Submitted by Abriael 691d ago | screenshot

Battlefield 4 on PS4 and Xbox One: How it Should Look at 900p and 720p – Part 2 – The Differences

There has been a lot of talk on the fact that Battlefield 4 has been demonstrated running at a resolution of 720p on Xbox One and Ps4, and while EA DICE says that the final resolution isn’t yet finalized, and that they’re targeting to have the same resolution on both next generation consoles, many are still wondering what the real pixel count will be.

Here are several screenshots simulating how the game should look on next generation consoles with both 720p and 900p resolutions (and 1080p for refernece), and a direct comparison between them.

This second part aims to better showcase the differences between the resolutions. (Battlefield 4, PC, PS4, Xbox One)

kratos_TheGoat  +   691d ago
looking forward for 64 players
P0werVR  +   691d ago
Probably on their next title...hope so.


Oh yeah, me bad. heheheh
#1.1 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(17) | Report | Reply
Abriael  +   691d ago
Umh, this one has 64 players.
NewMonday  +   691d ago

you actually did it, great work!

this is much better than the last time, the difference is clear on 720vs900 and also 900vs1080, 1080p is obviously the best, it looks so crisp

edite: I play on a 65'TV so the difference will stand out to me and matters
#1.1.2 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(5) | Report
lesrima88  +   690d ago
wait wut?
FamilyGuy  +   690d ago
I was confused till I saw "part 2" in the title.
Glad some 1080p shots were put up this time. It's a shame we don't get the choice in the settings or something between 1080p/30fps mode and 720/900p 60fps mode. I have a big tv and prefer the higher resolution picture.

This is the only game I've head of coming to the PS4 that isn't going to be 1080p. 64 players and the destructibility of parts in the map must be very taxing, along with all the fancy lighting, particle effects etc etc.
#1.1.4 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
hesido  +   690d ago
@FamilyGuy: I prefer higher framerates, but I like your thinking, their engine is scalable enough to provide those options.
P0werVR  +   690d ago

What would be the purpose of having such settings if it's already on the same system?

If they could have put a 1080p at 30fps with all the visual effects that make it Next Gen graphics, then I guarantee you they would do so. But since frame rates with advanced visual graphics is far better than a shotty 1080p resolution, it then makes a lot of sense.
bondsmx  +   691d ago
Ditto man.. Ditto. First "true" battlefield experience on consoles and I can't wait. I played bf1942, bf2 and 2142 on pc, but then Switched to consoles once my pc became outdated and didn't have money at the time to fix it. Played every bf game since on consoles and have always longed for 64 players again. Buying ps4/bf4 day 1. Can NOT wait!
3-4-5  +   691d ago
Yea 64 players on consoles @60 FPS is really the only thing that truly matters.

Graphics will be better, so it doesn't matter how much because Current BF3/ xbox 360/Ps3 graphics are just fine as they are now.

It's literally going to be everything we have now, but slightly upgraded in almost every way.

This gen is about increasing all the small things.

It's going to take 2-4 years before people realize how next gen the PS4/xb1 can be.
TheKingWilliamV  +   691d ago
This isn't News this is TMZ
porkChop  +   691d ago
It's not listed as news, is it?
Evilsnuggle  +   690d ago
All the news the xoxo boiz don't like is TMZ. The fact that PS4 GPU is more powerful than xbone and PS4 has superior memory system bandwidth and is easy to program are fact not rumors. Even MicroSCAM said their drivers are not done.
Jazz4108  +   690d ago
I really think alot of people are going to be surprised how close both of the consoles are but I guess its okay to take rumors as facts if thats the kind of life you lead. I will enjoy both systems just like the current gen. I should add nice work to the person that went to the trouble to show this to everyone as this is not a easy thing to show and they are able to get there point across very nicely so kudos.
#2.2.1 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report
JsonHenry  +   691d ago
Just sit further away from your TV and you won't notice. If this was the way it was on my PC monitor though I would be upset. There is a huge loss of clarity.
Trekster_Gamer  +   691d ago
Part II of a useless article. How about we compare when the game releases??

My guess you won't be able to tell the difference, Xbox One / PS4 will look the same... Wii-u inferior and PC with a good gaming rig will look the best.

