Assassin’s Creed Unity ‘900p on Next Gen’ Analysis – Not Due to CPU of PS4 and Xbox One

Looks like Vincent was telling the truth the first time around, because here is an indepth technical explanation of why the 900p resolution has more to do with hardware parity of the consoles than the game being 'CPU Bound'.

[Foehammer]

The truth comes out

CPU bound

No shortage of armchair quarterbacks telling the developer their limitations.

[Kayant]

"The truth comes out

CPU bound " - We knew this since the initial statement because it was explained by the dev which is the reason it's not 60fps.

Also

"The reason for this could be that both consoles perform poorly at 1080p but the probable reason is that it performs poorly in 1080p only on the Xbox One and the original reason provided by Pontbriand was infact, the real reason."

"Assassins Creed: Unity is, relatively speaking, a dominantly CPU Bound Game because the NPC logic processing is extensive.

Since the game is resolution locked to 900p, and we already know that resolution makes no difference to a fully cpu bound game, then, practically speaking it is also GPU-Bound, which means that:

It would almost certainly net more frames per second on a PS4 than on an Xbox One under the same settings or the approximately the same frames per second under slightly higher settings (or resolution)." - Well if this theory is anything to go by then it's in support that PS4 could handle higher resolution or higher graphical settings than the XB1 and should have better fps when both are at the same settings/res.

[codelyoko]

"PS4 could handle higher resolution or higher graphical settings than the XB1 and should have better fps when both are at the same settings/res. "

Yeah, this is exactly the 'Second Opinion' (to Ubisoft PR) this article is trying to provide. That the resolution lock (on the PS4) was due to being politically correct in the NextGen wars then due to any technical reason such as being CPU bound.

[Ezz2013]

No matter how many times you say this
they will just ignore it

the only reason this game is 900p on both...is just for the sake of parity
nothing else

[SonofGod]

But it doesn't make sense that MS forced parity with ACU, they have never done it before.

MS has been big time partner for a long time with Activision, but that doesn't mean they forced parity with COD Ghosts.

MS is also partnering with EA, but still didn't force parity with BF4.

Not to mention Dragon Age Inquisition. Some people were actually stupid enough to believe that MS forced parity on that game(I bet those who canceled their pre orders are feeling very stupid now).

So why would they suddenly do it now?

[andrewer]

Just a little correction - there is no such a thing as "CPU and GPU bound". It can only be one of those, or balanced. If they said it's CPU-bound, it's the same as saying that the game doesn't push the GPU much. And being CPU-bound means the majority of requests are to be processed at the CPU not Input/Output(GPU in this case), which means that the GPU is prejudiced.

When the program says: print image on screen, it occupies the CPU for a time, then goes to GPU, is processed (Anti-aliasing and stuff) and then goes to the monitor/TV. If the CPU is being used for something else, this "print image on screen" request has to wait a little more to be processed by the CPU and then go to the GPU (the GPU doesn't know what to print, the CPU has to tell it). I don't know much about it, but I would guess that's why the graphics are prejudiced.

After all the system is the CPU+RAM. Any other thing (from GPU to external HDs) is just an Input/Output Device, which, eventually, NEEDS to use the CPU.

What I'm trying to say is that even image-related requests, the CPU is involved, having to inform the GPU what and how to process an image. At the GPU, the necessary things are done and then the image is sent to the screen. So a bigger image (higher resolution) means more data for the CPU to send to the GPU = more use of the CPU. If the CPU is already being highly used, this becomes a problem (imagine at 60fps 1080p, the CPU needs to send information equivalent to 2.073.600(1920x1080) pixels to the GPU 60 times per second).

[uth11]

@SonofGod-

The difference is now Microsoft is tired of the resolution gate bad press. We know this because they said as much- when Diablo was going to be sub-1080p, MS said that it wasn't good enough and helped them achieve it. The did this. I think they did this with at least one other title.
Now if an Xbox game absolutely cannot reach 1080p, then parity can be achieved by bringing the PS4 version down.

Now of course there is no proof that MS demanded this either explicitly or implicitly. But given that they are trying harder to squash resolution gate situations, it's entirely within the realm of possibility. It's still speculation though

[DragonKnight]

So where the hell are Death and starchild on this eh? They've both been insistent that it wasn't due to parity (Death) or that the game could still be better and we shouldn't care about resolution parity for the PS4 version (starchild).

Of course they're silent. Neither want to admit the Xbox One held back this game and parity is B.S.

[PLASTICA-MAN]

This is the first time that I heard that resolution is determined by CPU , good job ubisoft, I hope you enjoy your extra pots of wine.

Good article BTW!

[Assassingamer136]

@sonofgod why wouldn't they? Didn't they ensure time exclusivity for Tomb raider? A franchise that got popular on the playstation? Hell Spencer said parity is created to ensure xbox owners don't feel second best. This is what they are doing exactly here too.

[illAmpRefugee]

wala magic

[Fatal-Aim]

@ codelyoko

try explaining that to these XB fanboys, and they'll swear up and down that you're full of it and that these consoles just couldn't handle the tasks. in reality, it is the XB1 that couldn't handle the tasks and thus the PS4 version was dumbed down and given a lame excuse.

what i don't understand is the FACTS clearly show that the PS4 is more capable than the XB1 and easier to program for. if you have two different systems running the same game equally, then its only logical that the more capable system could run the game better if it were push and properly enough.

its like XB fanboys just can't accept the fact that the XB1 is weaker than the PS4 - as if MS can do no wrong. the cold hard truth is they can and the XB 1 IS weaker. the sooner they can accept this the better off they'll be.

