Call of Duty: Ghosts' "juddering" PS4 frame rate is actually a visual phenomenon caused by the game rendering faster than 60FPS, it's been revealed.
Soo good that the game can't handle its strength.
dude all that horsepower, the ps4 is all like...why you so slow bro get it moving
so does this mean it runs better on PS4 than PC ? Srs question btw
At the very least they need to cap the frame rate at 60 if it can't be full-on locked. PS4 version took a lot of shots for this and all along turns out that it OVER-preforming was the issue. lol
If ever there was an acceptable reason to have technical issues this is it.
Hahaha. "Call of Duty: Ghosts' "juddering" PS4 frame rate is actually a visual phenomenon caused by the game rendering faster than 60FPS, it's been revealed." PS4 is to powerful to handle for the game.
lol that beast!!!!
From gaff,there is a second one with I think Arthur gies' picture. http://i.qkme.me/3t5f5l.jpg http://abload.de/img/gies8c...
So Cod can't handle the PS4 O.O Cod holding back the PS4 since 2013 ;) (also this is another indication that the PS4 is the strongest console)
Well, the Dark Sorcerer was running at 1080p above 60fps as well (jumping between 30fps and 90fps, wasn't even optimized). Fair enough, it's a tech demo, but it is very impressive. Now that an actual game (a launch game mind you) is running above 60fps along with 1080p native, I'm even more excited about the PS4's future. A very surprising twist.
So all that time people were bashing how the PS4 had problems playing CoD was because it was overperforming even at 1080p? Can't wait to see what the future of multi-platform games on the PS4 brings.
"so does this mean it runs better on PS4 than PC ? Srs question btw" no. PC's support G-sync, no frames lost or cut when running at 120 fps. All the more reason to consider PC gaming.
All those times the Xbox fans said "lol, the PS4 isn't powerful enough to run 1080p 60fps" and it was because the console is TOO powerful, haha, gotta love it. Thrust,belking,palaven and the rest of you guys, what do you have to say now?
I'm sure Polygon will be rushing to update their review accordingly... yeah, right.
"All those times the Xbox fans said "lol, the PS4 isn't powerful enough to run 1080p 60fps" and it was because the console is TOO powerful, haha, gotta love it. " "TOO powerful" Such an arrogant conclusion. suddenly we've gone back to 06 when everyone believed potential was infinite and there was no reason to need better hardware. In truth both consoles can do 1080p 60 fps.(when optimized for that.) It's not guaranteed though to accommodate evolving technology in games. to always support that standard you would need ever evolving hardware. (similar to PC)
""TOO powerful" Such an arrogant conclusion. suddenly we've gone back to 06 when everyone believed potential was infinite and there was no reason to need better hardware." Improving that statement a little, they have power of their own to acknowledge but these consoles we're talking about are closed architecture, and are using midranged PC parts. In the PC world NO PC is considered "too powerful", definitions are always evolving depending on games and hardware. Too strong for some games Too weak for others.
"Thrust,belking,palaven and the rest of you guys, what do you have to say now?" That's easy. They'll just go on repeating the same crap.
YOUR FRAME RATE IS TOO HIGH BRO RELAX OR I'LL GIVE YOU A BAD REVIEW AHHHHH MY EYES
If your tv can refresh over 60 fps, would this juddering happen?
just like 30fps, 60fps needs to be locked to have a smooth gameplay.
@gtgamer Good points on top I'd like to add. The xbox one cant run it at 1080p or 60fps. But the PS4 needs to be slowed down to 60fps at 1080P! reminds me of the fastest man on earth. What if Usain Bolt (xbox one), had a twin brother INSANE Bolt (PS4)? They will have to slow this INSANE BOLT down that's what!
"no. PC's support G-sync, no frames lost or cut when running at 120 fps." Oh, PC's may support G-sync. You forget to mention it's only on Nvidia. And only a few monitor models currently have support for it. (and even then some of those need a 100 dollar add on for it to work, it doesn't come out of the box.) Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited for G-sync tech, but you talk about it as if the support is wide enough for you to talk about it as if it is ubiquitous which is totally incorrect.