I'm more interested in how well it plays and the unique features each system brings.
Abriael  +   691d ago
"My guess you won't be able to tell the difference, Xbox One / PS4 will look the same"

Someone missed the part of the article that says that it's not a comparison between Xbox One and PS4, but between 720p and 900p. DICE already said they're targeting the same resolution on both consoles. We just don't know which one.
#4.1 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
tracyllrkn  +   691d ago
I don't think the game is coming to the Wii U.
xKugo  +   691d ago
Still don't understand why these systems aren't running the game at 1080p/60fps. Really are going to be missing out when the game launches; the beta on PC is already better than the PS4& Xbox One version will ever be. Sad...
Abriael  +   691d ago
It also takes a PC that costs twice as much to run better than what the PS4 and Xbox version will ever be.

A 400 bucks PC might run the game with the native resolution downsized to 25%, which looks like ass :D

It won't even get near to 720p.

They're consoles. They're not designed to beat high end PCs. People should simply stop expecting them to.
#5.1 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
vulcanproject  +   691d ago
The fact is brand new console hardware isn't capable of doing the game in 1080p it seems, but a reasonable gaming PC is.

The next gen consoles are comparable to medium settings apparently.

On BF4 beta benches I have seen, a Radeon 7870 can do high @ 1080p and average pretty much 60FPS.

Thats a $170 card and thats on the beta, if the finished thing with finished drivers doesn't run quite a lot better like BF3 did from its beta to final I'll be surprised....

Not only that 7870 price is probably going to drop a little bit too.

Beating new consoles with PC hardware is getting cheaper. Its not like you'll need an uber machine to comfortably beat the next gen machines at multiformats.

If you don't believe it Abriael then you might want to have a look here: http://www.tomshardware.com...

New benchmarks where the 7870 is averaging.......58.7 at high settings.

The CPU is an overclocked i5 2550k. Its not a 'cheap' processor, but by no means is it the highest end either.

Sure enough a decent PC will cost more than $500, but then it WILL run the game better, and you WON'T need high end, very expensive gear to do it.

Yet as I pointed out, this IS a beta. The finished thing will surely run even faster....
#5.1.1 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(13) | Report
Abriael  +   691d ago
@vulcanproject: a 7870 will never, ever average 60 FPS even on high at 1800p unless you pair it with a very powerful (and costly) CPU, and even in that case it's doubtful.

even if you count 170 bucks for the card, you have to buy the rest of the PC, and that'll bring you way over 500.

if you want 60 fps on the beta on high, you're looking at a 800 bucks PC, over 1000 if you want ultra.
xKugo  +   691d ago
Dude, quit posting stupid arguments like" Takes a PC twice as much to run better". No it doesn't, and that really seems to be your only defense. I could build a PC right now for $600 dollars that would crush a PS4 and would run BF4 better than these new consoles would. The parts I would be using would probably be considerably aged, as well. These are BRAND NEW consoles we're talking about here, and they're coming out already outdated and out-classes by a decent gaming PC. They're weak, costly when longevity comes into question, games are expensive and inefficient at what they do best which is to play games. They have lost the advantage they used to have in low resource overhead and the ability to plug and play is now gone because games have been requiring you to install them for quite some time now. The consoles are ass-backwards PC that are inferior to a computer in nearly EVERY SINGLE ASPECT. There is no working around that because it's a fact, just accept it and move on. Stop denying what's right in your face.
4Sh0w  +   691d ago
XKugo lets assume the only pc I own is 5yrs old budget friendly low spec pc, now I want to buy a pc to play all the latest high end games at 1080p 60fps so please list the price and name these pc hardware I need minus the monitor that the avg joe can buy and build from the ground for under $600? You make it sound so easy so I just want to know what to buy, where to buy it, and how much it will cost me?????
#5.1.4 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report
tehnoob3  +   691d ago

CPU AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core $109.99
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Micro ATX AM3+ $49.99
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 $59.99
Storage Toshiba 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM $47.50
Video Card HIS Radeon HD 7950 3GB $199.99
Case NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower $35.94
Power Supply Cooler Master 500W ATX12V $42.98
Total is $546.38

This will run BF4 on high/mostly ultra settings at 60 fps.
#5.1.5 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report
aceitman  +   691d ago
to all that complaining about it not being 1080p 60fps , calm down its only the 1st batch of games wait till devs get to utilze the next gen systems with time and experience . im sure the next years games will do that . some already are . game on .
Ulf  +   691d ago
I agree.

