Xbox One Vs. PS4: ‘Assassin’s Creed: Unity’ CPU Bound And Slower On The PlayStation 4?

The PS4 Vs. Xbox One wars continue to this day, and PlayStation 4 fans have been quite dismayed to find Assassin’s Creed: Unity CPU-bound, making it noticeably slower in regards to frame rate. But if the PS4 GPU is so much faster then how could this happen?

[gamer1138]

It's not just a CPU speed advantage the X1 has, I've also read that it can process an extra 10Gb/sec per cycle over the PS4. How much of this is reserved for system processing I don't know.

And this is the one time we can see an advantage in DDR3 over GDDR5. DDR3 is low latency, which is pivotal for stuff like AI. GDDR5 has higher latency, so though it may be faster, the data it's rushing through arrives with more errors which is problematic when dealing with AI.

The big question is whether GPGPU compute on the PS4 side could have helped out, but chances are that would have required completely reworking the game engine.

[miyamoto]

Maybe it all depends on how they programmed the game on PS4 & the Xbox considering the "parity" Ubisoft is aiming at.

[Nitrowolf2]

The game runs horribly period on any platform. It should hardly be a title worth comparing when it comes to better hardware specs

[starchild]

It sure doesn't run horribly on my PC, I can tell you that. I'm getting very solid performance. And there is no wonder the game is demanding, it looks absolutely stunning. Easily the best looking game I have played on PC (and that's some steep competition).

[BVFTW]

@Starchild what are your specs? are you maxing out the game configurations? I'm asking because I'm interested in the game but seen that many people are reporting many issues I decided to wait for it to be patched but I guess that the game can be adjusted to run alright.

[GameNameFame]

PS4 has less OS overburden, so actually has more CPU power available for it even with MS speed bump.

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

Ddr3 latency which is very minor difference is completely negated by APu structure.

[UltimateMaster]

That has nothing to do with being CPU-Bound.
Last gen, AI was done on CPU but this gen everything is done mostly on the GPU, and the AI on the GPGPU.
This is what the CPU can handle in terms of AI dancers: http://www.worldsfactory.ne...
As you can see, the Xbox One does have a slight advantage over the PS4.
But if everything was being done on the CPU, then why not just go with the PS3? Right.

Here is the performance of the GPGPU being used by the Xbox One and PS4:
http://www.worldsfactory.ne...
As you can see, it's 16 times better than what the CPU can handle on the PS4 and around 8 times for the Xbox One.

That's a pretty significant difference in favor of the PS4.
Again, if the CPU was that important, you might as well just go with the PS3.

[R6ex]

ACU ran smoothly on my i5-970 setup at max. settings 1080p. Love the visuals!

[UltimateMaster]

If it was because of "the CPU" then a whole lot of PC gamers would be crushing the Xbox One rather than getting insanely low frame rate regardless of the graphic settings.

People have found a fix for the PS4 and PC versions. You have to turn off your Wi-Fi/log out of PSN.

For PC gamers it sometimes DOUBLED the frame rate.

Ever wondered why on Digital Foundry/Euro Gamer, the Frame rate was low during the game play on the PS4 but was Higher during the cutscenes, it's because of that.

Because it was logging to the internet for some reason made the frame rate drop significantly.

Not having the internet turn on means the PS4 version runs at a higher frame rate than the Xbox One. Xbox One FPS just stays the same.

Try it, it actually works.

[UltimateMaster]

In any case, there is NO EXCUSE for a game to run better on the Xbox One over the PS4 or PC for that matter.

It simply due to piss poor programming and a sloppy job overall. And as you can see here: http://www.inquisitr.com/16...
Frame rate is far from being the worst thing they screwed up with this game.

I can hardly see any Xbox fans being thrilled over this... regardless how anti-Sony he is.
Especially with Halo MCC and Sunset Overdrive, there are better games to spend money on this month.

[abstractel]

Lots of good arguments brought up in here why this is a bad title to compare, objectively.

I'll add one more; GPU Compute. Crowd stuff could have been somewhat offloaded onto the GPU which is significantly faster than the XB1 GPU.

There's lots of variables, but they were rushed and the parity problem IS a problem. If you code with complete parity and then just adjust aspects to work on each console, you are going to not utilize each machine to it's fullest.

There's still no game that lives up to Ryse on the XB1, and it had a fair amount of crowds. Not Unity level, but this game was rushed to get out -- despite its long development cycle. If it really was in full development for 4 years, they have some efficiency problems over there. An example, it should not take a decent artist a year to model that Cathedral inside out. Yes it's beautiful, but as a technical artist in this field I know plenty of people, myself included, who could have done it in way less time.

When Rocksteady said they are aiming for parity, I got really worried. But then I remember that I will play that particular game on the PC and it should hopefully run great on mine.

[GameNameFame]

So many xbox fanboys with disagrees. Please show any benchmarks/proofs or anything to support your argument.

[starchild]

@UltimateMaster

You're kind of confused about some things. GPGPU is already being used for the cloth physics in this game, it's not like GPGPU is an endless well that you can just keep throwing stuff into. It allows you to do certain types of processes that would traditionally have been done on the CPU on the GPU instead, but it is still a limited resource just like every other resource in a system.

And you have to realize that there are certain kinds of algorithms that simply aren't suited for GPGPU. I mean, if GPGPU was good for everything we could simply do away with the CPU altogether and just run everything on the GPU. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

Since GPGPU is already being used for the extensive cloth physics in the game there is simply no way for us on the outside of this project to say "hey, well they should have thrown more on the GPGPU and it would have ran better". You simply can't assume that.

- "If it was because of "the CPU" then a whole lot of PC gamers would be crushing the Xbox One rather than getting insanely low frame rate regardless of the graphic settings."

Any decent PC is easily surpassing the Xbox One, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Is it because you heard some PC gamer complain they weren't getting 60fps in this game on their GTX 670 and so you assume it runs horribly on PC?

