While Digital Foundry has yet to see either next-gen version of Call of Duty, our experience with Battlefield 4 demonstrates that you can easily see the visual difference between them. The Xbox One version holds up well given the gulf in resolution, but it doesn't require a pixel counter to tell that the PS4 game is crisper and cleaner either. At last week's Battlefield 4 review event in Stockholm, we noted that the resolution change from one version to the next was obvious to many of the press in attendance, with some even suggesting on-site that the PS4 version was operating at native 1080p when its actual resolution was 1600x900.

The reality for Microsoft is that the raw spec differential it has battled against is not only borne out in what is arguably the most technologically advanced multi-platform game of the next-gen launch, but the gulf actually increases on a title that, on the face of it, isn't pushing boundaries to anything like the same degree.

However, the hardware make-up itself could be more troublesome for multi-platform developers in the longer term, despite Microsoft's outline of how the Xbox One tech operates and the theoretical advantages it chose to highlight. In our In Theory piece, we could only address the teraflop difference - we couldn't measure the impact of Xbox One's reduction in memory bandwidth, and we certainly couldn't factor in what was then the big unknown: the controversial 32MB of Embedded Static RAM (ESRAM) built into the Xbox One's central processor.

 

source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-resolutiongate-the-fallout

 

 

How could this have ever been that hard to figure out. This whole time you could look at a 7770 vs a 7850 and known exactly how this would turn out. These cards are the closest thing to what the consoles have, and they show the same exact results. A 7850 runs games at 1080p at the same frame rate as the 7770 does at 720p.

Both consoles have tweaks that will make them perform better than those cards. The move engines and the ESRAM will make a difference on the XBO. PS4's HUMA, 8ACE/64queues will also change the spectrum of what is capable.

This is just the hard truth and it has been as long as we have know these specs.

The difference between the GPUs of the two consoles might suggest a 50% gap in performance, but in reality it is larger than that. Xbone GPU is starved in ROPS which is a crucial component for higher resolutions. DDR3 is also a huge bottleneck in bandwidth, and ESRAM can't solve the problem because 32MBs simply aren't enough.

To give some perspective into how important memory bandwidth is, take a look at benchmarks between DDR3 and GDDR5 versions of the same budget graphics card, the HD6670.



These are 2 versions of the same budget GPU. The only difference is in memory, yet performance takes a big hit in the DDR3 version.

The PS4 has more GPU and more memory bandwidth at the same time. That explains why it can render more than twice the pixels(720p vs 1080p) with more assets(Ambient Occlusion) and at a higher frame rate than the Xbone. That's more like a ~100% difference.

ViktorBKK said: The difference between the GPUs of the two consoles might suggest a 50% gap in performance, but in reality it is larger than that. Xbone GPU is starved in ROPS which is a crucial component for higher resolutions. DDR3 is also a huge bottleneck in bandwidth, and ESRAM can't solve the problem because 32MBs simply aren't enough. To give some perspective into how important memory bandwidth is, take a look at benchmarks between DDR3 and GDDR5 versions of the same budget graphics card, the HD6670. These are 2 versions of the same budget GPU. The only difference is in memory, yet performance takes a big hit in the DDR3 version. The PS4 has more GPU and more memory bandwidth at the same time. That explains why it can render more than twice the pixels(720p vs 1080p) with more assets(Ambient Occlusion) and at a higher frame rate than the Xbone. That's more like a ~100% difference.

Factor in the fact that 10% of the resources are reserved for Kinect use. The diferences in the early games are noy surprising at all, in fact they will get bigger eventually.

michael_stutzer said: ViktorBKK said: The difference between the GPUs of the two consoles might suggest a 50% gap in performance, but in reality it is larger than that. Xbone GPU is starved in ROPS which is a crucial component for higher resolutions. DDR3 is also a huge bottleneck in bandwidth, and ESRAM can't solve the problem because 32MBs simply aren't enough. To give some perspective into how important memory bandwidth is, take a look at benchmarks between DDR3 and GDDR5 versions of the same budget graphics card, the HD6670. These are 2 versions of the same budget GPU. The only difference is in memory, yet performance takes a big hit in the DDR3 version. The PS4 has more GPU and more memory bandwidth at the same time. That explains why it can render more than twice the pixels(720p vs 1080p) with more assets(Ambient Occlusion) and at a higher frame rate than the Xbone. That's more like a ~100% difference. Factor in the fact that 10% of the resources are reserved for Kinect use. The diferences in the early games are noy surprising at all, in fact they will get bigger eventually.

we don't know if Sony offers 100% of the hardware to devs.

Yeah forgot that PS4 also has a camera. I guess some of the PS4's resources will be reserved for the camera thing too, though I can't  imagine it would be the same percentage as the Xbone and the early results seem to agree with that. 

I concur. You just can't do 1080/60 in demanding games, with only 16 ROPS and DDR3. And 32MBs of ESRAM is peanuts.

Well, DF had to peace down the Gaffers and feed then with matherial for another 100page thread. Yep, they just have to crop-up images of the far background and point at the jegged lines, don´t mind if only this way people can see the "superior version".

It´s funny thinking "the gap" will widthing, as if the PS4 could reach 4K at 120FPS. Its GPU and system is "balanced" to 1080p/30 or 900p/60. Everething else in effects, fisics, light... will have to came from CPU and GPU aceleration (the 4 CUs that Sony recomends to not be used for rendering).

Comparing GDDR5 to pure DRR3 is not a correct assumption either, the infamous ESRAM is in the die exactly to reach a larger bandwidth.

Any way, I never saw a well organized and venous defamation campain of a piece of technology. Imagine every year Apple being slammed for releasing overpriced hardware with theorical less capable specs than its competitors.

I was talking about the shots of GG with Killzone where they only used 6 cores. But either way we don't know how many ressources devs have currently and actually.