Top
1050°

Battlefield 4 Sticks To 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles – Frostbite 2.5, Game Details Leaked

Many new details of DICE’s upcoming next-generation Battlefield 4 FPS have been leaked by Chiphell forums. According to the leaker, the details would be mentioned in the April issue of the Edge magazine while the game itself would be announced at GDC 2013 during 26th – 27th March. A teaser sneak peak along with cover image of Battlefield 4 have already been released which you can view here.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Letros1228d ago

60 FPS is very important for twitch based gameplay

classic2001228d ago

I think holding back, the PS4 can surely do 1080p and 60FPS. Lots of gaming PC with lower hardware power can do it. I guess they want to do it for battlefield 5 or bad company 3 then.

TotalHitman1228d ago

Maybe they designed BF4 to run on a small amount of ram, not knowing that Sony bumped it up to 8. So, yeah, maybe the BF5 or Bad Company 3 will be 1080p 60FPS. Idk, I don't know much about specs, but that theory seems to make sense.

SJPFTW1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

OMG NOT THIS AGAIN. the ps3 and xbox 360 can do 1080p and 60 fps easy but that comes at the cost of graphics and presentation. the same rule applies to next gen consoles as well.

yahh sure they can do 1080p and 60fps but you will all then complain how it looks barely better than BF3.

Get a Gaming PC and upgrade it every year or two if you want 1080p and 60fps constantly

Dark_king1228d ago

Mind you until Sony announced the 8gigs of ram the devs only knew there would be 4gigs. So they probably only could get it to 720p without any sacrifices to physics and player count.

JsonHenry1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

@totalhitman The ram isn't the problem. The 7xxxm series video cards (what the PS4 GPU is based on) can't play the current BF3 game on ultra settings @ 1080p so the video card in the consoles are obviously the restricting factor. But I would rather play at 720p with ultra settings and AF/AA than 1080p with mid-high settings.

Also- even on the PC with high overhead on RAM my system never used more than 3.5gigs of RAM at ultra settings in stereoscopic 3D. So RAM in this case is not the problem. It is the video card.

Peppino71228d ago

Here comes the hate for a non-standard 1080p native game with all the new resources of next gen.
More needless complaining when the game will probably look amazing.

Lior1228d ago

na screw it pc it is, got a 680 sli might as well use that power to get 60fps on ultra on the resolution of 2560 1440 on my asus moniter

Ulf1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

A GPU that is the rough equivalent of the HD 7870 will not do 1080p and 60 fps without a serious "last gen" reduction in texturing and overall visuals.

Pixels are not everything. Doing 2.5x the work just to have more pixels, when you have options like AA, along with cool lighting techniques and way better shaders, is just not the way to go.

720p and 60 fps sounds perfect, because that means the quality bar is much higher in other areas, which are more important than mere rez.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

"I think holding back, the PS4 can surely do 1080p and 60FPS. Lots of gaming PC with lower hardware power can do it."

what pc gamers use tablet cpus and on chip gpu?

killzone 1080p 30fps, bf4 720p, 60fps lol

Getting pc version. For 1080p, 60fps like in 2011 for bf3.
If bf5 is pc lead next year then dice will be porting from gddr6 systems to gddr5 systems.
http://vr-zone.com/articles...

Dice missed the David Cage memo. Never have to worry about limitation ever again!!

Baka-akaB1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

People dont wanna get it . ALL of those consoles can pull 1080p at 60 fps . Devs just can often chose to push for better looking games and more details at 30 fps .

Obviously the more game progressed , and with outdated hardware , they had trouble even keeping a steady 30 fps , but the same will happens sooner or later on ps4/720 . Some will push for better looking but slower running games at 30 fps

loulou1228d ago

if true, then perhaps certain members will need to get it into their heads that 8 gig of ram is not the worm-hole opening capable tech that they think it is. and that cpus and gpus also play a part in the grand scheme of things..

also, since when did ram become the most important part of console? last gen it was cell cpus, now it's ram.... i wonder why?

anyway, i will take maxed 720p 60fps with 64 players anyday. please be true.

if this comes in november and is a launch window title on both next gen consoles. it will be a massive system mover me thinks

TotalHitman1228d ago

As I said @JsonHenry, I don't know specs. Things like "7xxxm series video cards" confuse me.

vulcanproject1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

Battlefield 3 max settings 1080p with MSAA on a PC with a powerful CPU (i5 2500k) and a Radeon 7850 manages about a 40 frame average and a mid 30s minimum.

http://www.bit-tech.net/har...