You have to understand that in many cases PC gamers are running this game at much higher resolutions, with more advanced graphical settings and at more than twice the framerate of the console versions. My i5 2500k, for example, can maintain over 60fps in this game. http://gamegpu.ru/images/re...

I'd say that is a pretty dramatic leap over the console versions that drop down to 17fps or whatever it was. Already, you are looking at needing at least a 3x more powerful CPU on PC to run at a solid 60fps instead of the console framerate.

The standards on PC and consoles are just completely different. Most PC gamers strive for 60fps and for years we've been used to getting it. Unfortunately, this has resulted in some PC gamers having the attitude that anything that doesn't run at 60fps on their mid-range rig is just "poorly optimized". These people might give console gamers the idea that these games run badly on PC, but the truth is, in many cases it's simply that people's expectations are unreasonable because they aren't taking into consideration what the game is doing from a technical standpoint.

AC: Unity is the most graphically advanced game I've ever played and I understand why it is demanding. Still, I'm able to cap and maintain a solid 30fps with near max settings (textures "high", FXAA, everything else max). This idea that it runs horribly on everything is pure nonsense. Go read the PC performance thread on neogaf or the user reviews on Steam. Sure, there are a lot of people complaining about performance, but there are a similar number of people talking about how amazing the game looks and how it runs pretty well considering how advanced it is.

[neocores]

A deveolper should always go for the consoles strengths.
But since xbox had "Parity" they made it to only the xbox strengths this game would run alot better on ps4 if it was built for the ps4. Yall can all disagree but you know i am right.

[Mr Pumblechook]

Ubisoft`s other game, Far Cry 4 is receiving high scores.
It demonstrates that having the PS4 as the lead console platform, and there being no artificial restraints on graphical performance benefited the XBO and PS4 version.

[Ju]

GPGPU might be used in this game, but if it would have been used efficiently and implemented on both, those parts would have a significant leap on the PS4. But it isn't the case. This is especially true for the frame rate - or it would create some significantly better effects/visuals. Yet again, not the case. Quite the opposite is true. PS4 framerate is lower without any significant advantage. For example, the cloth simulation, now guessing the content is the same (same amount of NPCs at any time) and running on the GPU would render those in half the time on the PS4 leaving 50% time to do other thing on the GPU. So, either this goes to waste, or the GPU stalls. Else the framerate would actually be significantly hight.

I still think the visuals were locked down early because of the bandwidth limitation of the XO. That's just the GPU barrier and the PS4 had to live with it. The rest was design for parity and there the CPU on the XO was used at its fullest. Which probably is the best way to optimize this game for the XO. But with doing so, too much bandwidth is allocated for the PS4-CPU (assuming that exact same CPU code runs there - which is most likely) and the result is it cuts into GPU memory bandwidth and hence the framerate, In a dev doc for the PS4, Sony describes the impact on CPU bandwidth usage on overall memory performance which can drop well down to 100GB/s or something. A little bit late to re-evaluate the (technical) design decisions Ubisoft made. But I still hope they have the time to fix it and "balance" out the PS4 version eventually.

Also, I doubt, the drawcalls are an issue on the PS4. The PS4 has the most efficient interface for draw calls - unless those are significantly hight on the PS4 (doubt that).

[r1sh12]

I have it on PC, its no where near perfect.
My specs
i7-4770k
16GB ram
4GB Asus GTX 760 (Mars ROG version) - its got 2Gb more ram than normal 760.

Im still getting frame drops etc..
My brother has the 970 and his was barely working, after the patch is a lot more smoother for both of us, but its far from stable.

Check my youtube channel for vids for frame drops.
same as my username

[ABizzel1]

@BVFTW

It's a mess on PC as well depending on your hardware. If you're not running a good mid range card or higher (we're talking GTX 760), then you're not hitting 1080p @ 30fps.

I have dual 760's, and I tried it with one, and the framerate is all over the place depending on where you're at.

Inside areas climbs to the 40's and can reach the 50's, but when you're outside it drops to the 30's and can reach the 40's. Get into areas with crowds and it can drop to the 20's and can even hit the teens.

That's everything on high, shadows low, and FXAA.

i7-4770k
GTX 760
16GB RAM @ 1866 MHz

The game looks good, but it's completely unoptimized.

[Wizard_King]

This whole PS4 vs Xbone fight is hilarious.

It's like my snail is faster than your snail.

I'm loling all the way to the bank at the 3 year old notebooks masquerading as gaming machines. If any of my gaming rigs now or in the past had ever done as bad in game as this gen I would have sold it an upgraded. Seeing FPS in the teens in some of these PS4 and Xbone titles is just not acceptable from machines that are supposed to be "gaming" consoles.

I watch mates play console games these days and it makes my head feel dizzy with slow frames and games like BF4 on ps3/360 was like having sand thrown in my eyes.

But I guess some people have just never know better.

[BVFTW]

@ABizzel1 Thanks for the heads up! I guess I'll stay on the fence for a while longer as the game seems to be in need for a little more work, it doesn't sound that bad thought but they should've known better with all the expectations they raised with the PR/Hype campaign.

[indyman7777]

How dare you guys try to say UBIsoft slowed down everything with the network connection except the xbox one......cough cough disconnect your ps4s internet connection.

how DArE you guys insinuate that Microsoft and UBIsoft are in bed togather! Cough ...parity...cough....cought

how dare you guys say they are in development together on internet explorer offshores....cough (read...read)

http://www.microsoft.com/en...

How dare you guys say Microsoft, and UBIsoft wants to replace the consoles with a webbrowser! Cough read the article already!

why was this
comment taken down earlier?

[decrypt]

I have the PC version, game runs fine Maxed out with FXAA i am getting 80-120 fps at 1080p.

3930k Oced to 5ghz
GTX 780 Tri sli.

I think a Single GTX 780 should be pulling between 40-60fps.

[ThanatosDMC]

Worst initial FPS drop i've experienced on PS4 is when Arno first went to the cathedral and socketed that key to lower the chandeliers from the ceiling. It almost made the game unplayable because of the constant freezing in that room.

