a point where they will hit a peak set by the hardware specs. Also the PS3 was released a year after the 360, 360 had a years lead for optimization. They were both released at the same time this gen and PS4 already has faster and/or better graphics. Sony (PS3) shaved off a year and caught up to the graphics performance (and in my opinion exceeded, example games like Last of Us) of the Xbox (360) so imagine what will happen now that it was released at the same time, is already better and has a higher specs cap even before the Xbox One reserved compute power for Kinect, OS's and features like Snap?

 

As for the 60fps thing, this thread is about Tomb Raider running at 60fps on the PS4 and only 30fps on the Xbox One.

Last of US exceeded what? Didn't it use pre-rendered cut scenes or something?

 

I'd love to see the technical breakdown in which parts of the engine it's actually waiting on for longer. Whether its CPU, or GPU even GPGPU with TressFX.

 

I'm going to make a shout and say the FPS difference mostly lies in the final stage of putting the pixels on screen with the ROPs and how they've structured the memory. Very doubtful that the game will exceed DDRs memory BW.

 

Although, this is to be as of expected with a system which simply has more silicon space for the GPU. Whereas the last generation and Ironmans very correct post, that gap won't be apparent this generation because of the same core architectures it runs on.

I read on GAF that PS4 is 60FPS and below whereas XBO is 30FPS and above. Assuming both are same IQ wise, that seems to be GPU limitation.

 

This is not a fair comparison for a number of reasons.  Primarily, the reason why the early PS3 games suffered was due to the complicated nature of the PS3's architecture.  Developers had to learn the ins and outs of the PS3 before they could tap it's full potential due to the weirdness that was the Cell Processor.

 

In this case, the Xbox One and PS4 use an extremely similar core CPU and GPU, but the PS4 just straight-up has more resources.  Yes, through optimization the Xbox One will improve over time, but the PS4 will always have an insurmountable lead and will always excel unless a developer intentionally denies a game the extra resources the PS4 provides.  Your comparison is unjust because the Xbox One is not struggling due to a lack of familiarity, it just does not have the same horsepower.  The two consoles will not even out over time, although the overall quality of games on both systems will continue to rise.

XBO does not have a straight forward memory setup that PS4 has. Developers will have to learn that just as they learn to use it on Xbox 360.

 

If you want to excuse for PS3 with cell etc. then why discount the memory setup on XBO?

[JonnyLH]

I read on GAF that PS4 is 60FPS and below whereas XBO is 30FPS and above. Assuming both are same IQ wise, that seems to be GPU limitation.

Yeah, I do feel like people are blowing it out of proportion. The evidence does show that the XBO version is above 30 and the PS4 version is 60 and under. Hopefully these differences are squashed later on in the life cycle, but personally I'm not so sure.

 

Although, this doesn't mean by any means that the XBO version is a less of a game.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Last of US exceeded what? Didn't it use pre-rendered cut scenes or something?

All the cutscenes are using the native rendering engine, only change can be that akin to replay mode on Forza/GT where additional lighting effects can be added for example.

Only letting you know to answer your question. As much as it is up to a taste of opinion, The Last of Us was rated one of if not the best looking console game last gen, but that's never definitive when opinion exists.

You should play it :p

Edit: I've been confusing above, above I'm talking about Uncharted like switches in gameplay to game controlled situations. There are video cutscenes in The Last of Us as well. Those are pretty obviously video pre-rendered with in game assessts at a much higher LOD/resolution.

[BajiRav]

All the cutscenes are using the native rendering engine, only change can be that akin to replay mode on Forza/GT where additional lighting effects can be added for example.

Only letting you know to answer your question. As much as it is up to a taste of opinion, The Last of Us was rated one of if not the best looking console game last gen, but that's never definitive when opinion exists.

You should play it :p

Edit: I've been confusing above, above I'm talking about Uncharted like switches in gameplay to game controlled situations. There are video cutscenes in The Last of Us as well. Those are pretty obviously video pre-rendered with in game assessts at a much higher LOD/resolution.

Right, so I had seen some gameplay and I don't think it is the best looking game when you consider Xbox 360. It might be on PS3, I'll agree to that.

I will play it whenever it comes to Xbox 360 :p. I am not buying PS3 for playing one game especially when I generally avoid zombie stuff.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Right, so I had seen some gameplay and I don't think it is the best looking game when you consider Xbox 360. It might be on PS3, I'll agree to that.

I will play it whenever it comes to Xbox 360 :p. I am not buying PS3 for playing one game especially when I generally avoid zombie stuff.