[nirwanda]

@son of God yes they have forced parity on a big launch game recently just look up Diablo3 MS told blizzard 900p was unacceptable and forced them to make it 1080p.
go Google it

[starchild]

The problem with this analysis is they assume that all other aspects of the graphics are a match. They also assume that both versions have the same framerate performance and lack of screen tearing. These are HUGE assumptions that I predict will prove to be false.

Garbage in, garbage out. If you start with faulty premises the conclusions you arrive at will often be wrong as well, even if your logic is sound.

[gamer7804]

we really don't know how much fps difference in this case, its probably closer due to a lot of the cpu calcs needed and thats why neither are 1080p which I'm fine with.

i usually i try to take the developers word for it. Devs work long hours to make us the best game they can, lets try to give them our support.

[DragonKnight]

@starchild: Actually they don't give a damn. You're the one that consistently tries to say "ok, well maybe the pop in is less prominent on the PS4 version" or some other such nonsense. You keep trying to skirt the issue and keep believing your opinion is the correct one.

"Garbage in, garbage out." Aren't we egotistical. You refuse to believe that Ubisoft went for parity because of factors no one, including Ubisoft, are talking about but you. You refuse to accept it even when Ubisoft said it themselves. Understand that you continue to look ignorant.

[BattleAxe]

Console owners should upgrade their CPUs to either an Intel i5 or i7 if they want to have one less bottleneck. Gotta love locked systems ;)

[darthv72]

For 'THIS' game to be 1080/60 then expect the fidelity to be no better than the PS3/360.

I dont think those who bought the PS4/XB1 would really want that.

Either you take the 900p (upscaled to 1080p) richer detailed version for your platform of choice or get it for the PC where there would likely me more flexibility in the visual/performance fields.

[fr0sty]

"This game is CPU bound, so they had to reduce the load on the GPU to make it run on both systems"

Do you see the conflicting logic here? If not, read it again.

[Death]

What do you want DK? Ubi is the developer and they say the games resolution is impacted by the AI. Both share an APU, not CPU and GPU like a PC. Ubi released Black Flag at a higher resolution for the PS4. Other than PS4 owners swearing Microsoft paid for parity which is based on nothing proven, no one has anything to back their statements.

Why compare Pitcairn and Bonaire GPU specs when most of us are aware that neither console actually has a separate graphics card with it's own bank of memory. Both use an APU which is a fancy way of saying it has a CPU with a built in GPU on the same chip sharing resources.

GDDR5 is not and has never been the ideal memory for a CPU. Why people still insist the PS4 has an edge in CPU and GPU due to it's use is ignorant at best. The downside of GDDR5 on the PS4 is it take a hit on the CPU. To make up for it the GPU is being used to offload tasks that are typically done by the CPU. That help comes at a cost. Ubi stated the additional AI is reducing assets that would be used for increased resolution. I believe them much more over the opinions of those that do not develop games. Sorry if it upsets you that I trust the people making the games more than you or any blogger that can't make games but claims to know better.

[DragonKnight]

@Death: You keep hanging on don't you? No matter how many times, and how many people, and how many different ways it's proven to you that Ubisoft went for the parity game, not the "this CPU can't handle it" game, you refuse to believe it.

Remember what I said the last time? So where is it? Where's the PS4's CPU clockspeed? You do have it don't you? You have some sort of link that points to the official clockspeed of the PS4's CPU right?

"Sorry if it upsets you that I trust the people making the games more than you or any blogger that can't make games but claims to know better."

No you don't. When Vince came out and literally said they took the parity route, you didn't believe it from day one and he's the senior producer on the game. You DID believe an anonymous PR email and took it for gospel.

Sorry, but just because an APU is being used doesn't mean resolution has to suffer for a CPU task. And GDDR5 memory doesn't have to be ideal for a CPU when it's being used for a GPU task like resolution.

Your fanboyism is apparent, and it's affected you in a big way. You don't trust a senior producer, you throw away common knowledge about cpu and gpu processes by believing in an anonymous PR email, and you absolutely refuse to accept the truth because it means, yet again in definitive terms, that the Xbox One is inferior. For all the talk about how both consoles are "so similar" to each other, every single instance shows that the PS4 is the superior piece of hardware and it gets under the skin of every Xbox fanboy.

It's funny because you Xbox fanboys sit there and come after PS fans and say all we care about is resolution, conveniently ignoring your attitude during the PS3/360 era, and doing absolutely everything you can to downplay the Xbox One's inferiority.

Don't get it twisted, I could care less about the resolution in and of itself personally. But having to have the PS4 be brought down to the Xbox One's level, having to hear people like you refusing to accept the truth about that, isn't why I bought a PS4.

I don't care if you don't want to accept the truth, doesn't make the truth go away. This is just the beginning. Maybe the PS4 has to suffer to cater to the lesser Xbox One, but you can be damn sure the Xbox One will never gain a leg up on the PS4.

[Death]

DK, it's a two way street. Show me PS4's clock speed. Why would I listen to you or anyone else on N4G over the developer. When you start making games or hardware I will add you to my list of influential people that know what they are talking about. Until then, I respect your opinion but disagree with you.

[UltraNova]

Ubi messed up real good this time I've got to hand it to them!

Personally, I always felt bad when I happened to get used games but for AC:Unity it already feels right as rain...

You deserve it Ubi.

[stuna1]

Seems to me you also have you armchair in attendance! Because you're definitely not short on assumptions either. For starters what would you assume are the reasons for upclocking their CPU? Here's my guess, even at a slower clock speed the PS4 CPU was still performing better than the Xbox1's was! Sure they have the same CPU, but Cerny also stated that some modifications were made to it. It's no secret that Sony is a better hardware company than Microsoft.

Second Microsoft had to take back the 8 to 10 percent CPU power from Kinects to try and raise the resolutions and framerate of games even after the upclock.