You cannot build an equivalent PC for $400, and have it run the game even close to as well.

PC fanboys are pretty ridiculous.
cunnilumpkin  +   691d ago

The Gateway SX2865-UR34 is $299,


add a $100 gpu in it will beat the ps4


this machine with the 560 ti will outperform the ps4 in bf4

ps4 is only doing around 900p at medium settings

this desktop will do 900p at medium and high mixed settings with better anti aliasing

remember, all bf4 needs on pc is;

•Dual core CPU (Intel Core i5 or AMD “Bulldozer”).
•At least 4 GB main system memory
•Graphics card with at least 512 MB of VRAM and support for DirectX 10
•30+ GB of harddrive space
•Windows Vista

this pc is within that and the gpu is well beyond that
#5.1.8 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(10) | Report
SilentNegotiator  +   691d ago

That won't run anything unless you add an OS, mouse, and keyboard.

OS: $100
Mouse worth gaming with: $30
keyboard: $15-20


Good luck fitting that card into that tiny tower. More luck to having a Gateway computer last longer than a month.
#5.1.9 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(7) | Report
Einhert  +   691d ago
Another consolite spreading misinformation, you know absolutely nothing about building a PC if you think it cant be competitively priced for what it can do against a console.

But of course the only advantage to PCs is graphics......yeah sure lets just ignore....

- Better performance
- more game assets can be used, i.e more buildings, more characters on screen, larger scopes of scenery
- unlimited control options from wheels to joysticks
- servers
- mods
- steam platform and its sales
- Exclusive games with longevity and scope you will never find on a peasant box
- indie market that makes AAA quality games for a fraction of the price
- Last true bastion of gaming that requires thought and tactics as well as actual skill
- quicker patch support
- backwards compatibility right up until the beginning of the era
- better sound quality
- better voice chat, console comms are utter poverty
- higher skill ceiling
- RTS games
- MMO games
- MOBA games
- Cheaper games
- Simulator games found nowhere else (lol if you think forza or GT are sims)
- upgradable hardware (completely optional)
- Not tied to one service like poverty xbox live or PSN
- Actually own your hardware unlike consoles
- Free online
- Can fix problems with games if you are not retarded, GOOD luck waiting for a patch to get through MS or Sony certification LOL
- Can fix hardware faults and problems easily, good luck with your PS4 overheating goals of 2013
- Easy transfer of DLC and save files, lol the headache of transferring saves for the mass effect series on poverty xbox
- Long term is actually cheaper than consoles if you are in anyway smarter than the average ham sandwich
- No need to buy into a whole brand new PC at every hardware life cycle
- The platform that innovates and is always pushing the boundaries of what can be done
- Better multiplatform games
- Established digital download scene
- Multitasking potential, able to use steam overlay to browse internet, listen to music on, misc etc etc
- No storage limit, good luck with 500GB hardrives in 2013
- Portability is better than consoles, brb can download games onto another PC from my steam account, brb laptops easier to carry than a peasant box with its controllers and necessary cables
- Able to fine tune your graphics settings and turn off annoying features like motion blur or bloom
- FULL HD resolution, even "next gen" poverty boxes are stuck at 720p LOL
- Complex chat programs available enabling hundreds of players to communicate together, Planetside 2 teamspeak for example
- New innovative tech like the occulus rift, we are approaching VR status while you peasants struggle to reach full HD LOL
- Community sharing available like no other platform, entire steam community network already chits on PS4 & Xbones meager offerings
- It can do everything a console can except better
- It can do so much more than just play games, brb limitless tasks beyond gaming
- Better build quality than poverty boxes
- Can capture video direct on the PC for making videos, can edit the videos with multiple types of software
- It is THE media hub

But Yeah I digress, the only clear reason to play PC is clearly superior graphics...................
Abriael  +   691d ago

someone forgot the operating system, the disc drive, a decent CPU cooler because otherwise that processor will cook,especially in that case. keyboard, mouse etc, and that's easily another 200+ bucks if you choose crappy parts.

PS: using a micro ATX motherboard in that case is laughable.