When console games are designed they are often designed (as is BF3 on console) with a framerate cap of 30FPS and to maintain that solidly, you have to render a little bit faster for vsync to be able to drop frames if needed- like that 34FPS minimum shown for example.

Even if you are EXTREMELY generous and say that the game can be optimised further being on a fixed platform by say 30 percent and that is really, really generous for a game designed for PC in the first place....you might be able to make the game run 45FPS minimum framerate on PS4's hardware.

PS4 would not run BF3 maxed 1920 x 1080 plus MSAA and maintain 60FPS. If you took out the AA maybe, but assuming not (comparing the top PC experience) that would mean a doubling in performance of what similar (if not better CPU at least) PC hardware does with the same game. This is utterly unrealistic because the advantage of a console platform isn't remotely that much.

By these metrics I would still assume however even a 1080p Battlefield 4 would be able to look at least as good as its PC predecessor as long as it were restricted to 30FPS.

If the article is really true, I would be somewhat disappointed they would opt for a mere 720p. I am not really sure I believe it when I think that the Battlefield 3 full 1080p PC like experience on a console would be possible at least on PS4 and satisfy many gamers I suspect.

imt5581228d ago

@JsonHenry

If KZ:SF can go in 1080p/30fps with 1.5 GB RAM available in dev kits, why BF4 can't go in 1080p/60fps?

PS4 GPU is in range GTX 660, HD 7870, HD 7850.. BF3 on PC's with that GPU's run between 30 and 60 fps on max. settings.

HenryFord1228d ago

What is happening here?

You are talking about
a) consoles that have yet to be released. You know some of their tech specs but you do not know how well those parts will play together. You simply cannot judge the performance of a console based on the specs you have read. There is so much more going on (for example: CPU/GPU are running on the same chip, eliminating some serious bottlenecks you have in your PC setup) than "oh, it has a XGHz CPU". The graphics card isn't yet on the market, it is something Sony has exclusive access to as of right now. You simply _CANNOT_ say how this card will perform without actually using it at some point.

b) about a game that has yet to be announced. There are not serious details out there despite this strange leak popping up in some forum. But here we are: The game is being judged already, solely based on some random leak in forum X.

In short:
Everyone here is judging a game that has yet to be announced for a console that has yet to be released based on some guy writing something in some forum.

(Does nobody find some details of this leak suspicious? I for one would think they announce DLC after the release, or shortly before, after the game gone gold already - but not right on the stage with the main game; Makes no f* sense whatsoever)

SuperM1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

@ vulcanproject

"Even if you are EXTREMELY generous and say that the game can be optimised further being on a fixed platform by say 30 percent and that is really, really generous for a game designed for PC in the first place....you might be able to make the game run 45FPS minimum framerate on PS4's hardware."

30% is really really generous? That is not generous at all. PC veteran John Carmack said himself you can get about twice the performance out of fixed hardware as opposed to non fixed. Basically the PS4 with its 1.84tflop GPU should be able to compete with PCs with a 3.6+tflop GPU. And thats not concidering other benefits like significantly more VRAM and unified memory between GPU and CPU.

PS4 definately could run BF3 1080p60fps but as im sure you will see BF4 will have better graphics then BF3 thus be more demanding to run and they choose 720p60fps

delboy1227d ago

It has nothing to do with RAM, you need computing power.
I know fan boys won't believe it or admit it, but ps4 is weak, a no amount of RAM is gonna change that.

I don't get it, ps4 is the weakest console ever to be released, considering history and past consoles and the jump they had between each generations, ps4 is underwhelming weak.

I don't get the sony fan boys, I know they are only after power and graphics, how can they accept such a move from Sony?
After all, we are not talking about Nintendo crowd here.

gedapeleda1227d ago

This sound dissapointing in so many ways.
720,60 fps 24 players?And the fact that they didn't utilise frostbite engine to bring MORE destruction in bf3 is cringe worthy.

