Top
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS!!!!!

Angels3785

Contributor
CRank: 8Score: 0

The 50% Power Difference that Nobody Understands

This is just mainly to clarify a few things. Mainly with this whole ps4 vs. Xbox one fiasco.
Whether or not you acknowledge the fact of a 50% power difference between the two systems is beside the point as this is not the point of the info I am about to discuss. Im speaking in terms of ANY hardware whether it be 50%, 40%, 80%, 3000% whatever.

Here is the point:

50% (or whatever percent) does not yield 50% better looking games only 50% better RUNNING games (especially in multi-platform titles, but this changes when a game is made SPECIFICALLY for a certain set of hardware). The fact of the matter is in multiplatform titles, games will run on a "core" set of textures that generally is about the same on both consoles (sometimes it is downgraded/upgraded/optimized to fit each consoles needs. But the only place a power difference would be noticed on any hardware is in the pixel output OR visual fidelity.

Meaning 50% better textures or 50% better pixel count. Essentially upgrading texture resolution is not something practical in a development sense it means you have to redefine your "core" or "infrastructure" rather than work around your "core" and even if you could improve your textures 50%, it would not necessarily yield a 50% better image.

So if a game pushes 50% more pixels it shows a 50% gain essentially due to the fact that the console is outputting more information on the "core" of the game at a higher fidelity or frame rate. So if Im running at 1080p @60fps Im outputting 124,416,000 pixels per second while in 720p @60fps Im outputting 55,296,000 pixels per second of the core (about a 44% difference). This makes things easier in development to work around the core and tinker with the graphical settings like on a PC.

When it comes down to outputting better image quality, like a car, at a certain speed you'll need 100 more horsepower to add a few more MPH to your top speed because the air is so thick. Relating back to games..essentially a system may have 90% more power lets say, but it will LOOK around 20-30% better (maybe) due to diminishing returns where the numbers get smaller and the differences smaller when it comes down to processing an image.

Just because you can't see a 50% difference doesn't mean it isn't there being processed by the hardware. If one system runs the same "core" at a higher resolution than another, a difference is present. Its as simple as that even if its a 10% power difference and a visible difference of 1%.

Granted the "core" of a game can be altered in the sense that higher quality textures can be added but it is easier to just mess with resolution for better performance that redo a bunch of textures.

Relating this back to bf4. It makes no practical sense for a game running at a lower resolution to be better looking than THE SAME game running at a higher resolution. Here is why

1) if a developer was getting worse image quality at a higher resolution (meaning more processing power) the immediate response would be to downgrade the image to fit performance needs. So the bf4 developers would tone down the resolution on ps4 if it couldnt handle identical textures at a higher resolution. It makes no sense to run worse textures at a higher resolution because you'll have a problem of "now you can see the worse textures...better" all they would have to do is keep the same texture and down the resolution that the game runs. Saying that the x1 has better textures isn't logical in that sense or the ps4 having worse textures at a higher resolution.

2) anti aliasing at a lower resolution. Essentially more aliasing is needed at a lower resolution to make up for a drop in image quality. It seems x1 has more AA from what I've read, but it is not gonna be noticed as you need more of it to do the same job at a lower resolution.

3) wait for the final head to head in depth comparison and full digital foundry analysis. This will only further prove my point when the numbers start to match on the final builds.

All this comes from 10 years of image rendering ranging from 2D to 3D at various resolutions and applying that at a larger scale. I am NOT a game developer and I do not pretend to know about the complex nature of game making only the knowledge I have about my more basic working and knowledge of basic game development applied at a larger scale. Im essentially looking at what would be practical in a financial and literal sense.

I'm open to any other PROFESSIONALS to critique anything I have said. I have nothing to hide.

The story is too old to be commented.
black0o1450d ago

quick tip most gamers hate numbers ;)

SnakeCQC1449d ago

gamers seem to love 1080 and 60 lol

iceman061449d ago

Only when they go against their particular argument!!!

Flutterby1449d ago

I am not religious but mother f ing amen about that lol

McScroggz1450d ago

The problem with this is you are stating facts, and the people you are appealing to in this specific instance have already shown that they don't care about facts. Apparently, to a surprising amount of people, a game with its sharpness and contrast turned too high looks better than a more realistic version. The best analogy I can think of is when you go to Best Buy and compare TV's. It's a common practice to have a TV with it's contrast turned really high to make the TV's next to it with a more cinematic setting look better. Clearly either a lot of people have poor taste in visuals, or they are delusional.

Either way, talking sensibly sadly will not matter.

Pintheshadows1449d ago

I think a lot of gamers who have never experienced high end PC visuals do not know what to look for. They see the sharp and harsh unrefined looks as better as they have not experienced a lot of PC effects before.

RandomDude6551450d ago

ummm x1 version has NO antialiasing at all......

Angels37851450d ago (Edited 1450d ago )

It may not seem like it but as I discussed. They need more aa to do the same job as the image quality is lower. Whether or not it was effective is up to each persons impression. But I believe personally that because the ps4 image quality is superior in resolution the aa is a much simpler thing to accomplish.

I even said "its not going to be noticed as you need more aa to do the same job at a lower resolution" in reference to xbox one. So of they both have 2x AA the image with a better resolution would showcase that better. You would need 4xAA at 720p to get a similar image to a 1080p image at 2xAA. however it would still look a bit inferior to the higher resolution as it is upscaled.

MysticStrummer1449d ago

"it would still look a bit inferior to the higher resolution as it is upscaled."

Thank you. It's amazing how many people here think upscaling to 1080p is the same as native 1080p. Upscaling should be made clear on the game box in my opinion.

