PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I have zero tolerance for trolling tonight so quit it.

[vcfan]

See my reply to theyarecomingforyou. What industry standard aspect ratio would cause a 720p image to have borders big enough for no upscaling to occur naturally? Artificially adding borders of your own size isn't applicable here as that is not what's happening, so why compare The Order to other made up scenarios where manually adding borders has to be done? That certainly doesn't prove a point other than showing you're struggling to grasp why changing the aspect ratio even adds borders in the first place.

If a game is running in 16:9 and runs at less than 1080p, it is purely due to technical reasons. There is no artistic element involved in deciding to upscale, and to add black bars to a game that runs in 16:9 is a man made process that again would have to be purely technical as you can't produce bars with a 16:9 resolution naturally (unless you run on a monitor/TV that isn't running in 16:9).

 

Running a game in 2.40:1 is an artistic choice, it's the widescreen cinema standard and will induce black bars on any TV/Monitor running in 16:9. If the viewing area wasn't 1920x800 then it would be for technical reasons, and there would be upscaling, as this is the limit for displaying in this ratio.

 

If anyone uses their head, I don't think a developer is going to go out of the way to create a whole game based around 2.40:1 simply to avoid having to scale back on 4xMSAA to hit 1920x1080 in 16:9. I mean, seriously? Games just do lower resolutions and upscale as they always have if there's technical issues, I certainly didn't see a trend of games running in 2.40:1 on the PS3 for technical reasons.....

I think I would agree with you if you just say its rendering at the same pixel weight or pixel density as 1080p,not rendering at 1080p. I dont think it would be right to say a game rendering at an artistic and industry standard aspect ratio of 4:3 is considered to be rendering at 1080p even if the output is and has black bars.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think I would agree with you if you just say its rendering at the same pixel weight or pixel density as 1080p,not rendering at 1080p. I dont think it would be right to say a game rendering at an artistic and industry standard aspect ratio of 4:3 is considered to be rendering at 1080p even if the output is and has black bars.

 

Yeah sure, it's factual to say the game is 1920x800, I think where arguments spout is around the misconception that the game is sub-HD or upscaled. It's merely choosing an aspect ratio that while removing some of the technical sweating associated with 1920x1080, it's a decision that's made based around artistic choices, not technical compromises. If the game was struggling to run at 1920x1080, going to 1920x800 and then slapping 4xMSAA doesn't exactly scream we were struggling. 4xMSAA isn't in any other games I don't think.

 

Big GIF, but this is the only real footage we have of the game being played prior to this months embargo

 

[trooper11]

Yeah sure, it's factual to say the game is 1920x800, I think where arguments spout is around the misconception that the game is sub-HD or upscaled. It's merely choosing an aspect ratio that while removing some of the technical sweating associated with 1920x1080, it's a decision that's made based around artistic choices, not technical compromises. If the game was struggling to run at 1920x1080, going to 1920x800 and then slapping 4xMSAA doesn't exactly scream we were struggling. 4xMSAA isn't in any other games I don't think.

 

 

 

So basically the game will be 1920x800, but not upscaled to 1920x1080.  Instead, it will receive black bars to fill out the rest of the space.

 

This is a case where a person really needs to know the context of the situation.  If you just tell them its 1920x800, some will have a silly reaction as if its terrible news.  If you then explain why they are doing that, it makes a lot more sense.

 

Resolution isn't everything.

 

Oh and thanks for that GIF.  That little tease seems to hint at a third person action game.  Of course there could be so much more, so we will see when the embargo lifts.  I was drawn in by the art style, so I'm eager for more.

[vcfan]

Yeah sure, it's factual to say the game is 1920x800, I think where arguments spout is around the misconception that the game is sub-HD or upscaled. It's merely choosing an aspect ratio that while removing some of the technical sweating associated with 1920x1080, it's a decision that's made based around artistic choices, not technical compromises.

I don't think I meant to say its not the same pixel density as 1080p,just that it renders the graphics portion at smaller than 1080p.

 

If the game was struggling to run at 1920x1080, going to 1920x800 and then slapping 4xMSAA doesn't exactly scream we were struggling. 4xMSAA isn't in any other games I don't think.

It depends. If the game was shader bound for 1080p but still had breathing room in the ROPs, going down to 1920x800 could allow the game to run better while allowing the use of 4xMSAA.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I don't think I meant to say its not the same pixel density as 1080p,just that it renders the graphics portion at smaller than 1080p.