Watch this glitched/bugged enemy kill me with an ax to Arno's nuts: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Ultra]

Psssstttt... Never say facts about CPU advantage or DDR3 latency, it irritates ps4 babies!

[Why o why]

Lol, read benchmarks below

When I think of babies I think of all the damage control, spin and conjecture I've heard since the games have showed the differences in performance.

The ps4 is just more powerful

Get over it

[Ultra]

why o why....

benchmarks =/= games

Lol try again babe

[Ezz2013]

@Ultra

So wait
you brought up the specs
by saying Cpu "advantages" and DDR3 latency

and when @Why o why tell you to look at Specs benchmarks that prove you wrong ...specs don't matter again ?!
My head is about to explode of the the double standards you fanboys are showing

also if you are talking about multiplat games pretty much almost all of them look and run better at higher res on Ps4
DF Face off is your friend

[uth11]

@Ezz lol, when someone brings up a "fact" without evidence, it's not surprising that they dismiss evidence to the contrary as 'not applicable'.

If benchmarks =/= games, then maybe games = games. We can look at all those games that outperform on the xbox as proof.. Oh wait there aren't any, except *maybe* this game.

[Why o why]

Lol, ultras still not over it

The real game proof flies in the face of your hopeful spintastic rhetoric. Its been a year now and how many titles go against the NORM... NORM being the ps4 outperforming the x1....No secret sauce, DX, No 10% No kinect resources freed up, nothing. ...just good old Japanese tech pie with western garnish.

Funny thing is it seems you're trying to bottle up your irritation. ...its seeping out through that passive aggression though. Lets leave the power battle and play our games because the results were cemented the moment each manufacturer finalised their hardware. I know many guys loved DF last gen....take a peek

[Conzul]

Given the quality of games we've seen on PS4 and those lying ahead, a blind monkey could see that it is the superior hardware and coding environment among console games.

Therefore, when a multi-platform game looks/runs better on any other platform ( except PC ) then that is the fault of either inept; lazy; or hurried developers who did not care to optimize for the superior platform.

Say, for example, developers who believe in Parity.

[kneon]

Those aren't facts. In fact they are just myths that you choose to believe to justify your choice of console.

The fact is that you can't make a blanket statement that DDR3 has lower latency than GDDR5. The latency is related to the clock speed. If you had DDR3 and GDDR5 running at the same clock speed then the DDR3 will typically have lower latency. But the GDDR5 in the PS4 runs quite a lot faster than the DDR3 in the XB1, the end result is that latency is about the same.

The same goes for the CPU clock speed, you can't just compare two CPUs and say which is faster based on clock speed. Even though the two cpus are very similar there are still some significant differences. So benchmarks and real world results are needed to judge relative performance.

[Dynasty2021]

God, you console owners are getting worse every day arguing over which snail is quicker.

[JBaby343]

^^^ cue the PC elitist.

[Th4Freak]

The PS4 doesn't have a weaker CPU, all that came from one of the super NeoGAF leakers, because you know everything that is said there has to be 100% true.

Anyways heres a benchmark made by Gaming Bolt: http://www.cinemablend.com/...

[moegooner88]

watch the butt-hurt disagrees commence.

Also, this one offers a good explanation of both systems architecture. (Before the extra 10% was made available on the 1)

http://www.extremetech.com/...

[joeorc]

Every time that is shown, the down votes posters have yet to post a benchmark to counter that!!, pretty ironic that even with UBIsofts own benchmarks prior to all this shown that the ps4 could handle more, and what is quite funny that very Ubisoft engineer interview about unity performance was posted here already..LMAO

the very fact as of yet, many times that benchmark gets posted, there is still people that refuse to accept it, when the tool they use is even the benchmarking tool that other companies such as Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all use. Hell even Ubisoft use it....LMAO

but continue nay sayers trying to downplay the results...it is quite amusing. Oh and for this that still want to downplay this results:

the benchmark tool had a right link to the company, here it is:
look who is a client!
http://www.allegorithmic.co...

lmao at down votes

[hello12]

Freak@ The benchmarking is rubbish because both CPU's are identical (same make and model) AMD supplied the same CPU to Sony and Microsoft. Nobody from the tech world disputes this.

Microsoft just upped the clock speed before launch and that's the only difference here. And you know the only reason they could is because of the huge fan inside the x box 1 can offset the extra heat generated. Sony fan is smaller so its hard to do and thats why Sony never upped to their clock before launch.

Neither CPU is better than the other, Microsoft just had more headroom to increase the performance. They it also with the GPU clock, by upping it from 800mhz to 853mhz

[Th4Freak]

@KNWS I'm not saying that any CPU is better than the other, actually you can tell from the benchmark that they're very close in performance, what I'm trying to say is that people has to stop talking from the Xbox One CPU as if it was a i7 and the PS4 CPU was a AMD Celeron. The gap between them is way to close to justify the ACU bs and the attempt of having a superiority air.

Now, both CPU's are not identical, they share the same architecture (Jaguar) but not the same specs, remember that each APU was customized by AMD to the requested specs so the benchmark isn't rubbish. And btw if you look at the original article's date ( http://gamingbolt.com/subst... ) you will note that the benchmark was performed after the 10% increase.

[Amuro]

I really do not understand how you people can still trust GamingBolt after all the nonsense and click bait they have published.

Here are proper benchmarks for CPU and GPU by Ubisoft:

http://static1.gamespot.com...

[n4rc]

Its one specific clickbait benchmark designed to specifically to benefit from ps4s memory architecture.. Wtf does generating textures have to do with measuring a CPU as a whole?

They are the same CPU.. Xbox is clocked slightly higher (1.75 vs 1.6) likely due to the better thermal setup on the Xbox (bigger case and fan, external PSU)

[Gamer1982]

When devs were just pushing out games early on we saw the real differences between consoles. Now games are getting to the point where sales are pivotal as a lot of people are switching over to a new console things are looking more even. Making even fps and resolution impossible though on both consoles so one will come out worse in this case it was the ps4. When they are both let off the leash like with AC4 and other 3rd party games we saw a real difference between the consoles.