This is so stupid. In order for a game to be capped at 60fps it is always going to be rendering over 60fps. To get a capped 60fps the actual framerate is going to have to be something like 63 to 81fps (not those exact numbers, but in that ballpark). This is because rendering loads are not consistent from moment to moment. Some parts of any game are more demanding than others. The same thing goes for 30fps games. If you unlocked the framerate I guarantee every one of them would be outputting up into the 40s or 50s. Which you have to have in order to have 30fps as your minimum. But framerates that don't evenly divide into the refresh rate of the display (60hz displays are by far most common) will always introduce judder and uneven controller response. So 20fps, 30fps and 60fps are the options. 20fps simply doesn't give enough visual information and a smooth enough sense of motion to be used for games, so that is why we see most games capped at 30fps or 60fps. Perceived stuttering is caused by two things: 1. The frame rate drops under the target frame rate, thus the frame intervals get temporarily out of sync with the refresh rate of the display. 2. The frame rate is unlocked and therefor experiences the normal swings of the rendering load. This causes stutter, again, do to the irregular frame intervals. This also causes screen tearing. Vsync will always cap the frame rate at the refresh rate of the display. An unlocked framerate above 60 would be a very poor choice. First, it would cause the GPU to render more frames than can be rendered by the majority of displays, which is a pointless waste. Second of all, it would cause the GPU to produce more heat, increasing chances of hardware failure and shortening its lifespan. Not to mention the other major negatives listed above. Now, Call of Duty Ghosts on PS4 is Vsynced, also meaning the frame rate is capped at 60fps. So if people are experiencing stutter in Ghosts on the PS4 the only cause can be if the frame rate drops below 60fps sometimes. (unless it is micro-stutter caused by delays in the rendering pipeline). In either case, it has nothing to do with rendering too many frames.
@ Shivvy You do realize PC games can get as high FPS as your rig can handle right? My rig handles CoD at higher graphics than PS4 and runs at 120 frames per second.
I'm not sure who David Bierton is. I've seen lots of analysis done by Richard Leadbetter and he is knowledgeable. Either David Bierton doesn't understand how frames are rendered, buffered and displayed or he just got confused in his explanation of it. This has nothing to do with rendering "higher frame-rates than 60fps". As I said, every 60fps game is actually going to render an increased number of frames if you uncap the framerate. The variance is generally on the order of 15 to 30 frames, but it can vary quite a bit from game to game. So if it is capped at 60fps and hitting that mark 95% of the time, that means 60fps is the MINIMUM frame rate, except for that 5% of the time it drops below 60fps. What's we're dealing with in this case is frame latency spikes. For a smooth 60fps, each frame must be rendered in 16.7 milliseconds. Even if the average framerate is 60fps as recorded by something like FRAPS, if the frame delivery isn't consistent it will result in perceptible judder. This is why a lot of the more forward thinking tech sites are starting to use to tools to see what is happening within each second, in order to find these frame latencies that are missed by older frame monitoring tools. There are a lot of really good articles on the subject for anyone that is interested: http://techreport.com/revie... "The fundamental reality we've discovered is that a higher FPS average doesn't necessarily correspond to smoother animation and gameplay. In fact, at times, FPS averages don't seem to mean very much at all. The problem boils down to a weakness of averaging frame rates over the span of a whole second, as nearly all FPS-based tools tend to do. Allow me to dust off an old illustration, since it still serves our purposes well: The fundamental problem is that, in terms of both computer time and human visual perception, one second is a very long time. Averaging results over a single second can obscure some big and important performance differences between systems." -Scott Wasson, from the article above. http://www.extremetech.com/... http://techreport.com/revie...
