DF: "How does the Frostbite Engine scale across Xbox One X, PS4 Pro and PC? In-depth graphics comparison and performance analysis with all hardware set to 4K output."
The most powerful 4K console is just 25% more pricey and you get like 225% increase in pixel quantity on current AAA titles. Still, these aren't made fully optimised for the X.
It's crazy. MS really delivered this time. I'm looking forward to DF explaining why the advantage is so much greater than the hardware specs suggest.
Its the ram man. Its at the level of a GTX 1080. The GPU in general sits between a 1070 and 1080. Only thing that seems to be holding it back is the CPU. Hopefully devs will get used to the CPU soon so well get more 60fps titles. The witcher 3 reaches 60fps in a lot of areas without optimization. I'm sure with some time they could keep it 60fps.
Just a side note: they aren't exactly fully optimised for the Pro either or do you believe that is the case? If so, please elaborate why you think that. I would be expecting a checkerboard resolution on the Pro if it was for instance. Still, this is way better than I actually expected from the One X!
Checkerboard 4k is still hard to hit so if the graphical load of a game like this is too high, even checkerboarding isn’t an option (hence the dynamic scaling in place of)
@xstation One can also do both at the same time....
I feel lately the Pro is pushed conservatively. But it delivers the more stable framerate @1440p than the X pushed to 4k. Well, at least that's something. If devs don't push it to the limit the framerate wins. Also, lately, I like the DF remarks "it is hard to pixel count with all that temporal antialiasing". LOL. Yes, 200% more pixels. And subjectively almost no difference. Sure, $100 get's you 200% more pixels that you can't see. But it's all in the numbers I guess. In all honesty, I wonder what that means for next generation HW. Why even push it to the limit and make an expensive piece if nobody cares (except us here at N4G). Even a PS5 with maybe 10Tf will probably render this the exact same way...
@ju I sincerely hope that with PS5/nextgen devs will do more than just want to push more pixels around. I prefer the better effects and higher/stable fps over more pixels... @xstation Checkerboard rendering takes a bit more GPU power than half of the native resolution, they could at least have used it but it's just harder to implement It's also funny that people actually seem to disagree with facts here when it's something they don't like, haha
And it’s being sold at a loss. The hardware is literally better than the price on offer. Just shows you how unrealistic people are. I love how peopl kept asking “how is one x 4k $100 better than PS4 pro 4k?!” Well, stuff like this explain how. And it’s not just the resolution and effects. It runs faster too. I have both consoles and have played them back to back.
It runs so much faster that the Pro has actually the more stable framerate. Sure.
3fps(not even noticeable) dip with a much much higher resolution then the pro constantly... The uhd Blu Ray drive in itself makes the extra cash you spend worth it... especially if you're an audiophile and want the best theater setup.... The extra performance and close to true 4k (more so then the competition) is like an added bouns....
both Wolfenstein 2 and Battlefront 2 adjust pixel-counts on the fly in order to sustain performance. PS4 Pro tops out at 2560x1440 on both titles, while Xbox One X pushes further - much further - delivering a maximum of 3840x2160, or full-fat 4K. That's a 2.25x increase in pixel-count, a surprising uplift bearing in mind the respective specs of the two systems." 1440p vs 2160p now that's an upgrade!.
Xbox One X is pretty much the console for your 4K screen. The spoils continue to be enjoyed. *raises chalice*
It is indeed performing much better than I and many others expected! Nicely done by MS! Still I do wonder how noticeable the difference will be when you see them side by side and expect most people to not even notice. I still believe that the extra power should be put into other things instead like they mention in this video with more details, better shadows, lighting, etc. like is shown in this video for the PC version. Those are things that I think would be way, way easier to spot. They could of course also opt to give the player more options... Wasting this power just on a resolution bump is a waste. It's especially a shame that they probably went a bit too high, resolution wise, causing frame drops that are not present on the Pro. I could now say something crazy and say that the Pro version runs better and more stable which was said last year when Pro versions at times to have more drops than other console versions but I won't, just reminding some people about it 😜
I would expect the difference to be much greater and more significant than 900p vs 1080p
Yes, that 1fps drop every now and again.. killer
Native 4K and 1440p is easily noticeable on 4K displays, especially larger ones ( which most 4K TV owners will probably have as smaller screen sizes are becoming rarer). And even there the Pro touches 1440p less frequently than the One X hits 2160p so even an bigger gap, I see this not only my KS 8000, but also on my 1600p MacBook Pro
@above It's remarkable how people suddenly all went to get glasses and can see things more clearly now 😜 While playing I'm still positive most people will not notice the difference on their 4k set up and again the extra power could've been used way better in other areas. It's funny that every one of you either claim the 1 to 2fps drops are not worth mentioning (even tho it was last year when the Pro did it and other versions didn't) and/or that it most positively will be noticeable by people but none of you reply to what I said of using the power in different ways.
"It's remarkable how people suddenly all went to get glasses and can see things more clearly now 😜 " It's remarkable how people suddenly found their out-of-date glasses from their basement so they cannot see things more clearly now 😜 LOL
That time of the month my lady? Tell us how you really feel. Let it all out.
For what's worth. I agree with you, @Aenea. But it's all about numbers. Oh, wait. Not not really. 2fps don't matter; depending how one spins it. Like I think above 1080p with all these pixel reconstruction and "scaling algorithms" all you get is a sharper image which doesn't scale linearly with the pixel count. But, hey, that's just me. It's all about what one prefers and loves these days. Well, why not. I don't see a reason to switch, though. For Sony to be competitive with the Pro, though, it will need a significant price drop. Currently I doubt it can compete with the X. But, at the same time, most people who get excited have played 900p for years. Of course there is something to shout about all of a sudden.
