The Witcher 3 Xbox One X Is Head And Shoulders Above The PS4 Pro Version

Head to head comparison between the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X versions of The Witcher 3.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
rlow1359d ago

They both look pretty good. My Problem is I can never really tell by the posted videos. But that said it would make sense the more powerful console would have some extra muscle.

Eonjay359d ago

Exactly. Head and shoulders implies something more pronounced. Thats why people call it clickbait. I submit that neither version approaches PC and as such neither offers a tangible improvement over the base console unit. Its just more exaggeration. When people read headlines like that and then they actually see it, they are less likely to purchase the Xbox because they were expecting more. Compare the Pro to the PC on Ultra and then you have a head and shoulders improvement. This has already been shown in much better comparisons.

BigWan78359d ago

@Eonjay.. #wrong

when i watch these videos on my Sammy KS8500 .. the difference can be seen...

yes the 1X versions tend to look better than the PS4PRO variant... but the PS4PRO versions are NO slouch either.

Duke19359d ago

In person tests im sure are far more pronounced - differences are always just harder to tell once videos are compressed via youtube.

That said, even with the crummy youtube version, the Xbox clearly was the better picture

359d ago
Kumakai358d ago

It’s a compressed video downrezzed to 1080p. Trust me. In real life the differences are noticeable. The x is significantly sharper in both resolution and textures, and shadows and aliasing chatter, and pop in and so on. Try it sometime and see for yourself so you know I’m not blowing smoke.

bluefox755358d ago

It's all fanboy fodder. Any rational person can admit the difference is marginal. The mid-gen consoles are far closer together than either of them are to PC or the OG console versions. Fanboys gotta have something to bicker about though.

bolimekurac358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

when you have a bigger resolutuion jump then 900 p to 1080 p and then add in textures in 4k, yeah thats a massive jump, the last 4 years with 1080p to 900p that was not a massive gap but everyone and their mother claimed it was, well now you have a real gap between pro and x1x games so yeah thats a massive difference \

now people say the pro version is pretty good its no slouch but when games where 900p vs 1080p then you all claimed masssice differences. f that bs. pro is a garbage upgrade


Do you actually believe the crap that comes out of your mouth?

358d ago
slasaru01358d ago

30fps vs 60fps is big difference, the most notable

BrettAwesome358d ago

65Ks9000 here.

No you can't tell shit from their videos. No matter what tv you have.

Ittoittosai358d ago

They are both major improvements of base console but neither is that much better than the other.

ILostMyMind358d ago

Nobody said otherwise. But the difference is minimal.

indysurfn358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

Even though in the end the x1x version should look better because it is a newer box with more power.

One thing people are forgetting is that the PS4 Pro has a update in the works. The x1x update was completed first.

Kingthrash360358d ago

^^beat me to it.
Not to mention the framerate isn't 60fps is a variables between 40 and 60.
The pro patch will do the same. Head and shoulders is an overstatement for sure.

GamingIVfun358d ago

Only difference I can see is the HDR on the Xbox One X version. The PS4 Pro version is getting HDR soon, probably still in testing.

ArmrdChaos358d ago

It's amusing that every time a person's said console falls behind in the power race the PC always comes into the discussion as their proxy champion.

Ju358d ago

You all have better eyes then DF then. Because in fact the the Pro is locked at 4K CB, while the X is 1800-2160p dynamic. Sure, native pixels, and yet they pointed out, that some areas are in fact sharper on the Pro. What the X has over the pro is an average more stable 30fps (3fps surplus in cases), but that's about. The 60fps mode render at a max of 1300p or something, not much above 1080p; the Pro has no 1080p more, so hard to compare. And yet, can drop to 35fps in worst cases on the X. So, sure, the X has an advantage as it should be being the newer and more expensive machine, but "head and shoulders" it sure ain't. Really, if anything it's the framerate, everything else, shadows, filters, ambient occlusion are identical between Pro and X. But sure, tell me again how you dual Pro and X gamers can see the difference; hey, not only did you buy both consoles, but also the game twice...thanks for clearing this up for us in the unknown. /s

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 358d ago
359d ago Replies(2)
Kumakai358d ago

It’s easier to see on a 4k screen in real life. It’s way easier to spot the differences cuz you’re seeing them 1:1 and not compressed downrezzed videos. I have a pro and a one x and you really can see a quality difference. The X is noticeable sharper overall and not just in render resolution. It just looked me more high quality. .