 

They're not Zombies!!!  :rofl: Genuinely. Clickers are more terrifying than any Zombie!

 

But seriously, on my 50" Plasma it has to be one of the best looking console titles I've played. Plasma IMO help colours pop, but not many other titles I've played looked as good. Especially for variety in colour. The scene with the

giraffes

was eye candy!

 

I know DL is probably one of the most neutral chumps around here, ask him for his opinion on the graphics if mines is too shifty  :shiftyninja:

[BajiRav]

I know DL is probably one of the most neutral chumps around here, ask him for his opinion on the graphics if mines is too shifty  :shiftyninja:

where's the fun in that? :p

[KeR]

This is disappointing, I almost prefer it be 720p with 60fps. Really hope developers find ways to squeeze more juice from the system.

[KeR]

I am almost starting to feel buyers regret for getting the Xbox One instead the PS4. At least for now I suppose I get the better TV integration with the Xbox. 

 

I know stronger specs are not suppose to be the focus of Xbox so this kinda stuff doesn't really bother me too much but it's a bit early in the next gen to be getting limitations isn't it? I mean this is a last gen port. It's a bit disheartening to think the hardware is that weak.

[AeonicVision]

 

I think you should stop talking about Windows 8 and/or OSs in general. It is not your strongest point.

 

Last of US exceeded what? Didn't it use pre-rendered cut scenes or something?

 

I read on GAF that PS4 is 60FPS and below whereas XBO is 30FPS and above. Assuming both are same IQ wise, that seems to be GPU limitation.

 

XBO does not have a straight forward memory setup that PS4 has. Developers will have to learn that just as they learn to use it on Xbox 360.

 

If you want to excuse for PS3 with cell etc. then why discount the memory setup on XBO?

I don't want to excuse the PS3 for anything; game quality suffered as a result of the complicated Cell design before it was understood (which kept me from buying one for several years).

In this situation, Microsoft made a similar mistake, and made memory management more complicated to cut some costs (although arguably the Cell was just a strange decision beyond just being complicated).  Will developers learn how to cope with the XBO memory management?  Yes, but unlike the PS3 vs 360 where the hardware was equally capable (and the 360 was in may ways better designed), this generation the PS4 is both better designed (in terms of ease of development) and more capable.  

 

It seems apparent that the Xbox One might be optimized to achieve similar quality to the PS4 as we see it now, there's still a lot of naivet? that some type of software magic will make them 'equal' like last generation or 'cease to matter.'  The image/post I responded to initially implied that this'll be overcome in time, and while yes it may be in the sense that the Xbox One should/ought to ultimately run at 1080p@60FPS, the PS4 will always continue to be a step ahead unless Sony/developers utterly/intentionally drop the ball.  

 

It makes me very much wonder if this generation will last as long as the last if the disparity grows over time.  Or if Nintendo throws a wildcard in given the  weak sales of the Wii U.

[BajiRav]

I don't want to excuse the PS3 for anything; game quality suffered as a result of the complicated Cell design before it was understood (which kept me from buying one for several years).

In this situation, Microsoft made a similar mistake, and made memory management more complicated to cut some costs (although arguably the Cell was just a strange decision beyond just being complicated).  Will developers learn how to cope with the XBO memory management?  Yes, but unlike the PS3 vs 360 where the hardware was equally capable (and the 360 was in may ways better designed), this generation the PS4 is both better designed (in terms of ease of development) and more capable.  

 

It seems apparent that the Xbox One might be optimized to achieve similar quality to the PS4 as we see it now, there's still a lot of naivet? that some type of software magic will make them 'equal' like last generation or 'cease to matter.'  The image/post I responded to initially implied that this'll be overcome in time, and while yes it may be in the sense that the Xbox One should/ought to ultimately run at 1080p@60FPS, the PS4 will always continue to be a step ahead unless Sony/developers utterly/intentionally drop the ball.  

 

It makes me very much wonder if this generation will last as long as the last if the disparity grows over time.  Or if Nintendo throws a wildcard in given the  weak sales of the Wii U.

I am sorry I didn't mean it that way. I meant that if PS3 was held back because of its weird hardware setup, don't you think XBO is as well(compared to PS4)? If it ever matches PS4 or not, I don't know and I am not speculating on that here.

[Lord Method Man]

This is disappointing, I almost prefer it be 720p with 60fps. Really hope developers find ways to squeeze more juice from the system.

 

Its definitely better to have 720p/60 1080p/30. Temporal resolution is more important which is why it was completely backwards for them to target 1080p firm and then see what kind of framerate they could squeeze from there.