"It's remarkable how people suddenly all went to get glasses and can see things more clearly now" Strange enough the ones who could definitely tell the difference between 900p and 1080p have all went blind over the last 4 years. I could also say how you didn't have a problem when Sony fans were celebrating how powerful their base console was and counting pixels in every DF article in the past, but I won't...just reminding people too. *Insert emojii*
I use an LG B7A OLED TV and have both the Pro and X and I was hard pushed to see any huge difference while playing games. If you pause you can see it but while in play it's not so noticable. Only game where I can see an image upgrade is Forza 7 over GT Sport, both good but Forza seems to have that little extra polish when it comes to track details and such, Bumpy roads and rear wings flexing at speed One thing I do find odd is that 3rd party games seem to run smoother which is odd as the X gets those 2-3 fps dips. Even my boy noticed on CoD WWII and asked why it ran so much smoother.
Why this is not approved by now?
😭😭😭 - it is now, Maybe because DF is on a mission to convince the uninformed to buy a 3rd party machine. The informed know it's a great machine, just lacking exclusives.
N4G is on a vendetta against DF/EG for some reason noboby really knows...
Damn. Very impressive.
If it's 2160p vs 1440p on only these two titles, it means these games are the exception, not the rule. The X is not native either..it's dynamic. When I download both pics and view them side by side, I can admit the X version is slightly clearer but not to the degree as the numbers might suggest. What's impressive is how the Pro is keeping up. Good job.
I agree that those zoomed pics don't really do a good job of displaying massive differences, but let me be the first to tell you that 4K is miles ahead of 1440p. The X has the clear advantage in that regard (when it hits that res in the game, that is). The bigger thing, for me, is how far behind the PC both consoles are. Especially regarding AO and Shadow Quality. Just another reminder to those who thought they'd see a changing tide that PC will remain ahead.
I think many people would've loved a setting where they can opt for better image quality (effects, lighting, shadows, etc.), frame rate and draw distance on the One X with a, say, 1440p output instead. I do believe that is where the power should be going to and what people would notice much quicker than doubling the pixel count (which is still impressive but less noticeable).
depends on ur screen size and how close u sit to your screen ... though i am enjoying the ugprade over xhox one s ... i dont feel blown away by the experience as these comparision videos would make u believe ...granted i dont own the same games on ps4 pro and xbox one x ... but still i havent seen anything setllar yet
Yes please tell. Us. Because you are one of those playing them side by side. Of course.
@ Aenea: I agree. They should opt for better effects and graphical details over res. Once you play on PC more frequently, you really get the best sense of this. In some games, it's night and day. Good for Xbox One X owners who want the best possible resolutions, but given the choice, I'd take graphical details any day. It's why I game in 1440p/144Hz/HDR on PC over 4K/60Hz.
It also is dropping frames where the Pro version is not. The resolution gap is irrelevant if it's stuttering.
1-2 on occasion bothers you? I wouldn't notice that even if I tried. 4-5 would certainly furrow my brow, though.
Well, it matters if you play statistics, Like pixels are numbers. But of course. Not in this comparison. /s
Can't believe they recommended playing the Pro Version on a 1080p Screen.. That is tough.
I watched the entire video. He said playing on a 1080p screen has a less soft reproduction than on a 4K screen. Playing in 1440p would yield a better looking game than 1080p (which is the highest res the Pro hits). He didn't "recommend" playing the Pro version on a 1080p screen, however.
That's because the One X has build in supersamp, ehh, wait, you said Pro, never mind..... 😀
The Pro lowest resolution is 1296P for Battle front 2 so it will look good on 1080p but won't on 4K TV. The X lowest resolution for BF2 is 1800p so it will look great on 4K TV and the supersampling will look better than the Pro on 1080p TV too due to the higher resoultion being downsample. The X Beast is the best console for any and every TV. I think that is why the author say Pro is better play on 1080p TV as downscale to 1080p requires less effort than trying to reach 2160p. LOL
Thats because they didnt say it
Of course, PC takes this one with ease! Playing it there now and I've not seen a better looking game.....period!
You're talking like there's one uniform configuration of PCs ... 99% of PCs out there wont be able to run the game at max settings in 4K ... u're talking about laptops that over 2000$ or desktop that are over 1500 $ ... 2 periods
99% of PCs (which is a gross exaggeration as is) don't have to run it in 4K. Watch the video very closely. PC wins in more areas than resolution. Shadow Quality, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with 4K resolution, and it is miles ahead of the consoles. This is, in fact, where I think those devices should take a page from that book. Opt for better details/effects over resolution. Good on both consoles to still have such impressive showings, nonetheless. I never thought we'd see games with such wonderful IQ on consoles so soon!
the point of the video is that its comparing the best resolution these consoles have to offer to the best setting of a pc... if u want to compare it to lower settings and still get away with your "period"... and no 99% is not an exaggeration ... out of a 100 computer/laptop owners less than 1 % are actually own gaming pcs... most people have a more casual/work related reason to use a computer or are just gamers on a budget
you have a 1080ti in your rigg thats quit pricey but i guess if you want the absolute best cost is not a factor.
Lootboxes aside..... SWBF2 is pretty amazing. Graphically it's on another level from everything else.
Xbox One X just keeps on giving!
The Xbox One X is doing an excellent job so far. Can't wait for that Witcher 3 patch.
And the Horizons 3 patch which sounds as though they are doing something a little bit special.
Queue the barely can tell a difference...totally not worth $500....no exclusives comments Gotta say though never expected 2160p when I saw the Beta run on the Pro at barely 1440p, thought I'd be like 1800p max. But impressed here nonetheless
Another X victory not surprised at all
The beast unleashed!
i just finished the game on the old xbox one., cant really see a difference that matters in this video or my version.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.