SuperM1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

@Delboy

Anyone with any idea of what they should be expecting for the PS4, given the absolute need of an affordable entry pricepoint in the market, would think the ps4 is indeed a very powerfull machine. Compare it to a 1000$ GTX Titan then sure its weak but you would be an absolute idiot for expecting anything like that, and sony would be absolute idiots for doing anything like that.

Fact of the matter is PS4 will perform better then the vast majority of PCs, even PCs with a clear spec advantage, the same way PS3 and 360 generate better graphics then PCs with more powerful hardware then them. The 360 GPU has a 240Gflop max performance and is concidered to be better then the ps3 GPU (although the ps3 GPU has a higher theoretical gflop performance). Compare that to 1.84tflops in the PS4 GPU and its obvious that its a massive jump from last generation. Technology improvements and efficiencies will ensure that the ps4 gpu will perform even better per flop then in the 360 xenos GPU so in reality it should have about 10 times the performance over last generation in terms of GPU capabilities.

Also more RAM could definately help improve performance aswell. Certain algorithms run more efficient then others but require more memory. If you are memory limited you will have to run less efficient algorithms because you dont have the space for it. Its true that adding more memory doesnt equal higher performance, but its a big mistake to not see the potential benefits it might have. Developers will certainly be able to take advantage of it and it will matter.

HenryFord1227d ago

@delboy:
That is... simply not right.
When the PS4 releases, everyone who says that the PS4 is WEAK, will be proven wrong.

I don't get why you are still comparing apples and oranges. A PS4 is _specifically_ designed to play and render games. I'm fairly certain that it will outperform most PCs used at that time. It probably will be on par with the High-End PC-builds. But still - that is all speculation and you cannot say anything for certain yet.
Except that your post is just wrong.

BrianC62341227d ago

"yahh sure they can do 1080p and 60fps but you will all then complain how it looks barely better than BF3. "

The PS4 will have no problems handling everything developers want to do with 1080p graphics running at 60 fps. Hopefully the next Xbox will be able to handle it too. I'd hate to see the PS4 held back like the PS3 has been. PC games have no problem doing higher resolutions so the PS4 can handle 1080p. The 8GB of GDDR will make sure of that.

asbuwango1227d ago

im pretty sure a 7870 can do BF3 1080p 60fps max setting without AA on a PC(or very close to 60 fps)
Of course you don't have a tablet CPU on a PC, but you don't have Windows on a console...

papashango1227d ago

60fps is very very very important for shooters.

Someone at DICE finally got their head out their A**.

Muffins12231227d ago

Hahahah it amazes me how ignorant console owners are on performance

NatureOfLogic1227d ago

All the more evidence that battlefield is trying to be like COD. Now watch COD be 1080p 60fps on next gen consoles. What ever happened to standards. The last battlefield game I had a great time with was bad company 2. Why not make bad company 3 if you're going for the COD milk style.

Ju1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

EA better sits down and doesn't make this a 720p game. Not getting a next gen console to play current gen res - no matter if it runs 60fps. Seriously. Find a balance, Dice! No point of pushing the envelope if you can't use all that screen real estate. If true this will be quite a disappointment. No point of getting a console to yet again be locked down to sub standard resolution; I'd rather keep my PS3 for that.

But really, I hardly believe that's true, though. It should be able to run somewhere between 60-30fps @ 1080. If not 60, than somewhere around 45 - and lock it for 30, that sounds good to me. Get to it boys!

If that's true though, I see what's coming. Half ass PC ports which run like on a cheap PC. Being "easy" to dev for means no compute optimization of a lot of middle ware and engines. This is quite disappointing. Well, I hope Sony's first party studios won't be allowed going down easy lane.

awi59511227d ago

@JsonHenry

That cant be true i had a 6000 series ATI card and it ran BF3 on ultra at 30 fps @ 1080P. The 7000 cards are even better.

Ares84HU1227d ago

I just hope that they will do 1080p and 60FPS. Why do you have all that horse power in the PS4 if you won't use it??

Also, the PS4 is built like a PC so they can't even have the excuse that it's so much different they couldn't have made it work. On PC I'm sure it will be able to run at 60fps with even higher resolution than 1080p so why can't it on the PS4??