Third Microsoft started selling the idea that the Cloud will be the answer to Xbox1's woes, which truthfully I'm going to admit is not without its merits, but not on the level that the diehard believe.

Now just going off of what's already apparently obvious as to the PS4 up to now having the better performing games and, what I listed since the Xbox1's release, in all honesty which console would more than likely have the hardest time running this game at its best???

[Jason_Plays_PC]

@Foehammer.. The argument is about resolution and resolution is mainly handled by the gpu and ram, thats why i wasn't buying that statement.

[purp13m0nk3y]

The article still leaves out GPGPU. Both consoles are capable of this with the PS4 basically being built from the ground up to leverage the tech.

If they were CPU bound on the PS4 they could just brute force some of the AI calculations on the GPU using asynchronous compute.

This could also be done on the Xbox1 but is less efficient due to less ACE's and less GPU cores and the lack of 'volatile bit' tech on the MS console.

[Death]

You are 100% correct. You are missing one point though. If the GPU is being used for the AI calculations what does that do for available resources for graphics rendering?

[strangeaeon]

This "article" should be under opinion, because I see nothing but speculation on the authors part.

[Angeljuice]

XBOX owner by any chance?

[Killzoner99]

Wrong. The game was gimped so the Xbone version would look like the PS4 version. If the game was designed specifically for the PS4 then it would look 10 X better.

[marloc_x]

The truth gamers deserve is that the PS4 does NOT have 40% better graphics,

and you would not be able to distinguish between the two unless they where labeled for you.

Only THEN, would you point out either a sharper looking finger nail or fluffier cloud.. lol:P

[internationterrorist]

Anyone how understand how a CPU and GPU works in game development or how a game work. Knows that the CPU has little to do with resolution of games. This article is helpful in explaining why that CPU'S have little important in resolution

edonus@

Here is what you are not understand. No matter how much more time it takes or DX12 or new SKU , better delopment tools or getting to know the x1 hardware . The PS4 will always have the superior hardware over the x1. No amount of Da Cloud, DX12 or new SKU update will change that fact that the PS4 has 50 % more GPU cores and higher GPU preformance than X1. It's impossible for the x1 to preform equal to the PS4 it will be one of two things.
A. The game is not that graphically demanding and both PS4 and x1 have hardware head room to run the game at it full resolution and frame rates.

B. The developer gimping the PS4 version for the sake of parity. The PS4 has 50 % more GPU cores. PS4 vs X1 both GPU benchmarked by digitalfoundry PS4 GPU has a average of 40% horsepower performance advantage.

SonofGod@

I for one don't think Microsoft forced ubisoft to change the resolution of AC.U . I actually think that Microsoft has nothing to do with AC.U parity. I think the original statement the developer made was true. Ubisoft wanted to avoid any controversy or negative press for AC.U . Also you gamers have to realize that game industry is a business. Ubisoft doesn't want to offend the xbox user base by making in the game superior on PS4. So ubisoft made AC.U equal so not to give the PS4 version any advantage over the x1 version. Ubisoft is also business partners with both Sony and Microsoft and wants a good business relationship with Microsoft. Ubisoft see parity as not taking any sides between PS4 and x1 and see parity as the way to accomplish that goal.

[assdan]

Why is this article necessary? We know it's because Ubisoft is going for parity for no reason.

[Muzikguy]

I don't take any PR statement as "truth comes out". It's all just to sugarcoat the issue

[ITPython]

Until this game gets upgraded on the PS4 (or at least shown to look/perform WAY better @900p compared to the xbone) I will continue to refuse to buy the game new.

It's amazing how far MS's bribe money goes. Even with the tens of thousands of canceled pre-orders, Failsoft is still sticking with this parity BS.

[starchild]

-"Actually they don't give a damn. You're the one that consistently tries to say "ok, well maybe the pop in is less prominent on the PS4 version" or some other such nonsense."

Who doesn't give a damn? The author of this article? Well, they better give a damn. All of their conclusions are predicated on the idea that the PS4 and XB1 version are graphically equal. We don't know that this is the case. In fact, we have many reasons to believe it isn't the case.

Yes, I bring up the fact that the PS4 version likely has other graphical advantages, because this is the crux of the issue. If you can't understand why it's relevant, that's your problem.

-"You keep trying to skirt the issue and keep believing your opinion is the correct one."

Yes, because you believe that your opinions are false, right?

That's why we express our opinions is it? Because we think they are false?

I fully acknowledge that my opinions on any topic may be wrong and I'm open to change them if presented with compelling facts or reasoning.

I'm simply expressing my opinions and view of things as I see them right now, same as you or anybody else here.

I'm not skirting the issue, I'm trying to clarify it and get to the core of it. You're the one that keeps using ad hominem attacks and bringing up irrelevant points instead of addressing the points in the arguments I have put forward.

-"Garbage in, garbage out." Aren't we egotistical."

It's not egotistical to simply point out that an argument can't realistically hope to arrive at a factual conclusion if it begins with faulty assumptions.

"You refuse to believe that Ubisoft went for parity because of factors no one, including Ubisoft, are talking about but you. You refuse to accept it even when Ubisoft said it themselves."

No, my main argument is to wait for more facts before drawing what very well may be erroneous conclusions. My second point is that the majority of evidence we have leads to the conclusion that the PS4 version is likely superior in ways other than resolution, similar to what we see in games like Destiny and Alien Isolation.

We have several different comments from Ubisoft (or at least Ubisoft employees, even if not as official statements):

1. The PS4 version of AC Unity is targeting 1080p/60fps.

2. The PS4 and Xbox One version were locked at the same specs to avoid debates.

3. Ubisoft has not and will not ever intentionally cripple or limit their games on a particular platform.

So you need to tell us specifically why we should believe #2 and not the other two comments. You need to provide actual evidence.