Also DDR3 latency doesn't kill frames if you think that you obviously know nothing about how graphics work.

[gamer1138]

Where did I say it kills frames? I said DDR3 does better with low latency intensive tasks like say...A.I. All the comparisons show that as soon as a lot of stuff starts happening on screen in the PS4 version in terms of big A.I crowds, the game starts to chug. Thats the GDDR5 pumping high latency data to the CPU which the CPU has to sort out and so results in lost frames.

Also you argument about the early games performance is completely flawed. Those games were less intensive and have been far surpassed graphically by what has come since. One thing to consider is that by all the accounts the XB1 dev kits were a mess. While MS have spent the last year getting their dev kits up to scratch, it seems like Sony haven't pushed their tools any further. It was their lead to lose and I have no doubt that they will develop improved tools to help devs push the PS4 hardware further in the future. The question is if the CPU will always remain a weakness of the PS4, like the GPU is a weakness of the XB1.

[MeliMel]

Yeah but the "real differences" you claim are minimal.

[Utalkin2me]

@gamer1138

And exactly where did you read that at? Gots to love all the hardware experts, lol. You can claim this and that. But until everything is working in unison you can't claim anything. Sure individual this and individual that. But these things don't run individual. What can it do while everything else is working and what compromises do you have to sacrifice to achieve this or achieve that.

[TheWatercooler]

Why do people come on here and spout bs when they don't know what they are talking about.

PS4 is more powerful it's simple. We still don't know exactly how well the PS4 cpu performs. It has been bench marked higher than xbones cpu several times.

The latency of GDDR5 compared to DDR3 is negligible. The only reason they use DDR3 in pc's is simply because it is cheaper and does the job.

GDDR5 would also work just as well in pc's but it makes no sense to use it because it is too expensive. We are talking about very little difference between them.

And GPU Compute can handle AI. Ubisoft's cpu excuse is bull

[Stiffler]

"Why do people come on here and spout bs when they don't know what they are talking about. "

You know that question is more for yourself than anyone else posting on these articles...

Who cares about this conjecture and nonsensical flaming. Lets just be gamers and have fun. Is it that hard to not be a fanboy guys?

[MeliMel]

Ask yourself that...smh

[SonofGod]

"The only reason they use DDR3 in pc's is simply because it is cheaper and does the job.

GDDR5 would also work just as well in pc's but it makes no sense to use it because it is too expensive."

What?? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That didn't even make sense.

[BVFTW]

@Watercooler comment, ROLF NO!! PC people use both types of memory cause latency and memory clockspeed is important for streamlined data (like short burst of compute blocks) and for parallel data (big data blocks that need threaded work, read and write at the same time) a big bandwith pipeline does the job better, DDR3 is not always cheaper 'cause modules capable of handling really high clocks (something GDDR5 is limited for its 1 volt Cap) you'll see that the price is not always right. The best it's to have the advantages without the disadvanteges, best of both worlds.

[marcofdeath]

@TheWatercooler
@SonofGod
@PS4FANS

They also don't use GDDR5 for APUs or SOCs other than PS4. So when you make up BILL$hit you get $HIT! That's why they don't have links to that BS.

"GDDR5 would also work just as well in pc's but it makes no sense to use it because it is too expensive."
This is BS too! A PC can cost upto $4000.

Not only is the PS4 CPU slow it's BW is also lower. You can't even feed it at max or you lose BW to your GPU.
1.GPU/memory only
XB1 Esram + DDR3 to GPU 1280-bits
PS4 GDDR to GPU 256-bits
2.GPU/CPU/memory only
XB1 DDR3 to GPU 256-bits/ESRAM to GPU 1024-bits
PS4 GDDR5 to GPU/CPU 256-bits
3.CPU/memory only
XB1 DDR3 to CPU 256-bits/GPU Feed by ESRAM 1024-bits
PS4 GDDR5 to CPU 256-bits/GPU must be feed as well.

THis is why PS4 CAN"T MATCH FM5 or FH2 XB1 GAMES, It's doing DX12 NOW!

Here take a look at 1886 it's 800p V.S. RYSE's 900p with good AI.

[Rhythmattic]

Marcofdeath or/is MisterX ?

Wow... just add up the bandwidth.

Be reasonable and don't take Mr C , Mr X etc as your only info on such a subject.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

GDDR5 is specifically designed high performance graphics computations, meaning that GDDR5 is actually better at the task of running video games than DDR3. Fanboy nonsense will never change that fact.

In closing, the reason Assassin's Creed Unity runs better on the Xbox One is that Ubisoft intended it to be that way since the Xbox One was the lead platform for the development of the game which more than likely accounts for the game's glitchy performance and framerate issues.

[BallsEye]

@UltimateMaster

There is much more to the system than just CPU and GPU. Remember ps4 is basicly using one GPU unit for everything (even audio) while xbox one except a weaker than ps4 GPU it has also move engines that takes tons of load from GPU and a full audio chip. So this test does not relate to real games that calculate tons of things and making the best out of architecture of both systems. It just compares what it can compare, tech demos trying to run 1 separate part.

As for Asassins Creed Unity performance. I can see slight framerate drops in cut-scenes but gameplay runs flawlessly even in super crowded areas. Playing it on Xbox One.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

@gamer1138
"And this is the one time we can see an advantage in DDR3 over GDDR5. DDR3 is low latency, which is pivotal for stuff like AI. GDDR5 has higher latency, so though it may be faster, the data it's rushing through arrives with more errors which is problematic when dealing with AI."

You made that up didn't you?

