Xbox One static at 1360x1080, while PS4 locks at full 1080p - but how's the frame-rate?
I am loving this game it's been a blast!!!!
good to hear. Ghosts was a little disappointing, and I am on the fence about purchasing this one.. Might have to give it a go, seems like it is getting good reviews that are genuine.
From the sound of it, it seems like they really tried hard to make this 1080P. I mean they even made resolution 1360X1080, so it has 1080 at the end. Goes to show the limitation of X1's console despite the updates and power unlocks.
Ghost has better graphics and it's more smoother but this advance warfare has better gameplay
I have ghosts didn't get into it as much, but AW has been a blast from the menus to end credits and MP has been a riot so far. Highly recommended not sure about which version you should get I got it on X11 it looks and plays great no slowdowns I can speak of.
Neon, so far it's my favorite COD since MW2. Sledgehammer has done very good with it.
Damn. Another PS4 win. To sum the article. Xbone looks blurry with it's low resolution. PS4 operating at crisp 1080p while maintaining pretty much a constant 60fps with only two dips from their tests.
Crisp 1080. Thank you very much. Just like I said, what ever was happening on X1 at 1080 was way worse than what the PS4 is doing, otherwise they would have left the res alone on X1. I'm guessing it dipped under 30 at 1080 at the spots were the variable resolution kicks in.
I think u need to read the review again. The xbox has the best performance even on MP but slight lower res. And for fps the steady frame is a must. Either way is a win for both since they were very much optimized for MP. 👍
lol @ blurry
It looks like they made both parties happy. The ps4 guys get some more pixels and xbone gets better framerates plus I'm loving that aw console. It looks sweet. Almost bought one yesterday. I must resist! LoL. So if you like online then xbone is the way to go if you need your console validation go ps4.
Both version are great with PS$ multiplayer having slightly better resolution. Good job from Sledgehammer Games.
X1 has a steadier framerate
PS4 has the full fat 1080p, maintains 60fps really well and no screen tear. XB1 version does it's best with what it has to work with but here is a game that shows the performance difference between the two consoles.
I got both versions "dumb decision" but I'd give it to PS4 it just looks better especially without the horrible crushed blacks on the Xbox One version. That alone makes a big difference. Also the higher res MP looks better on PS4.
Why both if i may ask?!
Just curious which one I'd like better between the two far as controller, performance etc. Which I made my decision pretty quick.
Edvin, Same here. I haven't played a CoD since Blops and I played some MP last night and it was fun as heck. It brings me back to the Modern Warfare game. I bought it on X1 because that's where I prefer my shooters.
So, like Lukas_Japonicus said yesterday, the only advantage that the X1 version has over the PS4 version is a slightly steadier campaign framerate. The MP is locked to 1360x1080 on X1
Like the article says, you can hardly see the difference (unless you like to look at the grass) and both platforms have you covered when it comes to 60fps multiplayer. You guys are seriously reaching for anything you can grab a hold to. Funny that certain people like to "run" with things they grab a hold to when other have been doing a marathon this whole time. Edit: What's even funnier is that a certain camp couldn't tell their own Killzone MP wasn't full 1080p but for some reason can tell on every Xbox One game. Edit Part 2: So how come no one could tell the difference for Killzone? And how come everyone has to wait for Digital Foundry or some other website to tell you guys if your eye sites are so good? I mean even Lukas was stating how he has to wait for some websites to get the numbers. Couldn't you just tell right off the bat instead of waiting to be told? You all are hilarious as the spin from the high bubble count committee of N4G continues.
Funny that the only people who "hardly see a difference" are the ones who belong to a specific camp
"Like the article says, you can hardly see the difference" "You" can hardly see the difference? Who is "you", exactly? Because I was under the impression that eyesight/perception varies from person to person and isn't just something that you can just apply a blanket statement to. 1360 x 1080p is a little above 900p, and I can definitely see the difference between 900p and 1080p on my TV. So...who do I believe, an individual who isn't me...or my own eyes? It's funny how it's only the Xbox guys that say you can't see a difference...I wonder why that is?
I'm part of the "PS4" camp if we have to be labelled as such. I would have a hard time telling the difference between native 1080p and 1380x1080 (which is then upconverted to 1080p) considering I only game on a 55" TV and I sit 10+ feet away from my TV. With my contacts I have 20/20 vision but apparently there are people on this earth that have super-human eyesight. The fact that these pixels as such a distance can still be distinguished would baffle doctors and scientists alike. I hope you all are organ donors so we can study your eyes should you pass away. ;)
***The fact that these pixels as such a distance can still be distinguished would baffle doctors and scientists alike. *** Actually, no, it doesn't. It's just that people don't understand what they're looking at. For example, in the comparison video from yesterday, I could tell when the XBO was not full 1080p by the less sharp and detail lacking signs/lettering in the game. Now, does that ruin the game or anything? Not at all. But, it's not like it takes super sight to see the differences. Even me, with one blind eye, can tell. And I don't need to be on a 55" TV and sitting 2' from it to tell either.