Even if we assume comment #2 was correct and we pretend the other two comments were never made we need to see a compelling reason why we should believe that locking "at the same specs" means the games are equal in performance and all other aspects of the graphics and does not simply refer to the fact the resolution and framerate target are the same.

"Understand that you continue to look ignorant."

Thanks. Coming from somebody that I find to be ignorant, I'll take that as a complement. Seriously, you keep saying things like this, but it only makes you look ignorant. I guess it doesn't dawn on you that your comments look equally ignorant to those of us that disagree with you.

[codelyoko]

That TL;DR section summarizes the entire thing pretty well (for those that don't want to read the whole thing). Imo the gaming community is becoming slightly too demanding on the devs. Nothing can make up for the hardware superiority of the PS4 but the gaming part in gaming is increasingly becoming irrelevant and that is pretty sad.

[PCBOX]

Yes it is the CPU problem ( 4CU GPGPU but in some cases even it is not enough because of API and GDDR5) but they can use Cloud to off load AI and physics and bump the res up to 1080p. PS4 fanboys keep saying the PS4 version has been gimped because of XO. Yesterday we saw that actualy there is no parity. I see no reason here that Ubisoft hold PS4 due to XO. They say there is no oroblem on GOU side to achieve 1080p only CPU so use Cloud and bump it to 1080p. So funny that if there is a gimped version,according to this case XO is that one. By the way if you think XO is a weak piece if s*** go check the reportage between DF and Play Ground.

[Kayant]

Sometimes it's good to read the article before going on to spread mostly BS.

[MRMagoo123]

You didnt even read it did you? lol you are so far off its not even funny.

[Bhuahahaha]

stop smoking weed

[Angeljuice]

@PCBOX
Aren't you a naughty box-troll. Your pseudo knowledge of PC architecture is outstanding.

[Frisky]

Why don't you just go through the TL;DR section of the article? Commenting without going through the article doesn't make you look smart at all.

[Majin-vegeta]

Layman terms pls?

So they basically downgraded the PS4 version?Da hell this crap has got to stop.

[codelyoko]

Read the TL;DR given at the end of the article. But in-case you dont want to. Here is the essense:

The PS4 could have handled 1080p 30. The Xbox One couldn't have. (Resolution is entirely GPU dependent. And not affected by the CPU at all)

The reason ubi locked it at 900p was because it was being politically correct.

[gootimes]

Well, I bought a TV for 1080p res, at least for the majority of games and movies I have. This parity to "avoid debate" thing is absolutely ridiculous...

[n4rc]

That's the authors opinion..

But when he says things like "increasing resolution has no bearing on framerate" then I tend to ignore their opinions, because they are confused apparently.

[Letthewookiewin]

This ain't over yet how much you guys want to bet they'll up the PS4 to 1080 or add better image quality. Especially with the Bioware guys rubbing it in their faces. Ubi won't get my money with statements like that first one.

[ABizzel1]

It's funny to me that I've been saying all this for the longest since this whole thing started.

These developers are pulling BS, like the article says, because most console gamers aren't in the know when it comes to hardware, but at a PC and Console gamer, I knew this was BS to start.

A CPU bound game can affect framerate, and generally framerate only, because the CPU can't produce the data fast enough to keep up with what the GPU needs.

A GPU bound game is easily fixed by lowering resolution and the graphics settings.

Resolution is a GPU problem not a CPU problem.

[Manic2014]

Well not downgraded, never used the full potential.

[psvitamanfan]

Shame really, think of what could have been done with the PS4's full potential behind it. We could have had an uncharted quality AC...

[1OddWorld]

Assassin's Creed Unity can flop for all I care, if they don't want to fully support each console then we shouldn't support them.

#PS4NoParity

[psvitamanfan]

So you'd rather miss out on a game than play it as it releases? Would you care that much about a few lines of pixels here and there?

[generic-user-name]

It's the principal, we let them get away with this now and they'll keep on doing it, particularly if they have deals with MS, like they do for Unity, Dragon Age (which also recently revealed it'll have console parity), I won't be surprised to hear it from Evolve and The Division next.

[ThanatosDMC]

Yeah, im afraid that Evolve, which im looking for to playing on my PS4, will end up being gimped because of the Xbone.

[Kingoftherodeo]

still trying to making excuse for non-1080p? jesus its 900p whatever get over it, i wish all games on my xbox would use xbox servers but they don't god knows destiny crappy pvp servers could use it? should i blame ps4 for not letting bungie use xbox one servers? god knows we would have two different multiplayer versions of the game if each used their own dedicated servers

[gootimes]

Who is making excuses? They already said what the reason was...

Didn't Xbox have a hard time with Destiny beta and PS4 did fine? Bad comparison... If Bungie wants to use their servers that's their decision, Sony doesn't have a stupid parity demand for servers, lol.

[Kingoftherodeo]

so you think ps4 would have allowed it? do you?

[marlinfan10]

id almost guarantee theres some sort of clause in the contract saying MS can't use their own servers.

you honestly think sony would let MS use their own servers and risk having the inferior online version? yeah, i don't think so. theres not a chance MS could use their own.

[gootimes]

^
Wow, seriously? In case people didn't know Sony DOES have games with dedicated servers, why would they be insecure at all over this in the least?

I would actually like to hear what people think makes games better playing on XBL in general as far as server structure. I have literally not had one single problem with online play on PSN. So how would it be better on XBL? And why would Sony be concerned?

I love how people are trying to create a SonyToo though...

[marlinfan10]

Im not saying itd play better, im just saying sony wouldnt leave it up to chance. Theyre not stupid.