Angels37851449d ago (Edited 1449d ago )

http://www.red.com/learn/re...

showcases the differences in upscaled vs native 1080p

Pintheshadows1449d ago (Edited 1449d ago )

You sir, know your stuff. Quite refreshing and well constructed to boot. Now if only the majority on this site would bother to read this.

They should also read up on the significance of certain effects that have existed on PC for a bit like ambient occlusion and how that will serve to soften the lighting in the game. They need to get educated because people on both sides have no idea what it does yet they happily bring it up.

They are perceiving harsher, undisguised textures as better as they have never experienced the effect on PC. It really makes everything look more natural and the detail is still there in the textures on closer inspection.

I learnt this first and foremost from playing Metro Last Light on my new PC. It came with it and it truly opened my eyes as to what can be done these days with modern effects. In fact the game is a step above everything I have ever seen. Including Crysis 3. I am yet to play BF4 on my rig though so you never know.

I just played around with the settings in Last Light for a while and the differences I picked out were immediate. Ambient Occlusion bathes everything in a light that is stunningly realistic and dissipates into the enviroment in a believable way. It stops things that shouldn't be shiny under light from being shiny.

The more advanced forms of AA are also equally impressive but I doubt we'll be seeing them on any console any time soon.

It is really educational to just tinker and use your eyes and in motion the changes are evident immediately.

FanboyKilla1449d ago

Im not a computer, im not calculating data from software or hardware. Im playing the game, im looking at the game. My eyes say x1 looks better none of your numbers can change that. As for your stupid staement about a 720p game not looking better than 1080p game lol. What do you think wii u is? So you are saying wii u games in 1080p wii look better than x 1 720p.lol to an idiot and a fanboy you may sound like you know what you are talking about, but im niether. Resolution and graphics are not the same, thats why they are two different words with two different meanings. LMFAO Nice try fanboy. Oh yeah Forza 5 1080p 60fps if u want numbers and i dare you to compare any console game to it.

Flutterby1449d ago

Well your eyes are telling you something 98% of the other ppls aren't , the xbone SP isn't even as good as the PS4 myltiplayer lol you either need glasses or need to stop talking complete and utter bullish!t, noone with any kind of credibility thinks the xbone version is better NO ONE! That's all there is too it, here is a good example if your thought , "I think eating sh!t is tasty and love it" yet 99% if the rest if the world thinks it tastes bad.

Deny all you want but when the higher rez better fps COD comes out and is proven better than the xbone on the ps4 you will still lie but 99% of the work will think otherwise.

Angels37851449d ago (Edited 1449d ago )

Hello I'm sorry it seems we had some sort of misunderstanding about ill quote your comment and dissect the parts of it that I feel either you misunderstood or I didn't explain well enough as I disscussed your points thouroghly in the blog.

"Im not a computer, im not calculating data from software or hardware. Im playing the game, im looking at the game."

-I completely understand because the reality is no one does, but the point that is being made is that on modern hardware you see very easily a difference in power even if it lets say hypothetically 100% greater like a pc gpu because developers are not going to change the "core" or infastructure of the game, but rather the way that infastructure is run. Hence the reason why pc although it looks and runs better doesn't look leaps and bounds ahead like the hardware suggests.

"My eyes say x1 looks better none of your numbers can change that."

-this is personal opinion and I do not comment on perdonal opinion. Its yours to have and hold. I deal purely in numbers and facts.

"As for your stupid staement about a 720p game not looking better than 1080p game lol."

-I never made that claim in the way you are suggesting because that would make me a fool. I said " Relating this back to bf4. It makes no practical sense for a game running at a lower resolution to be better looking than THE SAME game running at a higher resolution" I specifically said "same game " to prove the point that the infastructures of the next gen titles are the same. A bf4 developer could not yield the same textures of ps4 or xbox one on wiiu I mention in the blog how things are tailored per console but as for next gen systems a 50% power difference going in either direction does not constitutebetter textures. The difference is to close to bring out any other efficiency other than a higher/lower resolution to benefit performance. In a practical sense. The os4 is out putting the same thing as xbox one only in a lower resolution. If you don't believe that, lets say for arguments sake its better on xbox one. What stops dice from lowering the resolution on ps4 and uping the graphical fidelity? They have the advantage to do that as ps4 runs at a better res. If the xbox has superior textures dice would be doing some stupid stuff with the ps4 version as they would showcase muddier textures at a higher resolution. Making it so "you can see the crap....better" no proffessional would do that. Especially a developer going for visual fidelity like dice. If they couldn't manage they would have downed the resolution and upped the textures.

"What do you think wii u is? So you are saying wii u games in 1080p wii look better than x1 720p.lol to an idiot and a fanboy you may sound like you know what you are talking about, but im niether."

-I never made that claim or suggested it. You brought that in. And I explained what I meant by it above ^.

"Resolution and graphics are not the same, thats why they are two different words with two different meanings. LMFAO Nice try fanboy. Oh yeah Forza 5 1080p 60fps if u want numbers and i dare you to compare any console game to it."

-they are different words and if you even glanced at the blog I treated them as such. Explaining that a higher res doesn't mean anything when dealing with different games. Not the same exact game. As for forza I believe it looks very good. However the second bit is opinion and I do not deal with opinions. Only facts. You are free to believe what you wish

I hope this helps in your understanding of the medium you enjoy. And please next time refrain from fanboyism on my forums. Thank you.

ufo8mycat1449d ago

Absolutely BRILLIANT article and well explained.

This is the very reason why PC Games don't look THAT much better CONSIDERING the power difference, even though you'd think they would.

10x more powerful does not mean 10x better looking graphics.

And this is also EXACTLY why people should not expect a big graphical leap between current-gen and PS4, as the processing power gap is even smaller then that of a high-end PC.

I expect a lot of people to be disappointed with next-gen graphically because they simply don't understand the above.

Show all comments (17)