Vectrexer358d ago

How dare you give an honest evaluation here, that's absolute blasphemy! ;)

DrumBeat358d ago

I guess that doesn't make sense to some people. LOL. I know they're not disagreeing with the first line. They serve brand and company and don't agree with fact.

Aceman18358d ago

Somehow I'm not losing sleep over this, I beat W3 on the PS4 and it looked great then, so some extra res bump isnt going to make me run out to the store and spend on another console.

Chris12358d ago

It isn't just a res bump though is it. Just like most/all of the enhanced games, there is a lot more going on than just res.

358d ago
Aceman18358d ago


I have a 4k OLED with HDR, and I still don't want the X1X, I'm not going to spend another 500 just to play games I already beat. If M$ would have had their sh*t together from the start of this generation I would have kept my OG X1 and possibly used that towards a trade in.

But until they get their act together game wise with the 1st party games I'll stay clear of their system.

DarXyde358d ago

Right on.

As I always say, I'm not losing any sleep. My base PS4 may offer an "inferior" experience to these two, but differences are largely cosmetic (with short load times on Xbox).

358d ago Replies(3)
IGiveHugs2NakedWomen358d ago

The game was released 2 years ago. Is anyone actually still playing it?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 358d ago
darthv72359d ago

I wouldnt say head and shoulders but the X does look a bit cleaner in some areas. The big improvement is the inclusion of up to 60fps. I didn't think this game really needed that but it certainly is a nice option.

alb1899359d ago (Edited 359d ago )

The big improvement is to give us options of 60fps and HDR, dinamic 4k at constant 30 fps vs checkerboard 4k with not stable 30fps.

DrumBeat358d ago

Agreed. Saw DF's analysis and the Pro isn't nearly as stable. The Xbox One version has always felt more stable, honestly.


Yep! 1080p-4k @ 60fps is HUGE especially considering the game only runs at 1920x1620p on Pro (Still looks a little sharper than 1080p horizontally) but for X to run this game @1080p+ with better graphics @ 60 was not expected!

Rude-ro358d ago

Two upgraded consoles this gen and you are acting like Microsoft should not have a more powerful $500 console AND as if any version is not worth having.

Grievous358d ago

It doesn't run at 60 though. Yes it can reach that framerate but the majority of the time it is well below 60 FPS. PS4 Pro is capped at 30.

TKCMuzzer358d ago

Butt it doesn't run at 60FPS, it only targets 60FPS.

Ju358d ago

It runs full 2160CB on the Pro and the 60fps mode on X tops out at nowhere near 4K, it's rather something around 1300p, a minimal upgrade over 1080p. HDR will get patched into the Pro version and I wonder if they also add a 1080p @ 60fps option on the Pro. It's running marginally better on the X, nothing else. The 60fps mode dips heavily, mostly around 55fps, down to almost 35. It is basically the unpatched game pushing the res in some scenarios; it's like running the PS4 version in boost mode - which didn't hit 60fps but still; it's not a "new version" on the X either.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 358d ago
DarXyde358d ago

I would say it needs 60fps more than it needs 4K. It's a great option in my opinion.

shaun mcwayne358d ago

Head and shoulders, take 2 bottles into the shower, not me, I just wash and go. Have fun this Christmas with your console of choice. Ill be on switch, mario and zelda. And some pubg on xbox.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 358d ago
tmisellati359d ago

" By contrast, PS4 Pro makes use of a checkerboard method to push its own 4K image. Side-by-side with X's native output, the checkerboarding technique still works brilliantly, and the only real downside here is a faint stippling effect on moving edges, largely hidden by the game's motion blur."
this is written by Digital foundry. so saying it is head and shoulder above the ps4 pro is not a proper way to describe the situation here.

Pricey359d ago

One word "Gamingbolt", no explanation needed

cd1359d ago (Edited 359d ago )

Every time somebody clicks on a gamingbolt article a puppy dies...a cute one.

Pricey359d ago

@cd1 I laughed and now i feel bad.