@Neonridr Why must people who have better eyesight than you be mockingly labelled as "superhuman"? Like I said, eyesight varies between individuals (case in point - cgoodno's comment above mine). I game on a TV that is 13 inches smaller than yours, at the same distance, and I can tell the difference between BF4 (900p) and any of my 1080p games EASILY. And because of that reason, I'd rather play this game on my PS4.
@Neonridr: 10+ feet is way too much for a 55" TV. Try 7-8 feet and you should start to see a difference.
"What's even funnier is that a certain camp couldn't tell their own Killzone MP wasn't full 1080p but for some reason can tell on every Xbox One game." Ohhh, this old chestnut, I was waiting for this to come up. Tons of people over at NeoGAF wondered why the MP looked blurrier than the SP when everyone started posting screenshots, but everyone chalked it down to the MP using a cheaper AA implementation than the one found in the SP. We didn't think it was sub-1080p because we were told otherwise. But we knew it didn't look like the SP in terms of IQ, and thus we did notice a difference. And to prove to you I'm not just talking out of my ass, I'll prove it: http://www.neogaf.com/forum... http://www.neogaf.com/forum... http://www.neogaf.com/forum... http://www.neogaf.com/forum... http://www.neogaf.com/forum... http://www.neogaf.com/forum... And that's just from a single page in the Killzone SF MP thread. So...so much for us not being able to tell the difference, lol. "Edit Part 2: So how come no one could tell the difference for Killzone? And how come everyone has to wait for Digital Foundry or some other website to tell you guys if your eye sites are so good? " Lmao, give me a chance to type out my comment before you get all high and mighty, buddy. Talk about impatient.
PS4 is more powerful than XB1. For your sake, get over it. @Lucas don't waste any time on Neonridr, just check his old comments, tells you all you need to know.
You do know that Killzone WAS displayed native 1920x1080 right? Not upscaled...NATIVE. I dare you to count the pixels on Killzone and show me some number OTHER then 1920x1080. The technical ignorance displayed when people trot out Killzone is hilarious. It displayed in FULL 1920x1080p. What it did was refreshed half of the 1920 every other frame. So it updated 960 one frame and 960 the next, while the 1080 updated every frame. The result? You saw full 1920x1080 in EVERY FRAME. The problem with this 'solution' which wasn't great, was that when in motion it made the game look blurrier. When not moving, it was crystal clear. Now you are comparing a game that is 1360x1080 and equating that it is the same thing as Killzone. Hilarious. Which of course begs the question. Would Killzone been able to even pull what it did off on the Xbox One? Nope. Yet, did the PS4 pull of 1920x1080 in the SAME game as what the Xbox One did with 1360x1080 with CoD? Yep. Oh and didn't we hear all these claims by Microsoft how they were sending teams over to help sledgehammer. http://wccftech.com/sledgeh... So you had one version get no help and pull off 1920x1080 and another version get help and only pull off 1360x1080. But that's only half the problem with your post. On top of that you are comparing a launch game to a 2nd version of another game, and that game not only has yearly updates, but has years of PC version experience to draw from where its games have been at 1080p or above for many years. Finally, you can barely tell the difference? ROFL. Blurrier, more aliasing, and crushed blacks are barely noticeable? The details are sapped out of the Xbox One version. Can't see it? Yeah right. Oh and part of the fiasco with Killzone was that they developer said it was 1920x1080, even if there were some tricks to it, it still was. But you give a pass to sledgehammer/Activision when they claim 1080 on both versions yet all they could garner was 1360x1080, thus utilizing doublespeak to confuse gamers and obfuscate the truth. I hate to tell you this, but dynamic scaling on single player and pure 1360x1080 on multiplayer is a bigger miss on what was said by Sledgehammer/Activision then the miss of Guerrilla. *and done a year later after living through people's questions and calling out of Guerrilla* Given that 1360x1080 is roughly the same as 900p, they basically tried to hide the quality of the game by saying 1080p and altering the horizontal resolution, so they could claim they hit 1080p. You basically have 900p vs 1080p, but like Wall Street and Washington they twisted the truth so they can claim 1080p. 1080p sounds better then 900p. Shame on them. I see you bypassing this bait and switch by Sledgehammer/Activision, yet still calling out Guerrilla. Hey by all means enjoy the game. I'm sure you will. I'm sure I will. But to say the differences are negligible and then trot out Killzone is a simply hilariously bad argument to make.