Easy to downplay the cost of a gaming PC if you don't count parts of it.

And if you expect that PC to run the game at stable 60 FPS even just at high settings, you're delusive. It'll be good if it holds stable 30-45

@Einhert: consolite? lol. I build my own gaming PCs (and more for friends) probably since before you knew you could game on PC. I'm just not a blind fanboy.
#5.1.11 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
Kleptic  +   691d ago

current benchmarks show you better go no less than a 7970 to take on ultra at 1080 60 fps...at least in the games current state (mantle could help that considerably, though)...at least assuming you want MSAA fully enabled and everything...

100% maxed out on every single setting a stock 7970 with mid range I5 iirc was at just above 60 fps average, with mins in the upper 40's...with nearly 100% gpu load, so it wasn't bottlenecked by the cpu...

and with the 280x coming, that 7970 only adds 40 or 50 bucks to your build...or for around $100 more you could get a ghz edition, or a new R9 280x...which are overclocked, and notably faster, than a stock 7970...

either way...the 7950 probably won't be pulling off ultra at 1080 at a framerate you'd want for multiplayer...at least from what tom's beta benches showed a few days ago...
5eriously  +   690d ago
Gawd these PC trolls are so irritating, self centred and illiterate!

I have a PC but still prefers to use my consoles for gaming for many reasons but the main reason is to play the console AAA exclusives.

You are so bloody tiring. Why not spend the time here trolling playing games on your wonderful PC, that is IF you own one. The reality is that most people talk about something they desire but cannot own or get mostly because they do not have the money because they waste to much time posting BS garbage instead of earning by doing a job..

Like ol fatboy limp pumpkin just post the same text day in and day out on any PS4/eXB0Ne article. Nothing new nothing interesting just PC trolling.
#5.1.13 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report
SlapHappyJesus  +   690d ago
It's the issue of having brand new consoles, out of the gate, showing limitations.
These are pieces of hardware that people are stuck to for many years to come.
You can argue PC parts cost all you want, it's just part of the platform as a whole. At the end of the day, you are only tied to the performance you are willing to pay for. In a lot of ways, this is a plus. I know it feels so to me.
#5.1.14 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Cryptcuzz  +   690d ago

Dude, quit posting stupid arguments like" Takes a PC twice as much to run better"

Abriael is right, it does cost more to build a PC that would be able to run this game the way it is now.

Did you read the part where he says:

"They're consoles. They're not designed to beat high end PCs. People should simply stop expecting them to"

If you want next gen consoles to have equivalent GPU's like the more recent ones released in the past year or so, ask the manufacturers to sell them to console makers at a much lower cost that wouldn't give consumers another $600 or more price tag.

Hey, I'd love for next gen consoles to have the latest and greatest GPU's in them, but it is not hard to comprehend it costs $$$ for everyone involved.

Latest GPU tech is not at the point where they can be made to run at low enough temperatures to be considered to be in a console. So console makers would have to design a solution for this. What would it be? Bigger, louder, faster running fans? Bigger heat sinks? Liquid cooled? How loud would it be? How much power would a console like that use? Higher chance of failure.

Would you like that?
iPad  +   691d ago
Consoles have to be profitable.