358d ago
SCW1982359d ago

Agreed but Gamingbolt gotta get those clicks. Its laughable they try to do a comparison without having the correct tools. I like that the Xbox X version has the option for 60 fps, its a nice touch.

alb1899359d ago (Edited 358d ago )

If you saw the DF video then you saw too how the 30fps of the checkerboard 4k of PS4 pro drops and the 30fps dinamic 4k of the X stay totally HDR and the option to play 60fps.
It isn't a head and shoulders difference but it is a considerable one.

TheRacingX358d ago

I like how the PS4 Pro is "no slouch" when it comes to checkboarding a not even full 4K image , but when the regular xbox1 was only doing a 180P less image than the PS4 it was an utter joke and failure, the defense force is back....I know I know, now come back with all your exclusives, I know , I own both consoles. Just admit the 1X is more powerful and can do more than the Pro, the Pro was a thrown together afterthought by Sony to try to combat and beat the 1X to market and its inferiority shows.

ILostMyMind358d ago

"180p"? Are you foolish yourself?

nicsaysdie358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

@ theracingx
I'll make this short. Pro was being developed first. Make a quick Google. 1x actually was thrown together to try and combat sony's vastly bigger market share. So they threw the highest end components feasable together, and now offer the best place to play 3rd party multi-plats. It might not seem to be about money to you, but it is to big businesses like Microsoft. Here's the thing though. Playstation division is still beating Xbox division from a business standpoint. Maybe it's because of those ex clue civs you mentioned. Here's a suggestion. Go enjoy you 3Rd party multi-plats at slightly higher resolution and frame rate. I'll enjoy those amazing ex clue civs. Everyone gets what they want.

Pantz359d ago

You should be comparing the PC version (non-HDR) vs. the Xbox One X (HDR) version. It would be close but as of now Xbox One X with HDR is the best version. Comparing to the Pro version isn't even fair.

OpenGL359d ago

Yeah, if you think 1800p at 30fps is better than native 4K with superior draw distances.

Pantz358d ago

Digital Foundry themselves have said "HDR is an even bigger visual upgrade than 4K".

The more excuses you give, the longer it's going to take for HDR to become standard on PC.

neoandrew358d ago

But pc supports hdr all the way, if they didnt do pc hdr update then it wont have hdr, thats not pc fault.

359d ago
TankCrossing358d ago

I just re-bought this on the X for HDR. I did this based on my experience with Rise of he Tomb Raider. The PC version against the X version on the same OLED display in front of my eyes... It just looks fantastic.

Hopefully W3 will be a similar achievement. If not I'll just stick to the PC version and forget the £14 lol.

OpenGL358d ago

I'll take 60fps over 30fps any day of the week.

358d ago Replies(1)
ProjectVulcan358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

PC can actually do 60FPS and much higher settings than Xbox One X manages. Ultra on PC is way above the medium/high Xbox One X does on this game.

Not forgetting the fact this title is TWO AND A HALF YEARS OLD. I was playing it in 4K over 12 months ago on PC. Welcome to the party console gamer, late as ever.....

Pantz358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

Yeah and PC can do HDR but for some reason The Witcher III on PC does not have HDR support. The difference on a nice HDR TV is clear as day. Until PC devs get their acts together, the console versions with HDR will remain the best versions of the games.

ProjectVulcan358d ago (Edited 358d ago )

Because HDR beats more resolution, a higher framerate and higher settings by itself?

Lol give it a rest. No it doesn't. PC batters the console version, it has done so for years and Xbox One X doesn't change that. So you finally got a version of the game that is a bit closer to what I was playing over a year ago!

Woopty do. Totally worth waiting ages and ages for. NOT!

Pantz357d ago

Even in this thread you saw someone who compared the PC version and the X version on the same nice HDR tv and their choice was the X version.

Have you actually seen HDR yet? Do you have an HDR tv? Just curious.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 357d ago
Sgt_Slaughter359d ago

The head and shoulders above, a whole generation gap, etc., descriptions are getting a bit old now. We know X is better than Pro in terms of specs, but it's not as drastic of a difference as people try to make it out to be.

359d ago Replies(1)
Black0ut358d ago

Exactly Sgt.

Both versions look brilliant in their own right, though the X has improved results in most titles do to better specs. Simple as that.

A big 🖕 to gamingbolt sensationalism. Fanboy wars are for kids and we dont need more fire stoking around here.

GNCFLYER358d ago

Lol I like this comment..