 

It depends. If the game was shader bound for 1080p but still had breathing room in the ROPs, going down to 1920x800 could allow the game to run better while allowing the use of 4xMSAA.

 

Yeah it's all hypothetical unless the dev was to say this is how the game runs at 1920x1080.

 

I think with what the PS4 has done at 1080p so far though, it's safe to assume at 30FPS it could run a TPS like The Order. AC4 and inFamous Second Son are from a TPS perspective and they can both do 1080p @ 30FPS.

[trooper11]

Yeah it's all hypothetical unless the dev was to say this is how the game runs at 1920x1080.

 

I think with what the PS4 has done at 1080p so far though, it's safe to assume at 30FPS it could run a TPS like The Order. AC4 and inFamous Second Son are from a TPS perspective and they can both do 1080p @ 30FPS.

 

 

I don't know if I would hold up AC4 as a good example, but inFamous definitely shows off what is possible.

[vcfan]

Xbox One?s eSRAM Too Small to Output Games At 1080p But Will Catch up to PS4 ? Rebellion Games

Sniper Elite 3 senior producer Jean-Baptiste Bolcato talks about the challenges of developing on the Xbox One.

http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-ones-esram-too-small-to-output-games-at-1080p-but-will-catch-up-to-ps4-rebellion-games

?It was clearly a bit more complicated to extract the maximum power from the Xbox One when you?re trying to do that. I think eSRAM is easy to use. The only problem is?Part of the problem is that it?s just a little bit too small to output 1080p within that size. It?s such a small size within there that we can?t do everything in 1080p with that little buffer of super-fast RAM.

?It means you have to do it in chunks or using tricks, tiling it and so on. It?s a bit like the reverse of the PS3. PS3 was harder to program for than the Xbox 360. Now it seems like everything has reversed but it doesn?t mean it?s far less powerful ? it?s just a pain in the ass to start with. We are on fine ground now but the first few months were hell.?

They are releasing a new SDK that?s much faster and we will be comfortably running at 1080p on Xbox One. We were worried six months ago and we are not anymore, it?s got better and they are quite comparable machines.

?Yeah, I mean that?s probably why, well at least on paper, it?s a bit more powerful. But I think the Xbox One is gonna catch up. But definitely there?s this eSRAM. PS4 has 8GB and it?s almost as fast as eSRAM [bandwidth wise] but at the same time you can go a little bit further with it, because you don?t have this slower memory. That?s also why you don?t have that many games running in 1080p, because you have to make it smaller, for what you can fit into the eSRAM with the Xbox One.?

Despite the challenges, Rebellion Games are working closely with Microsoft and Sony while developing Sniper Elite 3. They are currently targeting 60fps for both the console versions.

Just as some of use suspected, the issue is mainly the management of the esram. Its too low level for developers. The new SDK is supposed to address that,and instead of developers managing all this stuff, im guessing there will be high level functions that will automate the use of these techniques like the shifting.

also,im assuming he's referring to resource allocation,that we heard was going to be free'd up soon.

The Xbox One is a bit more multimedia, a bit more hub-centric so its a bit more complex. There?s stuff you can and can?t do because it?s a sort of multimedia hub. PS4 doesn?t have that. PS4 is just a games machine.?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Pretty much confirms everything we've witnessed so far. I'm sure once they work out the best way to manage it both games will be 30/60 with 1080. Question is will PS4 push the boundaries further to a point where no amount of eSRAM management will keep up later in the X1's life...

[jerzdawg]

Xbox One?s eSRAM Too Small to Output Games At 1080p But Will Catch up to PS4 ? Rebellion GamesSniper Elite 3 senior producer Jean-Baptiste Bolcato talks about the challenges of developing on the Xbox One.http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-ones-esram-too-small-to-output-games-at-1080p-but-will-catch-up-to-ps4-rebellion-gamesJust as some of use suspected, the issue is mainly the management of the esram. Its too low level for developers. The new SDK is supposed to address that,and instead of developers managing all this stuff, im guessing there will be high level functions that will automate the use of these techniques like the shifting.also,im assuming he's referring to resource allocation,that we heard was going to be free'd up soon.

Wouldn't ms have gotten some feedback from developers on the esram before going into full scale production? I'm not familiar with sniper elite 3 so i take it they are not a major developer? I know this though. I will only say "it's still early" for so long before I get annoyed with the gap between the two consoles.