[Yetter]

yep you're right on the money. MS widened the BUS in the XB1 so they can get 30GB/s to the CPU as oppose to 20GB/s on the PS4. They both use jaguar 8 core chipsets but the XB1 is modified to perform 6/ops per cycle as oppose to the PS4s stock chip which performs at 4/ops per cycle. Combined that with a higher clockspeed on the XB1, do the math, you'll see the XB1s CPU is capable of significantly more ops/seconds. The extra bandwidth and DDR3 memory are better for avoiding bottlenecks between the GPU as well.

MS said several times when the XB1 was released. "We built a balanced system" AC Unity is the first example where the benefits show.

Also like to add Im really enjoying Unity, it may be my favorite AC game to date if it wasn't marred with microtrasactions.

[DoubleM70]

88 people are in denial.

[Lulz_Boat]

you read what??

lol, nope.

[94jdh]

These seem to disagree about Xbox cpu being faster http://www.cinemablend.com/...

[Angeljuice]

@Gamer
The DDR3 vs GDDR5 argument really doesn't apply. When measuring latency there are two methods, latency per cycle and latency per second. Per cycle latency is much better with DDR3, however the GDDR5 memory in the PS4 is much faster meaning that it produces many more cycles per second.
If you measure the latency per second (which is the important real-world statistic), there is little to no difference between the two.

If both ran at the same frequency your point would be valid, but the memory in the PS4 is much, much faster.

[16bitNutritionist]

Haha N4G and its PS4 centric fanboys eh!!! If this game is CPU bound and the X1 has a faster CPU then obviously it would run better on X1 than on the PS4 which, wait for it.......has a slower CPU.

[Sy_Wolf]

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

[The_KELRaTH]

If the game were genuinely CPU bound we would be seeing the PC version ridiculously faster rather than also suffering too.

This is just an easy excuse to divert from the real issue:

Why are these dev teams not creating software to work well within the limits of the hardware,

Will the only solution be that the hardware has to be locked at 1080p 60fps with the result that if they create code that overloads the hardware then their game will physically slow down (rather than being able to hide it under slowing fps) much like in the days of Atari 800/ST Sinclair, Commodore Vic/Amiga. Etc etc.

[mmcglasson]

Actually they resolved the GDDR5 latency issue with the APU. It's non-existant. You could have read about that before the PS4/X1 even launched. I forget what the exact term was but it makes that so called "latency issue" a non-issue.

Sony could easily send out a update that clocks the PS4's CPU at 1.75ghz too. Not saying they would or that they are going to. I don't understand where you get your information from. In benchmark tests, the PS4's CPU actually outperforms the X1 anyways due to the OS of both platforms.

[Horseheadinthebed]

Yawn.......more fanboy baiting. "Xb1 quicker" "ps4 quicker" blah blah blah. FFS grow up , getting fed up with these headlines claiming one consoles superiority over the other. get a F*cking life!

[The93Sting]

http://www.reactiongifs.com...

[Tedakin]

Runs like crap no matter where you play it

[Gamer1982]

Yep horribly made game, no doubt rushed there worst performing game since Watch Dogs. Even that wasn't as bad as this.

[jrshankill]

but crapper on PS4

[strangeaeon]

I felt the game play was getting stale anyway. I played Black Flag for roughly 4 hours total and I haven't touched it in months.I don't see this being much different.

[mkis007]

Unless it runs like far cry 4 is running(in the DF video locked at 30 with 1 single split second drop to 23fps) it isn't a finished product. They needed to keep this in the oven a bit more. Both versions fail to give an adequate 30fps.

[starchild]

But lots of games on consoles don't manage to maintain 30fps all the time. Even Infamous Second Son drops below 30fps sometimes. I know this because I lock the framerate at 30fps and can easily see and feel when it drops below that.

The frequency and severity of the drops might vary from game to game, but by your standard most games on consoles wouldn't be considered finished products.

[Spotie]

I think the point- which you're for some reason damage controlling- is that it fails to maintain 30fps often enough.

And it's telling... well, typical of you... that you act as if it's primarily a console game problem. As if it never happens on PC. And I suppose you'll have some excuse as to why it's not a problem on PC, like being able to raise or lower settings as you see fit.

But that doesn't mean the problems don't exist. Just that they're easier to rectify on PC.

[MSBAUSTX]

COD Advanced Warfare stayed between 48 and 60 FPS on PS4 durring Campaign and between 52 and 60 FPS on XB1. Durring multiplayer PS4 performed slightly better than XB1 making these games virtually identicle and at consistantly high FPS throughout all facets of the game, as per Eurogamer.

I know that that game is different than AC amd Infamous but COD AW looks absoutely freaking amazing and is so smooth to play that If I had to play one more minute of Unity I would rather not play games at all.

[stonecold3]

ubisoft pushed for parity before asc unity came out to void a debate i think asc unity should had been delayed until early next year to polish the game up and should have ironed out the bugs and fps drops asc unity could have ran better if they had spent more time tweaking it instead of rushing it out before the xmas rush for a quick sale .all i hope ubi does fix it and patch the game and fix alot of the problems asc unity had

[ultralow]

o look more bickering like little school girls...

[crippler666]

Its quite simple. If we boycott the game the developer will either patch this game or will have to put more effort into future releases. Sloppy programming on a AAA title isnt acceptable.

If there were problems, why didn't no testers see them? Unless the game was only optimized fot XBox One. Ubisoft were well payed by microsoft, but maybe instead of looking at the dlc, they should look at the broken game engine and patch it. After all they said parrity across the systems, that works both ways.

I don't blame microsoft for this. I blame the developer. We need to stop buying what is broken. With Quantic Dream, Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica developing games we have not seen. With software such as The Order 1886, Bloodbourne and Dead Island 2 on the horizon, do we need to buy crap?

[cruzngta]

Xbox1 has a cpu edge FACT. PS4 has a GPU edge FACT. Dev should have properly optimized it using the strengths of BOTH machines and PS4 version once again would have been superior. Both consoles are pretty close in terms of OVERALL capabilities and each do certain things slightly better. Its nice to see XB1 get some positive light on a third party game showing it actually running slightly better. Makes some people mad as shit but its just a freaking videogame. Not the end of the world. They still need to patch the hell out of it to make it better though.