The average consumer is not going to be a $800 console even if it's on par with a high-end PC.
jcnba28  +   691d ago
What do you think of the steam machines?
erronnettoll586   691d ago | Spam
cell989  +   691d ago
I dont know, to me knowing Im playing at a better resolution is still a satisfaction. Sure the difference wont be much, but a little extra resolution is still a good thing. If it wasnt so much a difference, DICE would go 720P on all systems but they obviously know more resolution is always better. I also have a feeling pictures dont do justice, we still need some digital foundry videos to really compare
drpepperdude  +   691d ago
They are both capable of running at a resolution of 1080p. It just comes down to optimizations and if the developers want to decrease the graphics in exchange for resolution or fps and vice versa. If you took a ps3 game, kept all the graphics at the same level it would be easy to run the game at 1080p, 60fps. A game would run better on ps4 that was built from the ground up on that system not a game being ported to several different systems. If the game was built on ps4 using opengl instead of directx 11 would that help the ps4 version more or does directx work better? Anything can effect how hard it is to run a game with more resolution and fps and definitely the engine the game is built upon.
#8 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Drithe  +   691d ago
This game on the ps3 is so boring. 12 on 12. I cannot begin to tell you how empty the game feels compared to 32 vs 32.
tigertom53  +   691d ago
the biggest difference is at 1080p
HappyWithOneBubble  +   691d ago
I'm happy with 720p
TechMech2  +   691d ago
The ps4 being more powerful than Xbox one argument seems unimportant now that PC games look better than the two systems at launch.
#12 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
quantumofmalice  +   691d ago
Can someone please tell me when the 1080p tv's i have been buying for years can be used for ummmm 1080p gaming?
cunnilumpkin  +   691d ago
on pc since 2004
5eriously  +   690d ago
Was that the time you got your first pea as a brain, then you ate it and subsequently every pea received thereafter?
#13.1.1 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
PersonMan  +   691d ago
How come the graphics don't look as good as they did when they first showed the game?
voodoogts  +   691d ago
Lol they have it reversed. Xb1 will be running 900p 60fps while ps4 is only at 720p
That's why Xbox one is holding the 64 player 32 vs 32 USA vs Europe on November 1st.
Animal Mutha 76  +   691d ago
Not sure if you are right but when I played BF4 on XB1 at Eurogamer it seemed a lot higher than 720p but not 1080p. Hard to tell really as the Xbox apparently has a really powerful scaler. No PS4 version to compare.
CC-Tron  +   690d ago
That powerful scaler will come in handy. It'll save resources that can be dedicated to other aspects of the games besides graphics.
MasterCornholio  +   691d ago
They never confirmed a 900p resolution for the Xbox One which throws your theory out the window. What they said was that 720P would be the minimum but if they are able to go higher than that they will.


They are aiming for parity so both versions will be the same in the end.

Nexus 7 2013
#15.2 (Edited 691d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
jlo  +   691d ago
720p? 900p? Honestly these 'next gen' consoles are a joke. They can't even meet 1080p, which is the LAST GEN standard (4k is the 'next gen' standard, but you can forget about that)
ion666  +   690d ago
i dont think ppl would throw a game away if it was 720 p.only p.c. ppl do that and its just not playable .64 players and 60 fps . ugh im having an aneurysm
. fucking p.c. ass holes. waste your building a computer to jerk you off. lolz.
givemeshelter  +   690d ago
We really need to stop comparing consoles to PC gaming rigs...
KontryBoy706  +   690d ago
I can't believe we are actually having this debate. really 720p vs 900p? LOL if anything these consoles should be sporting at least 1080p standard. 1080p has been around forever. We are moving in the 1440p/1600p age. These consoles should at least be doing 1080p no question
Tzuno  +   690d ago
you still believe it will be a huge graphical leap? bwuahahahahahhhh!!! no man, it will be better fps and slightly higher resolutions. On consoles it will look like pc on medium-high.
Corpser  +   690d ago
I'll be playing in 5760x1200
SlapHappyJesus  +   690d ago
This article is not quite accurate.
No matter the resolution tested, it is obvious that there is advanced AA going on . . . which would make it MSAA - one of the best, visually, available at the moment.
The game, at lower resolutions, won't look as good as they were showing.
Hell, jaggies would still be evident at 1080 resolution and even a bit at something like 2560x1440.
#22 (Edited 690d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Zombi XBox One Review | ImpulseGamer

6m ago - IG: The 2012 Wii U classic “Zombi U” has received a next-gen port and is now available on the PC... | Xbox One

Is Final Fantasy's March Event a Reaction to Bethesda's E3 Press Conference?

6m ago - At the Active Time Report panel during PAX this weekend, Square Enix announced that the developer... | PS4

The Wii U Games You Need to Play in August

Now - Let's take a look at what Nintendo will be offering throughout the month. | Promoted post

Kotaku | 'Mad Max' Review

6m ago - Kotaku A little more than 10 years ago, not long after I quit my job to become a freelance wri... | PC

Tips For Playing Metal Gear Solid V

6m ago - Kotaku So you just woke up from a nine-year coma, you’re missing an arm, and there’s a giant h... | PC

The Fall Review - Nerd Rock from the Sun

7m ago - Doctor Cow-Slice writes: "It's worth a play, the story is strong and the game works and is pretty... | PS4