[Torolol]

i inclined to believes that the eSRAM was enough for 720p

[compl3x]

That's not necessarily true at all... Price maybe will play a role in people's choices...But "resolution/graphics". Not at all. If games look slightly better on the PS4, how does that make the One a bad experience or vice versa?

 

Price plays a role, performance plays a role. Only a dedicated fan would ignore those aspects.

 

As far as the One being a bad experience, I never said that it would make it a bad experience.

[BajiRav]

Price plays a role, performance plays a role. Only a dedicated fan would ignore those aspects.

 

As far as the One being a bad experience, I never said that it would make it a bad experience.

Didn't play any role when people bought PS3 and games for it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Didn't play any role when people bought PS3 and games for it.

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

[BajiRav]

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

You are thinking 2010-today, I am thinking first few years when PS3 "didn't have any games" - remember those days? :p

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You are thinking 2010-today, I am thinking first few years when PS3 "didn't have any games" - remember those days? :p

Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!

[McKay]

Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!

 

I would have loved to continue playing MGS, but I gave up on the storyline 9/10 of the way into MGS2. I'm not great at wrapping my head around Japanese writers.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I would have loved to continue playing MGS, but I gave up on the storyline 9/10 of the way into MGS2. I'm not great at wrapping my head around Japanese writers.

I don't think anyone can make sense of MGS, even Kojima himself. I just love the characters, world and voice acting. Even if Hayter was getting a bit stale, I'm still annoyed he's been replaced by Jack Bauer.

Ground Zeros is leaving a stale taste in my mouth as well, the tanker was on the disc with MGS2, Konami now trying to charge us ?30 for a 2 hour "demo". Capcom and Konami have been making ###### decisions for years now.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

 

 

You are thinking 2010-today, I am thinking first few years when PS3 "didn't have any games" - remember those days? :p

 

 

Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!

 

And Uncharted 1 in 2007; although by today's standards and the sequels it's not very good, at the time it still beat a lot of 360 exclusives in the GFX department. I think a lot of the mentality about PS3 not having any games in the early days was because people opted to only buy exclusives. You had to wait 4 to 6 months for the next one to roll around. If you were solely a PS3 owner, you had just as many games as the 360. Eventually most the exclusive JRPGs which released during 2005/8 on 360 were later ported and included better audio (either in fidelity or had the original dubs), plus the DLC included on one disc.

 

Unless you can poll every owner of last gen why they bought the console they did, you can't say that people were influenced by hardware. People could have decided on MP being free as more important, or the exclusives, or the controller. Far too many variables to say that they ignored the RAM limitations but still bought it. Joe Bloggs doesn't even know the difference between RAM. They just hear a number and think better. I've seen people on Twitter think the PS4 is still on DDR3 :blink:

 

The truth is X1 has work to do. The optimizations they make and the lessons they learn from eSRAM will benefit only it, meanwhile the PS4 optimizations will benefit both PS4 and X1. The trouble is developers don't live in a perfect world. Games are over budget, time constraints are tighter than ever before. Convincing them to put extra work/effort into eSRAM management is not a guarantee. If you're first party then you're probably always going to get 1080 30/60, but if you're multi-plat it's not a definite and so far they've not put the effort in. It'll get better no doubt as the SDK improves and the resources freed, but it's always going to be a finite source to manage and a pain to do so.

[compl3x]

Didn't play any role when people bought PS3 and games for it.

 

 

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.

[trooper11]

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

 

And yet some people still bought those 3rd party games on the ps3.  Let's not try to throw out generalizations here.  The ps3 had decent sales numbers for 3rd party games even if the 360 version was touted as the better choice. 

 

Sometimes we all forget that outside of our relatively small circle, there is this huge mass of gamers that may just buy a single console and are basically un phased by what is touted in the gaming media or the online community. Even when they own both, they will go down the path for reasons that override that graphical difference in their opinion.  Heck, move away form console choice and just look at game choice.

 

One might think Call of Duty is universally hated if you just followed the 'popular' opinion from the online community, but then the reality seen in sales numbers paints a different picture.  Gamers still buying and still enjoying it. 

 

 

 

 

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.

 

 

Is 1080p30 vs 60 trivial?  Is 1080p60 without AA vs 1080p60 with 4XMSAA trivial? 

 

This is sort of a rhetorical question sense defining trivial is not something you can base on one universal fact.  It'll be an opinion.  Now personally, 720p vs 1080p seems like a big deal to me, but maybe the options I mentioned above are as big or bigger. 