[joeorc]

No here is a fact

xboxone CPU speed higher clock..yes
xboxone CPU performance edge over the PS4 CPU...No

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

So no the xXbox one does not, repeat does not have the CPU edge, the fact is that benchmark tool used is used by not only UBIsoft, and Microsoft and Sony but yet the Benchmark was showing the PS4 CPU was outperforming the Xbox one CPU in performance, but yet some how some way you are going to sit here and try to claim that the Xboxone has the edge?

In clock speed yes, because it was over/clocked!
but in performance no it was not. That large..LOL
a 2 fps edge is not a edge, when the game was poorly ran on both systems, like you said though without the game optimised for the strength of both systems, and the fact is it was released with issues on all platforms, so Ubisofts games are a far cry to point out performances index....if anything we are just starting and in order to get even a very viable performance index , it will take at least least till year 4. Or 5 to really get an good solid index, and by that time pretty much both systems will be showing off such good software than they already are right now, it really will not matter which system you get.

the blunt truth is in where it matters, both are fantastic game systems, but as for this so called proof about Microsoft's system having the edge in CPU performance , well with benchmarks tools that these companies already showing an index on performance, it shows otherwise.
can that change in the future? Sure it can, is it very likely?

most likely ...No, the problem is that is both systems are done there is not CPU upgrade other than die/shrinks so that leaves software.

[strangeaeon]

Clock speed equals better performance silly.

[Amuro]

the edge the Xbone has on CPU is very very tiny and reflected on 2-5 more frames over the PS4 on Unity. That's like 1-2% edge. It's so tiny is actually funny you make it sound like it is anything significant or even worth mentioning.

Now the edge the PS4 has over the Xbone on GPU is by 50%. And why this edge is so much more important than the CPU's?

1. because it's big
2. because of future usage of GPGPU

[IrishSt0ner]

FYI 2-5 frames (from 30) equals 6%-16%

[ReturnToSanity]

"The Xbox One went with lower bandwidth DDR-3 memory while the PS4 memory is GDDR-5"
I stopped reading right here. This editor is a moron. Does he understand that DDR4 doesn't exist yet? So how is it" lower"? Their GPUs do different things, it's not like Microsoft couldn't afford anything the PS4 has.

[OpenGL]

DDR4 does exist, Intel uses it on their Haswell-E platform.

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

Microsoft went with DDR3 because it was cheaper than 8GB of GDDR5. DDR3 does not actually have substantially lower latency either despite what a lot of people say because they don't understand how CAS latency works. Memory latency is measured in cycles, so you can't just go "a ha! The Xbox One's CAS 8 DDR3 is faster than the PS4's CAS 15!" To determine the true delay you take the CAS of both, and then multiply it by the clock speed.

[ReturnToSanity]

Thanks for the clearing that up.

[mmcglasson]

You my friend know what you are talking about. Also, PS4/X1 use hUMA/HSA. It was in many articles talking about the APU of the PS4 and X1. It stated that how the APU of the PS4 was designed and it eliminated almost all of the "latency issues" of the GDDR5 memory. Both systems feature hUMA/HSA but everyone stating that DDR3 on X1 has an advantage in terms of latency is incorrect. In a normal PC architecture this may be true but not in the case of PS4.

http://www.extremetech.com/... (ignore the headline because I believe X1 uses hUMA/HSA or something very similar to hUMA/HSA).

[DougLord]

Every game looks and plays exactly the same between the 2 consoles. The performance differences are so minor they aren't worth optimizing for. None of you could go 10 for 10 in a blinded test.

[MasterCornholio]

"Every game looks and plays exactly the same between the 2 consoles."

That's what you want to believe but Eurogamers comparisons say otherwise. And they back up their claims with proof which is something that you never do.

[Zizi]

I don't believe this is the hardware faults, because Unity runs poorly both on PS4 and XBOX ONE. And I think Ubisoft should fix these problems sooner than later, or else... they will lose profits.

As a huge fan of Assassin's Creed, I believe Unity deserves better than poor performances. C'mon, Ubisoft!

[Gr1mmyshadows]

I wanna know why does it matter so much to people which console runs better? is there some type of personal gain from owning a console that runs a game at 1080p compared to 900p

[baodeus]

It does. It helps them sleep better at night. No 1080p = no sleep, and sleeping if pretty important for ones' health.

[LordDhampire]

Guus guys, we shouldn't direct oir anger towards each other...we should be made at ubisoft, and espexially made at gameworks for ruining every game....if your not a pc gamer look up game works problems its pretty much just specifically made to gimp amd hardware but causes alot of problems in their own nvidia hardware...ac:bf constant crashes at certain parts of the game...unity face problems and random frame rate problems

[Ps4andxb1]

Here's the truth -

The PS4 and XB1 have different architecture.

Benchmarks and games designed for the PS4 will see results better on the PS4.

Benchmarks and games designed for the XB1 will see results better on the XB1.

The XB1 has more specialised hardware which means it has been difficult to code for.

Take a game like Forza horizon 2 and it runs amazing on xb1.

But the ps4 has zero chance of running forza horizon 2 in the same way it has been made for the xb1 because the gddr 5 would not fit all that landscape inside its memory at once.

The xb1 has dedicated hardware to quickly stream the landscape.

Vice versa, the ps4 uses more off the shelf components and is not so specialised. This means development is fairly quick and easy and the xb1 struggles with run of the mill off the shelf development.

And that people is the truth -

Both machines have different architecture.

Herp fu*king derp that one machine would benchmark better when the benchmark has been set up to RUN ON THAT TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE.

The End.

[joeorc]

You need to start a refresher course in system design and engineering, because both the ps4 and Xbox one are custom designed, the ps4 is not just off the shelf parts, and trying to imply that it is ; is down right amusing.

just stop trying to spread misinformation, and really learn about something instead of trying to sound like you do know, you will be better off. Not trying to be mean here just pointing out what you stated is not only Untrue, but down right way off base.

