Top
340°

Star Wars Battlefront 2: Frostbite stress-tested on Xbox One X

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."

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
The story is too old to be commented.
bintarok27d ago

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.

crazyCoconuts26d ago

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.

Zeref25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

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.

Aenea26d ago

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!

XStation4pio_Pro25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

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)

Aenea25d ago

@xstation

One can also do both at the same time....

Ju25d ago

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...

Aenea25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

@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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 25d ago
XStation4pio_Pro25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

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.

Ju25d ago

It runs so much faster that the Pro has actually the more stable framerate. Sure.

gapecanpie25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

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....

TRU3_GAM3R26d ago

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!.

KionicWarlord22226d ago

Xbox One X is pretty much the console for your 4K screen.

The spoils continue to be enjoyed.

*raises chalice*

Aenea26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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 😜

CYCLEGAMER26d ago

I would expect the difference to be much greater and more significant than 900p vs 1080p

MattE26d ago

Yes, that 1fps drop every now and again.. killer

LateNightThirst26d ago

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

Aenea26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

@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.

NoPeace_Walker26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

"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

KionicWarlord22225d ago

That time of the month my lady?

Tell us how you really feel.

Let it all out.

Ju25d ago

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.

gangsta_red25d ago

"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*

MrEnglish25d ago

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.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
MrZweistein26d ago

Why this is not approved by now?

xX-oldboy-Xx26d ago

😭😭😭 - 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.

Ju25d ago

N4G is on a vendetta against DF/EG for some reason noboby really knows...

Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.