Tsar4ever011227d ago

My only conclusion to why no 1080p/60 is dice must have developed BF4 on the eariler ps4 kits when the ram spec was a only 4gb. What I don,t get is why only the pc only gets DX11 support and not the consoles. Aren't the consoles dx11 ready also?

RumbleFish1227d ago

[email protected] is ok, but 24 players is extremely lame.

fr0sty1227d ago

Always remember... a multiplatform game typically caters to the lowest common denominator. Taking time to code a game to take advantage of specific advantages in a particular system can take a lot of development time and cost a lot of money as a result. Most devs just stick to what both can do. The same will be true next gen. Games like this will likely stick to what both machines can run, rather than trying to squeeze more bandwidth or more GPU power out of any particular system.

We may be seeing this here. Locking the resolution to 720p will ensure the game will look just as good on all SKU's. I imagine it utilizes some amazing next gen lighting tech that takes a lot of power to pull off. I've learned this gen that I personally don't mind a game running at 720p as long as it makes that 720p smooth and crisp looking. I'd rather than that 1080p with muddy textures or lower frame rate.

It's those exclusives where the machines will really shine.

starchild1227d ago

If this leak is true, it seems that many of us were right when we said that next gen console games would run at either 1080p/30fps or 720p/60fps for the most part.

Killzone Shadow Fall was reported to be a 1080p/30fps game.

And now Battlefield 4 is supposedely going to be 720p/60fps.

It looks like PC will still be the only place you can get 1080p/60fps or higher.

Obviously Battlefield 4 is going to be a more advanced game than Battlefield 3 and that is why the PS4 won't be able to reach the 1080p/60fps mark.

LOL_WUT1227d ago

Hopefully DICE can sort something out by the time this thing is released because this is truly disappointing.

vulcanproject1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

@ SuperM

You are overestimating the advantages of fixed platforms MASSIVELY if you think you can double your performance on them over something like a PC.

PC Hardware that is maybe twice as fast as current consoles is clearly faster than said consoles in multiformat games DESIGNED for console and just ported as long as the port is half decent....

Overstatement if you honestly think the 7800 in PS4 performs like an 8800GTX in a PC.

It just doesn't. In fact in reasonably well coded engines like UE3 you can see a performance improvement in PC with even smaller margins. Blatantly unless the game is so very poorly optimised for the PC platform the fixed platform advantage is a long way short of 100 percent that you claim.

PS4 could not run BF3 1920 x 1080 and maintain 60FPS unless you removed the high quality AA the PC version enjoys- toned that down.

The fact you fail to realise that Battlefield 3 is actually very well optimised on PC made me smile a bit at your suggestion.

It was built for PC hardware specifically. That particular example we have chosen absolutely and categorically would not run such a huge amount better on a console that you suggest.

Twice the performance for a game that is well optimised on PC and built for it not a junk port???

Dream on my lad lol

30 percent is highly generous in that specific case, highly generous...

knowyourstuff1227d ago

They've probably been working off of the previous dev kits that had less power than the final version. Final dev kits were just sent out recently, so you're going to notice the first batch of games not harnessing full power... but really that's been the case practically every generation. First few games always look worse than games 2 and 3 years out.

TheRealSpy1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

Maybe some of your are living in a fantasy world.

If the PC version is capable of 1080p 60fps, then why wouldn't they do the same thing for console? Cuz the consoles can't handle it.

To the people saying it's cuz they didn't know how powerful the system would be: Riiiiiight....cuz it's in the best interest of the Sony/MS to deny developers the best possible kits to make the best possible games.

Like i said...fantasy land.

LocutusEstBorg1227d ago

LMAO. Only a top of the line PC can run even BF3 at 1920x1080 and 60fps. The PS3 is barely a quarter the power of a GTX 680. It cannot do 1080p games with PC quality graphics.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr31227d ago

You folks can spin it however you want but in my eyes that's pretty weak.

jmc88881227d ago

? Sorry you need a GTX 670 and a much stronger CPU to pull that.

The 660/ti are also good to and get close.

It also depends on WHAT settings you are trying to get 1080p 60 frames.

I'm assuming you mean ultra settings.

The PS4 is only a 1.8 TFlops machine. Nice, but midlevel 2011 GPU part. ~3x a Wii U that many xbox/Sony fanboys make fun of.