[gootimes]

Fair enough. Well maybe they did do an arrangement like that, who knows.

[OOMagnum]

#PS4NoParity

[Lennoxb63]

Most current gen engines are CPU bound. Which is why the PS4 does better on last gen engines because they're GPU bound. X1 is built around the current gen engines because they actually use the ESRAM to buffer correctly (I know I'll take a lot of disagrees for the word ESRAM). This isn't to say that PS4 won't run them well or even better than the X1. Just saying that the X1 runs them easier compared to last gens engines. And when devs finally come to grips with them they both should perform a lot better.

[Qrphe]

>Most current gen engines are CPU bound
>last gen engines because they're GPU bound

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

[purp13m0nk3y]

Ah. No. Just no.

Please go and read something relevant to the topic. Then come back when you have at least basic understanding.

[Haru]

He basically just proved that the PS4 version was indeed downgraded to achive parity with the XO version...

[DragonbornZ]

Not necessarily. He proved that it's certainly possible it could've been. He's "almost certain" PS4 could perform better with slightly higher graphical settings or res.

"It would almost certainly net more frames per second on a PS4 than on an Xbox One under the same settings or the approximately the same frames per second under slightly higher settings (or resolution)"

Based off that it's also possible gameplay wasn't exceptable at 1080p, but the graphical settings will show superior on Ps4 to the X1 version. People are too fixated on only res instead of other settings like textures, shadows, AA, etc.
Just pointing out all possibilities.

[Haru]

Agreed, But the PS4 version has the same resolutin and runs at the same FPS as the XO version, So the PS4 version was indeed donwgraded and my point stands still unless of course the PS4 version turns out to have better textures light and better graphic overall then you're right but I don't see that happening guess we'll have to wait and see

[Unarmed_Civilian]

@Lennoxb63
"X1 is built around the current gen engines because they actually use the ESRAM to buffer correctly"

Pls stop the BS, if x1 architecture was build for current gen engines it WOULD NOT HAVE THE ESRAM.

[Lennoxb63]

Um. Yes it would. The ESRAM is used as a really fast cache. New gen engines install memory on the ESRAM to have things on call faster. Which is one reason why Yebis 2 runs exceptionally well on the X1. It's CPU bound.

[Unarmed_Civilian]

They NEED to use ESRAM , they have no other choice ,otherwise they would need to use the slow-ass ddr3.

Pls stop.

[Lennoxb63]

@Unarmed_Civilain

They use the ESRAM and the DDR3 and unison. I believe you're the one that needs to stop.

[Unarmed_Civilian]

They have no choice, its not an benefit , its an disadvantage, i dont think devs are happy chopping their code to fit the 32 esram.

No more bubbles for you to spread BS.

[MRMagoo123]

The only reason they added ESram was because they only had ddr3, they thought they couldnt get gddr5 in time and didnt take the risk so stuck with dd3 and ESram to try to bandaid the bandwidth as much as they could. The ESram wasnt some thing they wanted to go for but rather something they needed because of ddr3. you are completely wrong lennox

[s1lentone]

@Lennoxb63 BAHAHHAHAHAHAA lol you're funny. Thanks for the laugh.

[MasterCornholio]

Sony had the option to go with ESRAM but they didn't because developers told them that they wanted a completely unified memory structure.

"Turn out that the number one piece of feedback was that they wanted a system with unified memory. That means just one pool of high speed memory. Not the two that are found on PC or on PlayStation 3."

Also Cerny mentioned that they didn't go with ESRAM because they wanted to make development easier for developers.

"If we used eDRAM for this on-chip memory, we knew that bandwidths of as much as one terabyte per second — that’s a thousand gigabytes per second — would be achievable. The catch though, is that the on-chip memory would need to be very small, and each game team would need to develop special techniques in order to manage it."

http://www.dualshockers.com...

Mark Cerny knows a lot more about hardware than you do pal which is why your opinion is invalid.

You can read more about ESRAM from Microsoft here.

http://www.dualshockers.com...

"During a livestreamed presentation at Build, Xbox One Team Partner Development Lead Frank Savage explained in detail how the much discussed ESRAM of the Xbox One works, also mentioning that it can help developer sreach the fabled 1080p resolution goal or a 60 frames per second resolution with their games:"

On a side note I find it curious that Microsoft is claiming that the Xbox One is capable of 1080P through the use of the ESRAM. Given the trend of resolution on that console I wonder why developers can't achieve that goal with all of their games?

[Angeljuice]

ESRAM is a compromise, not an ingenious solution (as MS would have you believe). Devs have been screaming for unified memory for years.
MS made their memory architecture decisions earlier than Sony when GDDR5 stock levels and availability was unknown. ESRAM was introduced as a gateway between the two memory pools to try to alleviate the bottleneck.

If the ESRAM was 4x its current size, it would be possible to use it for all manner of purposes, as it stands it can barely cope with the job it was designed for.

The ESRAM as it appears in the XBox One is only a positive factor when its leaving the mouths of MS's PR team and entering the ears of the gullible.

[MultiConsoleGamer]

Interesting analysis.

[trywizardo]

where did you guys ^^^ find your quotes , i looked for them in the article and nothing was there Oo .
anyhow the game does look good , and when i get a next gen console it'll be cheaper too :D

[Realplaya]

It's Ubisoft. I bet if people all of a sudden stopped buying their games they would start to listen.

[mhunterjr]

Are people upset that Unity isn't 1080p on ps4? Or are they just upset that it has the same performance specs as the xb1 version?...

I think we'll have to actually see both games side by side before assume there is actually parity. Resolution and framerate don't tell the whole story.

[akaFullMetal]

I think the only thing bothering people is parity itself and the dev not using both machines to it's fullest as they currently are.

