| KLAMarine said: what's the frame rate? |
60fps for all plataforms if I'm not wrong.
CGI-Quality said:
I often hear that people: "think the gap in technological power is bigger than it actually is". Since you're the latest to say this, I'm curious, how close are the systems, relatively, and how does that compare to the differences that people "actually think they are"? |
That would depend on what you consider a key difference in performance.
The x1 has slower ram than ddr5 on the ps4, but has access to esram. If used properly, the differences can be voided.
CPU's are pretty much the same, the exception being that the X1's cpu is more customized, and has 1.75ghz vs 1.66ghz. Not sure how that would improve performance though.
As for graphical capabilities, it's 1.3 vs 1.8 teraflops, as well as the ps4 having the much faster gddr5 capapabilities.
Honestly, I wouldn't expect games to be too different, outside of resolution, and possibly some shading. Most games so far have proven this.
I <3 Classic Platformers!
Multi-console Owner FTW
Great to see the PS4 continues to be the best place to play multiplatform games. I don't see this changing ever.
| iTechHeads said: Great to see the PS4 continues to be the best place to play multiplatform games. I don't see this changing ever. |
PC?
Upscale will never look as crisp/sharp as native. That is an undeniable fact. I have been PC gaming for a looooong time and you can easily tell the difference between resolution and fps. I have played countless games where my PC was under-powered and I would have to lower details (AA off first, then shadow detail are biggest hogs) and change resolution just to have a playable experience. And believe me, while it nets the biggest performance boost, lowering resolution is the LAST thing you want to do if you want the game to stay pretty. It wasn't that bad when we had CRTs that could easily change resolution without having scaling issues, but nowadays with LCDs it is easily noticeable as they have a set pixel count and anything non-native to that has to be scaled and all scalers are not created equal.
Heck, for those of you who claim resolution isn't a big deal, go get a DVD and use it on a really good player that has a quality upscaler (like my Oppo) and let me know how it compares to a Blu-Ray. Granted, the resolution differences are larger, the fact still remains that it cannot compare.
It is funny to see someone that can't (or don't want) discuss IQ difference with cgi-quality, who works with this and have an ubber rig. How much downplay do they need to feel happy?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
CGI-Quality said:
Most games have had differences, be it res or otherwise. I'd say the PS3 and 360 were: "marginal" in contrast. The newer machines are farther apart. Though this does help your point, it still doesn't explain what: "most people think". There's a reason, you can't measure that. Factually, the PS4 performs, in most cases, about as far apart as the systems are in power (anywhere from 30-40%). People just like to dismiss a res difference of 720-920p vs 1080p as "marginal". It is not, and that still doesn't account for other differences, like framerate, VSYNC, textures, and aliasing (all areas where the PS4 usually is ahead, as well). |
In all honesty, i think you're exagerating a little.
There is no doubt the ps4 is more powerful. AC:U being the same shows only that Ubisoft is trying not to annoy its fanbase. Ghosts, with its 1080p vs 720p difference only showed how terribly optimized it was.
We'll see in the future. The ps3 and 360 were only marginally different in 3rd party because of the hardware. Killzone, infamous, rathchet and clank, and twisted metal all showed what it could really do. The problem was coding games for the exotic hardware.
This new gen isn't as big of a difference. I would never expect the x1 to perform as well as the ps4, but i also don't expect an x1 game to have lower resolution, slower framerate, and reduced visuals compared to the ps4 in the same game.
I <3 Classic Platformers!
Multi-console Owner FTW
Damian.W said:
In all honesty, i think you're exagerating a little. There is no doubt the ps4 is more powerful. AC:U being the same shows only that Ubisoft is trying not to annoy its fanbase. Ghosts, with its 1080p vs 720p difference only showed how terribly optimized it was. We'll see in the future. The ps3 and 360 were only marginally different in 3rd party because of the hardware. Killzone, infamous, rathchet and clank, and twisted metal all showed what it could really do. The problem was coding games for the exotic hardware. This new gen isn't as big of a difference. I would never expect the x1 to perform as well as the ps4, but i also don't expect an x1 game to have lower resolution, slower framerate, and reduced visuals compared to the ps4 in the same game. |
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off that is all.
So its back to the who has the bigger dick conversation again,
old skool
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