[Amuro]

from all the stuff you wrote there not even a single thing is true or even remotely close to being right.

[livedeht]

Lol u can't make this up ! Lmao /popcorn

[tcharger]

I grabbed this game used for the ps4 and have seen it running on xbox one. Both look good/bad for their own reasons.

This is a perfect example of a game that has basically reached the over saturation point and due to that is being rushed out and not optimized for any platform.

I genuinely hope that enough people have spoken buy not buying a new copy so that maybe they will realize that this isn't acceptable.

[Hibsboy85]

And here was me thinking the the ps4 was super powerfull haha

[Kakashi Hatake]

This cpu narrative is such a cop out. Ubisoft was just paid to neglect the PS4 version, end of story. Hilarious how Ubisoft apparently took advantage of a tiny clock speed bump on Xbox One but couldn't take advantage of PS4s stronger GPU and faster Ram.

[Amuro]

I don't think that is the case. What I believe is that the game was rushed and badly planned.

This is a quote from an unnamed developer talking about Unity and why it turned the way it did:

"The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles."

http://wccftech.com/ubisoft...

[Bytor]

Wasn't the PS3 cpu like 400% more powerful than the 360 and the cpu ram like 4 times faster they didn't do shit with that If they used GPU compute this game should be running 900p 60fps easy on the ps4 and maybe 480p 60fps on Xbox One.

[Hibsboy85]

We always hear the pony boys saying that games get held back because the xbox one well what heppened here ? Mabie the ps4 isnt as great as you thought is was advanced warfare also had better frame rate on the xbox one

[Bytor]

A couple of frames every once in a while with dynamic resolution that ran at the bottom end 99% of the time with some screen tear to boot.

[Father__Merrin]

Far better games coming out, I advise to skip

[Give_me_head_strong]

Stunning game. I'm glad I went with the superior Xbox One version.

[SquidBuck]

the first one to be superior, yayyy lol

[jmc8888]

So Ubisoft's horrible coding for this game means X1 has an advantage? Both play like crap but that's a win?

Pyrrhic victory folks. The simple fact is Ubisoft created a CPU bound engine for consoles that have weak CPU's....BUT...they have GPGPU's that can be used.

Ubisoft isn't using them.

Both version's could easily be at 60 FPS... but it isn't, because Ubisoft didn't use GPGPU.

Isn't it funny that Ubisoft games have this CPU bound issue, when ALL major platforms they code for has GPGPU that can be utilized?

Seriously. They themselvs are screwing their own games up on the following platforms.

Wii U, PS4, Xbox One, and PC.

Yep...ALL of them have GPGPU inside which can be used, and see massive gains on traditional CPU processes.

So no...the issues isn't whether a paltry 200 mhz or so increase in a mobile low power CPU that gains a couple more FPS (but still choppy) is a WIN. The issue is, why is Ubisoft taking a losing coding strategy with all their games when all platforms support a better way?

Get your heads out of your butt. This isn't a Sony or Microsoft issue. This is a Ubisoft issue.

[kingduqc]

Have you ever coded a single piece of software? Do you know what GPGPU is? The fact that they HAVE to use it means the CPU is clearly underpowered and this whole article is to point that out. Yeah there is tons of bugs, glitches and it's not a finished product and no one should support that. The fact remains that CPUs in the console are really slow and they are limiting dev's ability to scale and produce a truly next gen game.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

Here, take a look on what the game looks like on a pc, beside character's model the game look fantastic, the performance is trash of course.

[corroios]

People need to understand neither Xbox One or PS4 are state of the art machines.

They went with cheap parts to make a cheap machine. Both CPU are average desktop versions... and the GPU are also average.

The Xbox One is entry level and good for 900p and some 1080p, and the GPU of the PS4 is 1080p entry level.

But both of them are weak by today standard...

The PS3 or the Xbox 360 are much better machines when they come out...

But this game is just broken and should just come out in 6 months. People that bought should have listen to all the red flags about this game... There are plenty of options...

[Bytor]

If you think the PS4's gpu is average your fooling yourself it can use Its L1 and L2 cache with special tags to keep it in sync a second 20 gig bus bypassing its cache to system memory for compute 64 compute commands instead of 2 and more shit than I can remember.When Uncharted 4 comes out you will probably need 2 or more i7's to run it on a PC.

[typittt69]

Remember that?:
http://www.gamespot.com/art...
Mission unaccomplished Ubisoft

[feedthereaper]

As an Xbox One owner commenting on this article, I bet I get double-figure disagrees just by farting strawberry flavoured rainbows!

[RedDeadLB]

I knew the CPU would become a problem eventually. Both companies failed miserably with the CPU.

To explain, it wouldn't matter if the PS4 had the fastest GPU on the planet because that slow-ass CPU would never be able to feed it information fast enough to make a performance difference.

Still makes me wonder though, resolution has almost no impact on CPU performance - they still could have upped the res to 1080p (atleast on PS4), it wouldn't have made a difference to the framerate.

[Flames76]

Man X1 is really showing its power here on its games lately even more so than before.Glad the ps4 version didnt hold the X1 version back.

[kingvendrick]

Truth is ubi went for parity to avoid the resolution debate and ended up with a game that runs like trash on all systems.

@Flames, actually this is what you get when devs use the xbone as the lead platform. Xbone holding back the PS4 version is the correct statement.

Its funny how pretty much every multiplat runs best on PS4, and then one example bucks the trend and all the xbone fans are all over it like flies round sh1t. Its just an anomaly, not the norm as Far Cry 4 & GTA5 will attest, and normal service will resume.

[Ulf]

GPGPU is not useful for all that much -- basically only for processes that resemble graphics, in terms of massive amounts of similar data running the exact same, non-branching algorithm.

Once you start branching, or want to operate on scattered data, a PS4 GPU compute unit becomes a 800 MHz single-threaded processor without a cache, and with limited registers -- i.e. a really crappy CPU. Devoting the 4 extra CUs that the PS4 has to "spare" to helping the CPU can only help in scenarios that don't turn those CUs into junk CPUs, as I described above. Not much actually fits into that bucket -- things like cloth physics, and narrowphase triangle collisions is about it, and that's just not needed all that much.