Had Ubisoft actually used the benefits of both machines and ended up just being 900p/30 fps then nobody would have to much of an issue. However, Ubisoft pretty much said they wanted parity to avoid debates.
Either way devs should use the consoles to their best, and not hinder another console for parity reasons. If the xbox was more powerful this gen, it would go the same way, I hate seeing parity when another console could do more.

[mhunterjr]

I dunno, I think he comment was take out of context.

He said "both games are 900p, so there won't be any debate"

Gamers took that to mean, "we chose 900p for both, so that we can avoid debate"
But his comment could also be interpreted as "since both games are 900p, there won't be any debates"

No one has any clue whether or not the ps4's hardware will be used to its full potential. Assassins Creed 4 launched on PS4 at 900p, and hit 1080p after an update. assassins creed unity undoubtedly will be taxing the ps4 even harder, so it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see the game go back to 900p.

Until we see both games side by side, we can't assume that the ps4s capabilities aren't being utilized.

[DragonBits]

Oh gawd, this is still a thing? How much more can this be beat to death?

[ThanatosDMC]

Till crap like this doesnt happen anymore with one of our favorite hobbies.

[gamer7804]

he said it was a cpu issue, he didn't say (as the article tries to say) 100% cpu bound. This means cpu was a major factor, but not the only factor. This is why the ps4 could not reach 1080p at 30fps as well.

This article tries to throw a lot of technical info, but gets the base fact of what the statement said wrong, at no point did they say it was 100% cpu bound.

[jhoward585]

This article doesn't make any sense to me. Something doesn't add up. Everything inside the x1 or ps4 hardware has to work together as a whole to perform a task. To say the GPU has nothing to do with the CPU is crazy thinking. Haven't any of you learned from those trailers at E3? Have you ever wonder why most game get down graded and doesn't look no where near as good as the trailers? Is because mostly everything CPU BOUND are strip away from those trailers. A Pre-scrpted trailers has no AI, no play mechanics, no collisions engine, etc.

My point is, we need more info...and with out more info to work with we'll still be in the dark until the truth from UBI themselves.

[fanboysmackdown]

Any of you complaining actually buy AC games or plan on buying AC Unity or are you all on here just to bitch?

[urwifeminder]

I like Ubi soft games mostly just not this series I have the first two games they seem painful to play , I guess the co op may make this interesting though.

[Ulf]

3 months before launch:
PS4 is CPU bound, runs game at 1080p/27.
XBO is GPU bound, runs game at 1080p/23.

2 months before launch:
PS4 is CPU bound, runs game at 1080p/27. GPU hits 1080p, but only just. 1080p is 42% more pixels than 900p, after all, and PS4 GPU is 40% more powerful.

Ubisoft engineers give up on squeezing more out of XBO GPU, so reduce the rez. XBO is now CPU bound, runs game at 900p/30. Faster framerate due to resolution reduction relieving the GPU bind, and 10% faster CPU (and CPU RAM access) than PS4. 30 frames is ~10% faster than 27 frames, after all.

1 month to launch:
Ubisoft engineers give up on squeezing more out of 1.6 GHz AMD notebook processor. They say "screw it, 30 fps is more important than 1080p. Sony says we can use some GPU to do animation work, and AI raycasts, which will allow us to offload CPU work onto the GPU."

GPUs aren't all that efficient at doing CPU work, but they can do it. If its not massively parallel, like rendering is, then each CU doing CPU work is kinda like a 1 GHz processor with almost no cache... i.e. slow... but still parallel, and there is GPU power to spare! PS4 can probably devote ~4 CUs to this work, making it nearly the equivalent of the faster clocked, lower CU, GPU of the XBO...

PS4 runs 900p/30 fps.
XBO runs 900p/30 fps.

End of story. Wccftech apparently never heard Sony when they said "yes, you can use the GPU to supplement the CPU" -- or Wccftech foolishly thinks that doesn't come at the expense of rendering horsepower.

-----------------

This is a completely reasonable solution to a CPU bound problem. I don't see why people can't understand that the PS4's GPU is INTENDED to be able to supplement the CPU when needed -- and that no, you can't have that without also losing some muscle normally meant for rendering.

TBH, you can expect this kind of behavior in almost any open world game -- because, yep, they are almost always CPU bound, as demonstrated by just about every PC gaming analysis under the sun (e.g. Fallout 3/NV, GTA IV/V, Skyrim, etc.). PC CPUs have a lot more meat than the consoles do, so the consoles will only be CPU bound to an even greater degree.

[purp13m0nk3y]

Actually the PS4 is basically built from the ground up to leverage asynchronous GPGPU compute.

The code is simply slotted into any idle GPU cores while rendering each frame. The GPU is never at 100% load for the whole render of each frame. So much of the GPGPU compute is done for "free" performance wise.

This is only possible with out of order code though. I remember somewhere a Developer mentioning AI being a good candidate for GPGPU.

[johny5]

How is it that every other game coming out it's 900p for the Xbox One and 1080p for the PS4 version?

If this is truly for parity reasons all they're really getting their selves into is a PR mess that EA and other publishers can take advantage of! Either way, it's not good business!

[RedstonerMC]

Thanks for explaining all this.

[AgentSmithPS4]

I forgot about the holidays, giftmas is almost here and all the good little boys and girls will begging their parents for a new game console. MS doesn't want little Billy to ask for a PS4 because the game he likes isn't 1080p on xb1. So maybe, allegedly, MS starts paying for parity on the 'big games' (the ones they believe will convert the most people), since that's probably cheaper than what they'd lose if they didn't hook them 'now'.

[andrarfc]

The only difference is you won't need a magnifying glass to separate them now.

[jairusmonillas]

AC Unity is 900p on next gen cause of parity.