 

I try to remind myself that all this boils down to wanting good games.  I sit down and play Resogun, Killzone, Ryse, or KI, and I am not thinking about the fact that Killzone is 1080p30 in single player, or that Ryse is 900p30, or that KI is 720p60.  I know that graphic fidelity can mean a lot and it makes things like art style and even gameplay better, but it seems to me that we are very close to the point where the raw numbers don't matter as much.  Maybe some people just see the differences and its all they can see when playing a game, or maybe its my long history with gaming that has 'dulled' the way I look at a game while playing it.  I certainly appreciate high end graphics, but for some reason the numbers don't bother me as much if the final game has an impact on me. A dev can make a good looking game and still not hit the high numbers everyone wants.

[BajiRav]

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.

 

inferior graphics (IQ was initially always worse on PS3)

inferior online service (still is on PS3)

 

People still bought it, I know one guy (anecdotal ftw) who was a lifelong PC gamer and bought a PS3 for CoD/MW2 because his friends had PS3. (He had to reduce PC gaming due to RSI)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Titanfall

 

Titanfall Digital Foundry beta analysis (792p, ~60fps)

 

We're currently hard at work on a detailed tech analysis based on our gameplay experience and these captures, but what we can provide now is some insight on Xbox One's native rendering resolution. It's been something of a hot topic in recent months, due to a number of factors. First up, Respawn told us that it would prioritise frame-rate over resolution when we interviewed producer Drew McCoy at Gamescom last year, with little in the way of official comment since then. Secondly, the whole Resolutiongate issue has put the GPU capabilities and memory bandwidth of the Xbox One under the microscope after a number of high-profile titles - including first-party exclusives - ran at sub-native pixel counts. Finally, rumours online have continued to suggest that Titanfall runs at 720p.

 

Well, even with access to direct captures, the issue isn't quite as cut and dried as you may think. The usual pixel-counting techniques involve capturing long horizontal and vertical edges, then comparing the number of actual rendered pixels with the output of the console. So, for example a 4:5 ratio on the vertical on a 720p output gives 576p. The ratios aren't quite so clear on the preview build of Titanfall we saw last week, but because of that, 720p can be ruled out.

 

Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played.

 

---

 

In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively.

 

Probably the biggest surprise is that, based on our testing, frame-rate doesn't quite remain locked to 60fps - not especially noticeable in most situations, but definitely more of an issue inside the titans. Bearing in mind Respawn's dedication to the locked 60fps experience, we hope that further optimisations are in development, but the videos on this page should give you some idea of the game's current performance level.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-titanfall-on-xbox-one-at-60fps

 

Respawn have commented on trying to get it higher for launch - http://titanfallblog.com/2014/02/12/titanfall-beta-runs-at-native-792p-resolution-on-xbox-one-may-increase-with-final-build/

[trooper11]

Titanfall

 

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-titanfall-on-xbox-one-at-60fps

 

Respawn have commented on trying to get it higher for launch - http://titanfallblog.com/2014/02/12/titanfall-beta-runs-at-native-792p-resolution-on-xbox-one-may-increase-with-final-build/

 

 

 

Why do I get the impression that this game is somehow rushed?

 

Its running on the source engine after all.  I'm not quite sure why they can't hit 1080p/60 or at least 900p/60.  I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with the X1 hardware.  A pc with similar specs could do it.

 

I saw an interview that was put up today and I got the impression that this game was originally a 360 title that was then moved to the X1 after it was announced.  I wonder if that has led to a serious lack of time to get a proper next gen version completed.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Why do I get the impression that this game is somehow rushed?

 

Its running on the source engine after all.  I'm not quite sure why they can't hit 1080p/60 or at least 900p/60.  I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with the X1 hardware.  A pc with similar specs could do it.

 

I saw an interview that was put up today and I got the impression that this game was originally a 360 title that was then moved to the X1 after it was announced.  I wonder if that has led to a serious lack of time to get a proper next gen version completed.

 

If the blame lies on Respawn, considering the noise MS have made about Titanfall, you'd of thought they'd of already shipped in a platoon of XB1 engineers last year.

 

Right now hitting something strange like 792 seems like a move to simply get as far away from 720p as possible, as then the internet really would shut down for a day. The "real" COD team running with a lower res than the rushed out the door Ghosts, it just doesn't sit right  :/ I'm fairly confident it will have a day 1 900p patch at the worst, it just has to.

 

MP is usually the least taxing as well, KZSF managed 1080p/60FPS on it's MP, where as the SP was 30 unlocked (now the recent patch lets you do 30 locked).