By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - BattleField 1 is one of the worse performing tittles at 60fps on Consoles, runs at 620p in some cases! Awfull!

So another multiplat that runs better on the normal Playstation 4?
PS4pro will be the console to have for this game.



Around the Network

its beuutiful and runs great



I played Conquest on PS4 beta, was fine.

Besides, I'm getting da PS4 Pro soon!



Radek said:
Turkish said:
I played Conquest on PS4 beta, was fine.

Besides, I'm getting da PS4 Pro soon!

Awesome, I'm watching PS4 version stream on Twitch right now and even this version looks amazing.

From what they are doing on a screen, even the Xbox version looks amazing.



So they are recreating the original experience quite perfectly.



Around the Network
Radek said:
Pemalite said:

The Irony is... All those Jaguar "console" cores are roughly equivalent to a Core i3 3ghz Haswell anyway.

There isn't any "extreme optimization" happening. You are getting a compromised experience with less details, lower resolution.
If you want the PC experience, buy a PC.

Also. All the GPU's you listed in that benchmark are faster than the Xbox One, so why would you expect PC-levels of graphics/resolution and framerate out of the Xbox?

I posted these benchmarks to find out if PS4 Pro could possibly achieve stable 60 fps in 1080p on ultra details. No dynamic resolution bullcrap etc.

And I really wish people would stop freaking about on an idea of 500$-600$ premium consoles with powerful specs. Hell I'd say make just one powerful SKU for 500$ on launch, but consumers would boycott it..

Of course it can. But only if the developer gives it to you, you get what you are given with a console.
DICE might take advantage of Checkerboard rendering and run with high-quality graphics effects rather than Ultra on the Playstation 4 Pro.
If you have a 1080P panel, then it will be downscaled to suit.
That's life I am afraid, but it is best to wait for the games and hardware to actually drop to get a good idea of where things fall.

I am also not "freaking out" about powerful console specs. - The Playstation 4 Pro and Scorpio isn't what I would call high-end anyway, they are mostly just catching up with current mid-range/mainstream PC's.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Meanwhile
a Skylake CPU + RX480 can run this in 1080p Ultra settings and generally be 90+ fps, and never drop under 60.



I'm.not too fussed about the resolution since the overall look of the game is amazing, but that Fps could Di with a patch lol

 

PS4 Pro has come at the perfect time



Intrinsic said:
Chazore said:

Current gen touted power and so far it's not gone anywhere big int erms of getting both. I don't see the refresh systems doing 1440p and 60 fps (rock solid with absolutely zero excuses) at all times.

I think its sad that you like a lot of people seem to use resolution as your primary metric for measuring power. 

Its even more sad that if there werent sites that feed on this seemingly widespread brainwash with all these pixel counting analysis..... >80% of the gamers out there probably won't even know that the game they had been playing is using a dynamic resolution.

For me, as long as a game doesn't have game breaking framerates or bugs, I'm perfectly ok with it. 

Recently a friend of mine was bitching about this very same topic and complaining about how underpowered these consoles are.... yet he games primarily on a 32" Tv with a native resolution of 720p. Apparently he felt that because the tv recieves a 1080p signal from the console then he is in truth getting 1080p. Go figure......

I seriously love comments like this. I seriously doubt most people even know what resolution is. Whenever I talk about 1080p all my friends go "what's that? you mean like HD?". Yeah, I like that but SD is fine too.



setsunatenshi said:
iNathan said:

Last time I checked my FLs across Xbox Live and PSN I had friends playing R6, Overwatch, Black Ops 3, Modern Warfare Remaster, Battlefield 4, Battlefield 1, Halo 5, Halo MCC, Gears of War UE, Gears of War 4 Destiny and Infinite Warfare BETA. 

 

Alot to choose from. 

gears of war is an fps now? interesting...

 

probably there are more people now playing counter strike 1.6 / source / go than in all of those games combined, not to mention than pretty much all of those games are on pc with arguably bigger communities (overwatch) you could add a shit ton of other fps games like Arma, Insurgency, Dayz, H1Z1, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, Heroes & Generals, Op Flashpoint, Dirty Bomb, Doom, S.K.I.L.L, Verdun, Planetside, Killing Floor, Payday, Quake,.... that's just from the top of my head.

But anyway, the point was never a popularity contest, you mentioned how terribly BF1 is performing on the xb1, the fact is I already played the alpha and beta on my PC and it not only looks, but more importantly, plays incredibly.

So yeah, that's the right way to go on it (not to mention using mouse/kb as the gaming gods intended for fps games)

You are wrong and you don´t really undertstand jack about numers across different games, the only thing i can say to you is that i play Cs Go and played 1.6, i can tell you that CS Go has 10m MaU, Cod has >40m, Cod is bigger than all those PC games combined you mentioned and most numbers come from Xbox and PlayStation. 

Source: http://blog.counter-strike.net/

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-09-call-of-duty-franchise-up-to-40-million-active-users-as-activision-blizzard-beats-expectations-in-q1

Also Doom sold way better on Consoles, Destiny is huge on Consoles and every Battlefield is bigger on Consoles.

Battlefield 4

Proof: www.bf4stats.com

Battlefield Hardline

Proof: www.bfhstats.com

Battlefield 1 (Will update this weekend for better picture)

Consoles domination here.

Proof: www.bf1stats.com

Doom

PC : 

Xbox One: 

Ps4: 

Again >2m from Consoles with data missing and without Digital, more than double of that on Pc, maybe triple.