If it was really eating too much resources, it should've been 720 on xbox one and 900p on ps4.

There's nothing more to it than excuses by Ubisoft. I wouldn't be surprised if AC Unity flops on PS4 with a lot of games being released at the same time with AC Unity, Ubisoft would regret having deals with MS for a little bit of money just for the sake of parity.

[Agent_hitman]

So this article proves it that Ps4 was indeed downgraded because X1 can't handle even on 1080p 30fps.. fixed

[u got owned]

This article don't prove anything if you read carefully the author is not implying that what he said is the truth but just a possibility.

[Frisky]

The thing that concerns me the most is the growing interest of gamers in resolution and fps, it is just masking the fun part where you love a game more for its gameplay than just the pixels that it has to offer.

Keeping a know-how about your platform and the software that runs on it doesn't mean you're astray, but isn't it a worrying factor that developers have to come out in open and announce resolution and fps of their next-gen games, and then defend it, rather than revealing more information about the new features and gameplay that the game comes packed with?

[hello12]

The PS4 GPU ‘Pitcairn’ is roughly 40% faster in terms of raw GPU horsepower. (1.31 TFlops Vs. 1.84TFlops)

The Xbox One CPU has a higher base clock of 1.75Ghz (~150Mhz more than PS4).

It does not run that fast for PS4 and thats the first mistake made here.

The PS4 uses a 14+4 setup confirmed by a Playstation dev. So it never uses 1.84tflops for graphics.

Of course the PS4 version can hit 1080op native, that's not the issue, how stable is the 30fps frame rate if the devs pushed it to 1080p on PS4?

[Unarmed_Civilian]

"The PS4 uses a 14+4 setup confirmed by a Playstation dev. So it never uses 1.84tflops for graphics. "

They can use all 18 CU , thats why its set up 14+4.......

DF: Alien isolation

The PS4 version of Alien: Isolation mostly hits a solid 30fps throughout, with frame-rates only mildly impacted in more demanding scenes. On the other hand, performance takes a bigger hit on the Xbox One, where frequent frame-rate drops and tearing is commonplace.

"Of course the X1 version can hit 1080op native, that's not the issue, how stable is the 30fps frame rate if the devs pushed it to 1080p on X1?"

Fixed.

[stiggs]

I posted this in another section but it received no contradictory responses so I'll try again.

Parity Conspiracy Theorists Please Answer these 4 Questions:

1. If MS paid off the developers to gimp the PS version then where is the outrage from Sony corp? Don't you think that Sony might be a little upset if the competition sabotaged the launch of a AAA title on their system.?

2. Why would a developer risk alienating the larger fan base (PS4) just to appease one that is half the size (XBOX One)? There is no benefit to that scenario that I can fathom. The only “reward” is that it could potentially be catastrophic to their sales due to a negative response from PS4 owners. If your answer is “MS paid them off” then please let provide some form of proof. Also, post your estimate on the alleged payoff amount.

3. We have seen Ubisoft and other developers launch games on the PS4 that ran a bit better than their XBOX One counterparts. Why would Ubisoft choose this specific title to initiate the doctrine of console parity?

4. Gamers are so passionate about their hobby that it is easy to predict how they would react to such a controversy. Do you think that Ubisoft did not have the foresight to predict the response from the gaming community if parity was implemented? I find it hard to believe that a company with so much experience would be that ignorant toward their audience and more accurately their bottom line.

[plmkoh]

1. Sony doesn't pay for other companies' investments nor comment on information not bound for the public, especially when they too will receive mutual benefits of having the game launch on their platform. Conversely one could throw the same rhetoric at you about why MS or Sony hasn't commented on the lack of 1080p in this game.

2. Why would a developer risk alienating the larger fan base? I don't know, maybe you should ask Eidos about their Tomb Raider 2 game, apparently that decision made sense to Polygon.

3. The rumour stems from the producerss own mouth, coincidentally this is the first Assassin's Creed game with a large quantity of Xbox exclusive content. 1+1=?

4. The did have foresight, that's why they responded exactly as they did "to avoid all the debates and stuff". If you find this hard to believe, it's because you keep assuming they're 'ignorant', when the reality is that they've calculated it all and it makes financial sense to do this, they're a business, not a charity.

[stiggs]

@plmkoh

Thanks for responding to my comment. Unfortunately you chose to be evasive with your responses and failed to directly answer any of my questions or offer anything other than speculation and assumptions.

"Sony doesn't pay for other companies' investments..."

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I asked why haven't we heard anything about the parity issue from Sony and you responded with a confusing message about corporate policy and resolution. What?

"maybe you should ask Eidos about their Tomb Raider 2 game"

This is not an answer to my question. It's a juvenile attempt to bolster your argument using association and deflection.

"this is the first Assassin's Creed game with a large quantity of Xbox exclusive content"

So you are saying that in addition to the exclusive content MS also brokered a deal to have Ubisoft gimp the PS4 version. I'm not sure how you made that leap of logic since exclusive deals have been in existence for decades. Are you suggesting that all exclusive deals are actually fronts for more diabolical arrangements?

"it all and it makes financial sense to do this, they're a business, not a charity."

No, it makes NO financial sense. You clearly misunderstood this question (and the majority of the others).

I can condense my entire post into one simple word.

Why?

Why would Ubisoft release a "substandard" version of a game and intentionally upset the majority of their customer base?

The simple answer is they wouldn't. As you said "they're a business. They would never do anything that could potentially hinder sales.

[plmkoh]

From your view, I'm only being evasive because I didn't answer it with what you wanted to hear.

In fact you failed to pick up the general theme I made with every single answer to your questions of "Why?".