I run the gamut from Wii U, to 360/PS3, to good PC and will buy a PS4/720, even though they are weaker than my PC, because I roll like that.

But no, it takes a good PC to run BF3 on ultra settings at 1080p/60, and the PS4 is borderline capable of doing it. With BF4 expected to up the ante graphically, this does not surprise me.

It's another thing I've been saying that while I expected alot of 1080p games, that for some they might want to downgrade. I was thinking more along the lines of 1600x900, but 720 was still a possibility.

Looks like it'll be the case.

Tr10wn1227d ago

its 2013 and a "NEW" generation of console and it still uses 720p LOL

Psn8001227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

Why get negged for saying something positive , these guys are mental .

T9001227d ago

Console gamers are in for a sad awakening.

1. RAM does no calculations, Hence boatloads of it wont make a difference.

2. Its the GPU and CPU that do all the work. If those 2 are weak dont expect miracles to happen.

PC gamers have been saying this since the last few weeks, let the dust settle and we will see more and more games running at 720p / 60fps.

Once devs start pushing graphics even more. Consoles will be back to 720p / 30fps.

Kurt Russell1227d ago

Personally I am not too worried about the 720p, it's shame but I would have made do. I won't buy this on a console (which is how I prefer to play) with only 24 players still... They'll be other new games next gen to try out instead.

Gamer19821227d ago

Why not 1080p 30FPS honestly you couldnt see the differnce between 30fps and 60fps so the only people who need to know fps is PC owners who like to know there system can handle there games. This is not the case on consoles. I doubt this leak is true..

RumbleFish1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

"Why not 1080p 30FPS honestly you couldnt see the differnce between 30fps and 60fps so the only people who need to know fps is PC owners who like to know there system can handle there games."

60fps make a game much more playable. First person shooters and racing games obviously benefit most from a high framerate. Not only CAN you see the difference between 30 and 60 fps, but you can play much more precise and comfortable. So it is very smart to sacrifice resolution for performance.

"This is not the case on consoles. I doubt this leak is true.."

You can doubt as much as you like, but the upcoming consoles will not be able to do what two GTX 570 or one GTX 680 do for some time now.

We PC gamers knew immediately what those specs meant, but console dreamers thought those consoles would blow two years old PCs out of the water. They will not.

profgerbik1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

Actually no, many people don't realize just because you set a games resolution it doesn't always mean the actual in game textures are set to that resolution.

It is called Dynamic Resolution. The dynamic resolution for BF4 is obviously 720p. Even though sure you can scale it to 1080p as most people are using that but it is still 720p just upscaled.

Many PC games are the same and they usually don't have dynamic resolutions set as high as 1080p. Hell most PC games don't even have an option to change the dynamic resolution so it will be truly 1080p.

The same goes for console games and the resolution being set on a TV, it does not change a games dynamic resolution.

Very high end PC's struggle to keep things running above 70-80fps at a true 1080p dynamic res for very graphical intensive games. Knowing that the PS4 could very well run true 1080p games of course, the PS3 already does but those real graphic intensive games will probably manage 30fps on the PS4 if they do run at 1080p.

Plenty of benchmarks out there to study. Plenty of extremely expensive PC's that are far more powerful than the PS4 out there with benchmark tests as well with those real 1080p games, the few there are. Sadly with all that power even they don't go far above 60fps.

I would know personally as I own a ridiculous PC and am a enthusiast.

Not trying to be a PC bragger or even carry on about my specificiations but just trying to get people to understand PC games aren't doing that. There are very few PC games, just like console games that truly run at 1080p.

DeadlyFire1227d ago

Considering Xbox 720 could be weaker than PS4 with only 1.2 Tflops. This could be the reason why they chose [email protected] fps for the next gen consoles.

WiiU could see [email protected] fps or [email protected] fps. Something like that. I will hold judgement, but I suspect this rumor is not 100% true.

64 players I believe. Weather effects I believe, Commander system back. I will wait and see how that works out.

Ragthorn1224d ago

@SJPFTW
Woot, I almost downvoted you when you said "OMG NOT THIS AGAIN. the ps3 and xbox 360 can do 1080p and 60 fps easy" but then realized I didn't scroll down and saw what you said. You know what your talking about sir.