@cgoodno- That is my issue. I don't really know what to look for. I've likened it to a wine connoisseur vs. a person whose taste buds haven't been trained to tell the difference. It's even more difficult for me if I have to flip back and forth between comparison images. If I had two tv's running the game side by side I would probably have better luck discerning the differences. Sometimes I like it better this way. It keeps me from nitpicking. That's not to say there's anything wrong with wanting the premiere version of the game.
Yes .. lets look at the grass and not the ammount of pixel pushed on screen at any given time .... sheesh
LOL, you get a funny bubble for the "bubble committee" comment, love it. Cheers friend. I am glad that developers are at least getting creative in helping the X1 camp (myself included), not feel left behind in this whole resolution war. I'm also glad they aren't just shrugging their shoulders and saying "1080 for ps4 and 900 for x1..." they are squeezing both consoles for every drop (except in parity cases...)
@Lukas - look, I am not trying to do anything other than have civilized discussions. One doesn't get 9 bubbles on here because they troll articles and put down the PS4 like moogooner88 claims I do. I am merely saying that on a 42" TV at distances of over 10 feet it has been scientifically and medically proven that the eye cannot distinguish pixels as individuals anymore once you surpass that distance. Of course I can see the differences when looking at screenshots on my computer where I am sitting 18" away from. Hands down I can tell. That is my reasoning for saying you are "superhuman" (which should be considered a compliment), the fact that you are defying science is awesome.. ;)
***I am merely saying that on a 42" TV at distances of over 10 feet it has been scientifically and medically proven that the eye cannot distinguish pixels as individuals anymore once you surpass that distance. *** But you're not distinguishing one pixel from another. You're distinguishing a group of a few thousand pixels from another, at the least. The way those few thousand make an image is distinguishable from the image they make on another machine if they are lower resolution. It's not as simple as difference in tones or the like, but the images really are different looking. And, the fact that I can tell it on a 720p image on a 1080p monitor at 3' isn't a scientific impossibility. It's knowing what to look for and identifying it pretty quickly. No scientific study has been made to say that my eyes are somehow a freak of nature, it's just the scientific studies don't focus on the advanced graphics that we have and instead focus on non-dynamic flat images rather than dynamically generated images that interact with lighting, physics, and more on a real-time basis.
@cgoodno - at 3' yes, at 10+' no way.
***@cgoodno - at 3' yes, at 10+' no way.*** I think you missed the part where I'm looking at a 720p video on a 1080p monitor (which is 24"). Not a 55" TV. And not at full resolution, either (why I said 720p). That's why I specified it as I did. Meaning, I'd be even more capable of telling the difference on my 52" TV on my couch that is about 9' away with it running a full 1080p video. And 9' viewing distance is the appropriate distance for a TV of that size. I could force myself to sit as far away as I need until I can't tell the detail, but what point is there in that? Why not just accept that one image is sharper in detail than the other?
Campaign you only play one or two times, but MP you put hours into it since its cod. I'll take the ps4 version anyway with better image quality 1080p than the xbone resolution since digital foundry said both hold the fps pretty well. I laugh at does trolling the ps4 versions yesteday
In SP it isn't even that big of an issue when the framerate drops to 56fps - god forbid. In MP it isn't an issue either, unless you actually register a 1.5ms variation in your input lag once in a while while playing...
So lets all make a big deal about a slightly less steadier frames since folks love to make a big deal about slightly less pixels. Or is that not the agenda?
The typical people make a big deal about it, and the typical people try to downplay the issue
Well, matter of perspective, now, isn't it. The trade off for a "dip to the high 50s" vs. severe cut downs to reach 60. Of course with how this is implemented, one can argue it will always reach steady 60...the question is how do you quantify 1360pixels vs. 1.5ms...From a technical perspective, those missing 560pixels per line weight in much heavier than 1.5ms... but, of course...in my opinion. They had to make such sacrifices that we can even have this discussion, obviously. (or shall I say this is still 1/3rd less visual real estate (= 66% pixels) vs. 93% framerate - both worst case scenarios). In my books 93 > 66...just saying
Almost 40% more pixel is slightly less .... Keep downplaying tough ... cool story bro
1360 x 1080 = 1,468,800 pixels 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels ~600,000 isn't a slight drop in pixels. That's a 30% drop from real 1080p.