The short answer is simple: It's because the public doesn't need to know how companies deal with companies, you see it as all irrational except it all becomes rational once you figure out it's profitable or strategically viable.

Let me recap:

Q: I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.
A: That's because all your questions are rhetoric and I answered it with a rhetoric question.

Q: Why would devs alienate fan bases.
A: Because there's financial incentive to do so. I've already mentioned Eidos did exactly that with Tomb Raider and Ubisoft with Unity being the first Xbox aligned brand in the history of the franchise.

Q: Why?
A: Again, because you don't want to see what's in front of you, you continue to ask the same old rhetoric. The market isn't black and white where the only way to generate revenue is from direct sales of games, there are subsidies and incentives from business partners.

But let me paint it very clearly, the GRAND majority of Assassins Creed buyers don't give two flips about about resolution or quality, they will buy it and Ubisoft well knows the franchise has matured enough to be bolstered against any negative feedback affecting sales. Adding to the fact that you now have financial incentives from business partners for parity coupled with the minimal impact on sales, why would it not make financial sense, if anything from managements perspective it has the lowest risk.

AGAIN, this rumour all stems from the horses mouth: the "Senior Producer" where parity exists "to avoid all the debates and stuff". Nothing to do with the technicals of the game.

[stiggs]

"rhetoric"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[stiggs]

"the GRAND majority of Assassins Creed buyers don't give two flips about about resolution or quality, they will buy it"

While I think there is some validity to this statement the outcry on sights like N4G paint a different picture. If there is some truth to it then that raises another question. If the majority of the gaming public does not care about resolution then why would MS pay Ubisoft millions (tens, hundreds?) to intentionally gimp the game on a competitor's console?

The investment from MS would significantly outweigh any potential gains since parity would have a "minimal impact on sales" (your words).

[gangsta_red]

So you managed to write all of that and still not answer the questions and make one valid point to any of Stiggs questions.

"I'm only being evasive because I didn't answer it with what you wanted to hear."

No, because you didn't answer any of his questions at all. You danced around the questions and gave answers that were not even related.

Furthermore you didn't provide any real reason as to why MS and Ubi would intentionally do this other than the already established conspiracy theories Stiggs was questioning.

You used multiple terms in your supposed answers in the wrong context and the rest was just deflection.

You all keep brining up and focusing on what the Senior producer said but then you refuse to believe the multiple actual engineers that gave a better explanation and cleared up what that producer said.

CoD:Ghosts was backed by MS and that is a far larger franchise than AC. And yet it was 720p on the X1. Why wouldn't MS pay Activision to gimp the PS4 version? I mean they had a marketing deal right? You mean MS is willing to back AC but not CoD, a franchise that has made more money than most Hollywood blockbusters.

And Stiggs was trying to ask, why hasn't Sony commented about MS intentionally paying other companies to gimp their system. You don't think if that was actually tru it would make for a great story for game journalists? You don't think it would be the top N4G news item for weeks to come? Sony could bury MS with this media news if this were true.

But it's not, it is nothing more than internet keyboard warriors making a mountain out of a grand of sand.

[MattE]

All these Sony fans really need to pull their heads out of their arse..

Didn't realise you were all feeling so low after the last generation.. Must have hit you all hard to be coming out in force on these articles.

Can't remember it being an issue last gen but obviously you were all hurt by it.

Worst set of fans/fanboys to ever grave the console community. Well done

[5eriously]

We knew about the parity enforcement during the previous gen as we experienced the brunt of it. Thats a fact. Microsoft is returning to their dubious ways of trying to get the upperhand or improve sales. Unfortunately as with every 180 they made since announcement of the eXBone it was to late as the consumers are wiser than they (M$) believes. Unfortunately there are many gullible idiots out there that would believe everything a USA corporate giant like M$ would say, no matter if it is BS garbage. We saw that many times. We will take note of which M$ partners suddenly claims they could not produce the norm on the PS4. I for one will ignore all those games gimped for parity sake due to M$ influence. There are many other games not gimped to keep us busy. (wink)

[S2Killinit]

Im thinking about boycutting assassins creed because of this

[bleedsoe9mm]

the really scary part is some people would give up gameplay and devs vision for 180p , and if they are loud and hysterical enough the devs will listen .

[NerdStalker]

I hope this game doesn't suffer in it's reviews because of this 900p stuff, the game really looks a step forward, like proper next gen. So I don't see the big deal, i'm fed up of all these big games getting average reviews or being regarded as let downs due to stupid stuff.

[cardgenius]

Doesn't matter much to me. Ill be too busy playing GTA V to care about this game anymore. Ubisoft did what they needed to do and so did I (canceled AC: Unity pre order and placed it on GTA V).

[Smootherkuzz]

People will buy the game no matter what! So who cares? Fun out weighed all this mess! Love it or hate it on either console. I don't understand all this mine is better then yours. I think they should stop making video games because people are spoiling the fun for everyone instead of being happy to even have video games. What a world!

[bnkosu]

Seriously, what fucking difference does it make, I own both systems and the difference between multiplatform is negelable.

This is not PS3 vs 360 where one is clearly superior.

[ricochetmg]

I dont care because I will get it used.

[Ch1d0r1]

Any reason for this game being 900p on the PS4 is complete PR bullshit.

[Tzuno]

AMD cpu Suck end of story, and is in both consoles, same turd.Wait for 2015 too see how obsolete a console will be in therms of graphics.

[kingPoS]

Remember when Assassin's Creed 4 received that 1080p patch... http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... That was a short lived parity wasn't it.

Gateway MT6706 2008

[endi123]

Oh, just give it up already, every day a stupid article about that stupid ac 900p

[g4n]

Is the xbox version still a DVD?

[krouse93]

Ubisoft: "To avoid all the debates and stuff."