As Mr. Wasson pointed out, a second is a long time. Think about it.. in one single second of time 60 unique frames are created and drawn on the screen. A whole lot of amazing synchronization and timing has to happen to realize that result. For smooth and consistent motion (i.e. no stuttering) at 60fps each frame needs to be rendered and delivered to the frame buffer in 16.7 milliseconds. For 30fps, frames need to be delivered every 33.3 ms. If you drop from a consistent 16.7 ms delivery to a 33.3 ms delivery you would see a very noticeable drop from 60fps to 30fps. These are the kind of obvious frame rate drops that people usually refer to as "slowdown". They normally last for at least a few seconds. However, what happens within a single second also matters. If only one frame, out of those 60 frames that are delivered within that second, is delivered late (say it takes 25 milliseconds), it will still be perceptible. And if that happens to at least one frame every second or even every few seconds it can produce perceptible stutter even if the framerate counter is pegging it at a 60fps average. These "skipped and incomplete frames" are a problem of frame delivery TIMING due to frame latency, not of running at a framerate higher than 60fps in the way people normally understand it. With a double buffered v-synced game the front buffer and back buffer are flipped after each refresh of the display. Drawing of new frames is not done if the buffer(s) contain frames that have not yet been displayed.
That PS4 tho and IW y'all suck at optimizing the game for the PS4 because the PS4 is pushing that game above and beyond sadly it can't take it . This Polygon right now http://www.gifcrap.com/g2da...
Polygon Downranked COD Ghosts (PS4) because its framerate was too high. Mind Blown.
Where is V-sync? This does not sound correct considering console games are always locked to 30fps or 60fps.
Locked frame-rate is one thing while Vsync is another. But I'm not gonna explain that here. The thing is that when you lock a game to a certain frame-rate be it 30, 60 whatever... If the game's not pushing the console then 2 or 3 frames will always go above the fixed amount. And the judder is not cause by the game or engine but by the display which can't process the frames because it's 60hz native and not 63hz or whatever. 120hz and above TV sets are still 60hz native; 120hz/240hz/600hz are interpolated. As of now only monitors can display higher hertz than 60.
The game renders too many frames and the wrong ones are displayed half finished while others might be skipped. So rather than displaying 58, 59, 60, 61 It could accidentally display 58, 59.5, 61, 62 just as a crude example. The wrong frames are skipped. A fix should eventually be able to correct it so there aren't too many duplicate/incomplete frames.
@wishingw3l My one tv is native 240hz and its from 2011, it interpolates up to 960hz. Pretty sure it wasn't the first or last to do it.
Ps4: dude you have s***t graphics, so let me just increase the frame rate cause I feel like it.
It's because they're using a crappy old engine on hardware that can slam-dunk it and shatter the backboard. This says more about Infinity Ward's laziness than anything. This is not a next-gen caliber game. At the very least they could have capped it.
It also says as much about other "next gen" machines that can't live with it... so it seems those rumours a few months back saying the ps4 port took 3 weeks to get up and running at up to 90fps might well have had more to them than some people thought.
Wait wait wait a minute.... so the ps4 over performs and if i am reading this right the Xbone drops as low as 50fps @720p Tonight the xbots will cry
Everyone in the right mind knows that the Xbox one games were developed later than the PS4 because of the drivers had problems and dev kits were released later than the ps4 devs so yea I expect PS4 multi platform launch title to run better Every one that knows hardware can tell you the xbox one could handle cod ghost specs on 1080p with ease Both consuls will be fun can't wait to get my Xbox one launch and PS4 in January
So the ps4 runs the game at too high a frame rate and that causes some issues, nothing a patch wont fix, so its 1080p looks better than the xbone version and runs at a much higher fps , good to know
Almost all modern FPS engines have a frame draw limit that limits the number of frames the engine will draw every second, and it can usually can be set by changing a variable (or a couple of them). This should be patchable. Good to hear the problem is more frames, not less!
Ye they deducted 0.5 from the PS4 for frame drops, damn do they look stupid now. I dont get why activision doesnt just release a patch that locks the framerate, problem solved solid 60fps at 1080P.