In that limited problem scope, GPU compute units are AMAZING, since they can operate on like 64 pieces of data in a single clock cycle -- that's HUGE. But the paradigm is sooo easy to break. Every bit of excess data is a "texture"... Every branch needs another compute unit... Nothing can be cached... only 800 MHz... unless you hit that magic "it's just like pixels and verts" algorithm zone, GPGPU basically sucks.

[neomahi]

They're using the exact same CPU. This isn't Microsoft's tri-core processor of the Xbox 360 up against the cell. These are the exact same AMD Jaguar we're talking about here. Microsoft bought off Ubisoft out of desperation to buy off their consumer fan base so they "don't feel second best". Microsoft still aren't learning from their original mistake of trying to sneak behind everyone's backs and see if they can fool them. It's been a constant trend with them. Then, they get caught, and nobody trusts them even more than before. It's hide and seek, see if they can get away with it, because they don't know how to fix the sink - hole they've made themselves. They're not innovative so all they can do is panic until someone presents an idea they can follow.

[Ulf]

They are not using the same CPU -- they are very close, but not identical. At the very least, the XBO chip is clocked 10% higher, and (especially at low clocks) that DOES make a difference. The memory latency advantages of DDR3 over GDDR5 also come into play, although not as much as the simple clock difference.

In any case, my point above was that GPGPU can't really be used to compensate, in many scenarios.

Microsoft did not "buy off" Ubisoft. It's more likely that you're on Sony's payroll, than that.

[ironmonkey]

Yet somehow the ps4 version does look better and sharper.

[busytoad]

Micro$oft pays companys millions to make their product look better even tho the ps4 has more advanced memory,faster gpu,and better features. its all about the money paid to multi-plat companys. Not all will do it tho. Evil within,Gta V,middle earth,far cry 4,nba 2k 15,alien: isolation,madden nfl all look and have been proven to look beter than x-boner version.

Sucks but companys are bought off by greed.

[neomahi]

So, basically, Microsoft could no longer bear the shame of sinking so low. They've lied to and tried to trick their customers, and it doesn't seem like they've learned a single thing. They're so scared that they're still risking integrity to seem on top, even when it's not feasible.

Microsoft approached Ubisoft and told them they were in desperate need and they've never been in a situation like it and they just don't know how to react. Their corporations reputation and pride are on the line. Sunset Overdrive isn't what they thought it could do. Don Mattrick really busted their gut. "We don't want our consumers to feel second best." So, Microsoft offered them money to go out on a limb and Sabutoge the project. And Ubisoft accepted.

Microsoft, Sony called your bluff and integrated 8GB or GDDR5 RAM into their system and it was too late for you to change plans. Sony knew you were snooping around their front lines and changed their formula and caught you spying on them, milking devs for hardware specs, believing that if you put ESRAM in their, it might give you a boost. But, Sony knew you'd be snooping and brought out the big guns. You're in shame so you don't know what to do.

Problem is, Ubisoft got caught. You're sinking back into the darkness hoping Ubisoft won't blow you out of the water like a jailhouse snitch. If they do, you're back to consumers not trusting you again and even more of a nightmare.

This desperation is getting really bad and the smarter consumers see right through what you're attempting to do. So, do your consumers feel like they're no longer just second best? Assassin's Creed, which has gotten horrible reviews, and Ubisoft now in a panic trying to provide updates so as not to lose not only Sony's trust, but the trust of your fans you worked so hard to win over on the PS3 where Ubisoft were on stage at every single PlayStation E3 Press Conference. Now, they're under the microscope because this doesn't all add up. It stinks.

You're sales numbers in America have beaten Sony's this past week, but words getting out that it's a flat out dishonest manuver, well, you can bet Sony's gonna take advantage of it and give you a bread crumb, but take the whole pie. They know you're trying to sabotage them and their consumers. They're not gonna take it.

Enjoy your week on top, because it's not gonna last. That was low. And the fact you felt threatened enough to drag Ubisoft into your cohorts with EA, the triad out to see how much they can lie about and get away with, well, all Empires eventually fall when their personal Watergate is discovered. You thought Jack Trenton last E3 was a shake and kick in the shins, wait until next E3 where they batter and bruise you and prepare your grave nailing the coffin down and dropping you six feet under.

[WitWolfy]

I must have a MAGICAL PS4, seeing that my game never lags down to an unplayable state like most of you claim.

Seriously guys, this game isnt broken.

[jaydeez]

All you losers are pathetic. "My system is better than yours, you have no games, my gpu can wipe the floor with your gpgpu" , everyone shut the Fuck up, pick up your controller and game. For real.

[ScaryMonkey]

The issue with this article is that it acts as if the game runs at a smooth locked thirty fps on xbone which it doesn't, so what if xbone gets a couple extra frames here and there if the game runs like crap on both console, but if this is what the xbox kids need to feel they got a win ok I guess, we get 24fps and you get 26fps, you win, LOL.

[mysteryraz11]

Sony and microsoft didnt put the cpus they had in these consoles for no reason, this game was rushed and is a unoptimized mess, ubisoft are trash developers

[windblowsagain]

@decrypt and Starchild.

It's good that your getting good performance, but for many it's very poor.

You both have SLI systems which explains alot.

Maybe shut two off and see what fps you get.

Most people have a single card.

[Inzo]

You can compare multiplats as much as you like, first of all its the xbone holding the PS4 back, secondly, like with the PS3, the PS4's exclusives will show that the xbone will never be able to compete.

[Give_me_head_strong]

Assassin's Creed is going to start a trend of Xbox One games outperforming PS4. Especially when the games are CPU-bound and have tons of NPC's on screen. Things are going to get very interesting, indeed.

[SquidBuck]

that's fine with me, xbox doesn't have uncharted