I don't know if it's just me, but I find if kind of annoying that the games overall performance looks to be getting excused because of it's steadier multiplayer framerate because of these comparisons and console warrior fanboys (Well DF does ignite flames) A prime example being Lukas undermining the sp fps in favor of the mp fps and baking a "humble pie" (good one doe haha) just to spite fanboys. I know cod is mostly all about mp, but the sp performance wasn't too great due to it's higher res, favoring that over a steadier framerate or even a possible solution like a dynamic res. Hmmm Maybe it's just being excused cause cods all multiplayer, but i'm still being bugged over what was favored.
Seriously?????? Because it dips to the "high 50s" at times???
@Ju It went lower than the high 50s, a lot. It's not as bad as I remembered, console war comments altered my memory lol. I thought it'd dropped to high 40s over and over, but that only happened a couple of times, and then the fps shot back up quick. 50-60, mostly mid to high 50s, with occasional lower drops, my point still stands.
Yeah...I can't say I notice any severe downgrade from 1360x1080 vs.1920x1080. I honestly can't tell you when the game changes between the two resolutions for the Xbox One. I wonder if there are really people out there that feel as if they don't enjoy the game due to this difference but I hope not. I am really enjoying this game so far, it looks great in comparison to COD:Ghosts. Most of my efforts have been on the single player campaign and it's very exciting. As soon as I'm done I will be focusing more on the multiplayer aspect of the game. I'm gonna have to get used to the faster pace of the online mode coming from Ghosts though...
i cant tell at all,have copies for both systems,only difference i see is shadows are missing in one version
Not even that DF said that the mp is rock solid 60fps and 1080p for PS4 and only said it dropped some frames during a certain segment of sp for PS4 so PS4 version would still be the best version but ppl love to run with things lol Neonridr..... Xbone version is definitely not terrible and very comparable and even excels at certain points in sp but my response is to the ones that quickly lurched when they heard about few minor drops in sp on PS4 and said "confirmed Xbone version better" that had me laughing. Overall Ps4 is better version but Xbone owners lose nothing and it still looks good. To be honest AW isnt a super good looking game imo Killzone iq and graphics and crispness demolishes this game but to each its own.
I think the drop is from cutscenes from what heard
Nobody said it isn't the better version. But that also means that the X1 version isn't terrible either.
So is this game of the holidays on PS4? Because Xbox One gets to play FH2, SSO, and MCC as well as every third party, albeit at a slightly lower resolution. That's definitely a trade off I'm more than willing to take.
PM I received from this tlougotg clown.. "My n**ga take that salt out your ass and stop hating lol I game on a 140 inch favi screen with 1080p projector and have hundreds of games" I take nothing you say seriously.
another multiplat superior on PS4. Good job SONY!
So they're both pretty much the same thing and it doesn't really matter what platform you play it on. Sounds good. Can't wait for the Halo MCC comparison too....
Yeah I think Halo MCC plays better on Xbox One by a little bit, PS4 has better AA though. #ps4noparity. Wait a sec
@brotherlymoses "Can't wait for the Halo MCC comparison too..." I can't wait for those Uncharted 4 comparisons either.
The luxury of having both Xbox One and PS4: Not having to miss out on quality exclusives on either console.
You can keep that. I mostly only play online multilayer games
Welp there you have it @Lukas there's your revenge you wanted to make up for yesterdays small win for the Xbox one yesterday that you got extremely ass hurt about even though you said you don't even plan on purchasing Advanced Warfare or care about other than the slander on the ps4's multiplatform reputation that nobody outside of the internet cares about. "Asshurt? Why? I'm not even planning on buying this game...and if I did, I'd buy it on the console that it runs best on, seeing as I own both consoles. I literally have nothing to be "asshurt" about." http://n4g.com/news/1614803...
I can wholeheartedly say that my ass in no longer suffering from any hurt. Feels good, man, feels good! Say...if you don't eat all of that humble pie I baked for you, there are plenty of others who would like their fill. Sharing is caring.
Just a quick question. Which games are you actually playing on your Xbox One ?. As you spend most of your time slagging it off, I would wonder why you even purchased one.
@iistuii Ummm... exclusives maybe ?
Perhaps a few people will eat humble pie and wish they did not go trolling so quickly after the single player analysis.
I agree the trolls were insane in that article. However the game still runs great on both which is what both camps should be happy about.
Its the same everytime , I just think the xbone fanboys must walk around with permanent foot in mouth syndrome. I am glad the PS4 version is 60fps in MP where it actually matters all at the same time as 1080p and not 900p like the other one.
Reminds me of Crysis 3 multiplayer for some reason. The sounds of the guns reminds me of Crysis 3 also.
I still have not seen this in any game I have played. I have never stopped playing single or multiplayer to look at the grass or trees, the game is to fast paced...so enjoy your few more blades of grass and leaves and I'll just enjoy the game.