IW went bad after the Respawn guys left...
Patches cost money right? If so I doubt they'd want to spend anything, maybe use it on the COD game coming next year.
lol indeed i love it i have full fate in sony when it comes to hardware
1080p, 60+ fps. I love the multiplats on ps4.
Haha too powerful for that old engine
so ,a future patch to lower the framerate on the ps4 because its too much? bet no one saw that coming.lol
This is ..brilliant!
more like HILLARIOUS! XD
this proofs the rumors that surfaced sometime ago ''ATVI was doing the CoD: Ghosts port to nextgen. It took three weeks for PS4 and came out at 90 FPS unoptimized, and four months on Xbone and came out at 15 FPS."
that's probably why they reduced it to 720P
Wow, I thought it was dips in framerate, but it is actually because of 60+ fps. Should be able to fix then, ps4 just being too powerful for cod.
Too much power for that old engine lol
LoooL. So while most systems will have juddering framerates because they CANT handle the game, theres framerate judder here because the game... CANT handle the power of the console. That's so funny. This game is a joke. LoooL.
not the game or the engine but the display. All normal TV's are 60hz native, only monitors can show higher hz as of now. When you see TV's being advertised with 120hz, 240hz, 600hz... That's interpolation. A post-process that duplicate frames to reduce judder on movies which are filmed at 24 frames but for games it's pointless because it causes lag.
This is a problem of optimization. Not TV. The game is "rushed" dont know if it's time or bad code, but there's a problem in its development obviously. If not they would have : "Buy a TV with a better display"
Well sorry to tell you but native 240hz tvs are real and interpolation isn't only duplication. I have one tv with native 240hz and interpolation to 960hz. Other tv which is older and cheaper is 60hz and interpolation to 240hz. They are from 2011 and 2010, they weren't the first or last, just not budget tvs under 1k. It's standard on almost any high end tv and becoming more common overall. Heck my no longer with me tv from 2008 had native 60hz and interpolation to 120hz. I would hope they have progressed beyond that and they have.
Not true. My Panasonic 3D tv is native 240 Hz, but only when watching a 3D movie. Otherwise I think it runs at 120 Hz during normal operations.
Part of the blame is the majority of TVs which don't handle stuff well over 60fps. But developers should put in a framerate cap to counter this.
Woah. Ps4 will win multiplats war this gen hands down. Lol at the naysayers. Must be looking like fools now.
Well i got cod on xbox one because of xbox live and dedicated servers! it an online game to me!
PS4 has dedicated servers for COD. Also BF4, and Killzone. Pretty much everything Xbox will have. It's not an exclusive feature fyi.
@whitefire let him live in his fantasy world.
Whitefire, Forget the reason's he listed, The main reason he got the xbo is because he's an XB FANBOI!!!
Just because Microsoft is new to the dedicated server scene doesn't mean no one else has them ps3 has had dedicated servers for exclusive games since resistance fall of man.....you think MAG could run on P2P? Heck when MAG launched sony praised the server technology!
Yeah because dedicated servers are a MS exclusive feature! /s Humble pie indeed.
@ white & friends Yea but the PS3 didn't offer the option for dedicated servers to all for every game on the system. That’s why this is a "thing" at all. For the record I'm not disagreeing with what you said, only saying why I think people say it's a cool selling point. It’s a bullet point the compition doesn’t offer developer’s. Yet anyway.
yup just ignore the fact the ps4 version has dedi servers too at the same time as having the better version of COD lol.
Sigh... Killzone Shadowfall doesn't run on dedicated servers, every game is hosted on someone's PS4. It has some dedicated servers for stat keeping and matchmaking. Grats. Activision claim Ghosts uses dedicated servers for the One version, "hybrid P2P and dedicated" for every other version. Read: most likely the same as Killzone, but could be interpreted that a few proper servers are used. Battlefield for uses proper dedicated servers hosted by