+ Show (44) more repliesLast reply 1224d ago
Sony3601228d ago

lol, "twitch" gameplay.

I can never take that seriously.

JsonHenry1228d ago

Not on a console where they slow the pace of the game down to meet the controllers limitations.

papashango1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

example of a twitch shooter.

Alot of new shooters try to add this element to their game but fail miserably. CS was born in it.

CS 1.6 and before was popular because while easy to learn it took much skill to master.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

this is the result of those that mastered it.

indubitably1227d ago

That is why halo is the only FPS I play on console

ginsunuva1228d ago

THEN GOOD THING BATTLEFIELD ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE TWITCH-BASED

TooTall191227d ago

It's very twitch-based unless you're playing with scrubs who can't aim.

Upbeat1228d ago

Personally i love good looking textures and no jaggie edges, so as long as the textures are great i'm not to fussed, although the higher the resolution goes the less jaggies there are, so they will probably run it with Anti Aliasing

Ragthorn1224d ago

@FanboyPunisher
Please stop hurting the PC Gaming community, you'll get console people to make remarks about us : (
1080p since 1998, lol you made me laugh right there.

FanboyPunisher1228d ago TrollingShowReplies(1)
solid_warlord1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

I doubt an average consumer will be able to tell a difference between 720p and 1080p sitting on there sofa. I can't tell a difference when i play games or watch movies on two of my HDTV's at home, one is 720p and the other is 1080p. You will mostly will see PC geeks with there hyper sensitive eyes who can tell a difference.

Statix1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

I'd rather have a CONSISTENT 60fps at 720p, than an inconsistent framerate that drops to 35-40fps at 1080p any day. Fact of the matter is, even the latest PC GPUs currently out (HD7970, GTX680) won't be able to maintain a 100% constant 60fps on the newest version of the Frostbite engine--sorry to burst everyone's bubble. Hell, they can barely average ~40fps in Crysis 3 on the highest settings.

I'm actually happy about this news, as it shows DICE's commitment to 60fps gaming on consoles.

The game will still look beautiful at 720p, upscaled to 1080p on your HDTV. Game development is all about sacrifices, and if some resolution needs to be sacrificed to maintain great graphics, player count, and FRAMERATE, then so be it.

tee_bag2421227d ago

People with a clue can tell the difference between 720 and 1080p.

Tei7771227d ago

It all depends on the size of on your TV

Statix1227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

As long as I get 64 players with a consistent 60 fps, I'm happy. I'll sacrifice some resolution for gameplay. Bring it on!

Fanboys will whine about 720p instead of 1080p. Well, the fact of the matter is that DICE has to compete with Call of Duty (also 60 fps), and the only way they can do that is use a lesser resolution. Consistent 1080p at 60fps on the latest, greatest Frostbite engine just ISN'T POSSIBLE, even with the the latest graphics cards currently out (HD 7970, GTX 680). I guarantee that Call of Duty will be 720p on next-gen consoles as well, in order to keep the framerate and graphics looking good--thus, DICE had to follow suit.

Gameplay, framerate, and graphics >>>> resolution.

Ju1227d ago

Player count should not be an issue on the PS4 at all (no idea about next-box). It has an ARM based sub system which does nothing but handle network traffic (those PCI cards cost a fortune on PCs still). This should allow of handling network traffic without touching the main cpu.

If they are competing against CoD they have already lost. CoD sacrifices quality to get 60fps. I don't need 60fps BF. That's why I'm not getting CoD. Seriously.

xPhearR3dx1227d ago

Ummm are you crazy? I highly doubt BF4 will be a HUGE graphical leap like Bad Company to BF3 was. I can run BF3 with 64 players, 1080P, 60FPS with ease. That's off 660 TI SLI. Also the 680 isn't the latest GPU (My 660 TI SLI is actually better than a single 680) but there's also the 690 and the Titan.

If the PS4/Next Xbox can't run every single launch game at 1080p w/ 60FPS, there's no reason to release one or even both of those consoles. We've been at 30FPS/720p on consoles for the last 7 years. We don't need another generation of that crap. That defeats the whole purpose of next-gen.

Ulf1227d ago

@Ju,

The primary limitations on multiplayer count are animation-related, and in some cases, physics. Those are both heavyweight CPU tasks, and something that the PS3's Cell just happened to excel at.

There's are a lot of reasons only one shooter ever supported 256 players, and I guarantee that's one of bigger ones. The laptop CPU in the PS4, despite being pretty awesome, may not actually be able to compete with the Cell, in an animation cage match.

If it's anything like other AMD CPUs, "8 cores" means "8 integer cores, which share 4 floating point/vector units, in pairs". That's nice, but the 6 dev SPUs on the Cell were *extremely* good at a few things -- and vector math/animation was one of them.

Ragthorn1224d ago

Call of Duty on consoles does have 60 fps, but not all the time, it dips on multiple occasions.
Yes it is possible to reach constant 1080p and 60fps with the latest, and greatest Frostbite engine, YOU USE THE GTX TITAN /s

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1224d ago
Axe991227d ago

@ All the PC people talking about the 7xxx radeon series on PC - remember that the rendering and pretty much everything on PC is held back by both far less optimisation and the impact of the OS. That, and we really don't know an awful lot about the power of the CPU and GPU in the kind of detail to answer this question. I'm not saying that BF4 could be 1080p and 60fps on PS4, Xbox 720 or whatever, but no-one here, not even the PC people, know whether it's possible or not.

So PC people - stop saying with confidence it can't happen - you don't know. Console people - stop saying with confidence it can happen (at least at decent visual fidelity levels - I suspect the PS3 could run BF4 1080p at 60fps with no textures, lol), because you don't know either.

Let's just enjoy the game for what it is, eh, however it turns out? And hope the SP campaign is a dash better this time ;).

jmc88881227d ago (Edited 1227d ago )

Wrong.

As computers get more powerful, and have more cores, the OS overhead becomes a smaller percentage.

But what IS funny is that today's consoles have pretty advanced OS'es. You're using an argument that had truth in the Sega Genesis versus Windows 3.1 or 95 era.

Now the 360/PS3's have some pretty powerful OS'es, and guess what the PS4's OS is massively increased.

The OS overhead on the PS4 is like a PC almost. You don't think all that downloading in the background and useless facecrap integration amongst other bloatware comes free from performance hit right?

Actually we have pretty good idea of what's possible, because we know the tech inside the PS4. I'm both a console gamer and a PC gamer, and have been for 30 years. From Atari 2600/Apple II to 360/PS3/Wii U/i7 920 @4ghz GTX 670 PC.

We already know that PS4 is literally a midrange 2011 GPU whose raw power is that of a ~$200 or so GTX 660. That it's 8 core CPU is less powerful than a midrange CPU on a PC from 2007-8...even if it the PS4 has double the cores. We understand that Ram doesn't increase performance, it can just decrease a potentially performance hit...yet it's not just the SIZE that determines this, but the speed and latency as well (and location..which is actually what consoles have over PC's).

Hell a year ago, just based on regular things like; cost, wattage, reliability, peripherals, and a few other factors I used an educated guess to say the PS4/720 should be around the range of a GTX 560ti and a GTX 670. Seems like I was just about right when you consider its 1.8 TFlops makes it basically a GTX 580oc or a GTX 660. Meanwhile the 720 seems to be heading for 560ti level performance.

Optimization is not nearly as big of a problem as you think it is. There might be a ton of video card VENDORS, but really only 3 true different makers...and really only 2 of consequence...Nvidia, and ATI.

One of which will be provided the guts for the new consoles based off of what...PC tech that is decently but not overly powerful so they can mass produce it in volume and provide it at low cost.

There's the difference between knowing where a bird will land exactly, and knowing that it WILL, and most likely, near some water...other birds...or near that feed on the ground.

The clues are all there, which is why most people that wish to be cognizant of whats around them, are not surprised very much by the future.

People knew the economic crash was coming. I knew it was coming YEARS in advance. Guess what we've only just begun.

I could go on about all the things possible to see beforehand, like say Cyprus and their deposits trying to be seized, but anyone with a brain knows banks anywhere in the EU (and here in the US) aren't safe places to hold you money and FDIC backing is a joke.

Just realize you are provided the tools to figure stuff out, it's up to you whether or not you take the time to figure it out.