Diablo 3: Xbox One X vs PS4 Pro dynamic res showdown

Cited as an example of ultra HD gaming on Microsoft's list of Xbox One X enhanced titles, Diablo 3 is an evolution of Blizzard's good work on the PlayStation 4 Pro version of the game. The same principles are in place: the game targets a native 2160p presentation, but utilises a dynamic scaler to lock to the target 60 frames per second, adjusting the pixel count on the fly to ensure consistent performance. And just like the PS4 Pro version, Xbox One X benefits from a smattering of visual enhancements too. But the question is, just how close are the two versions? And to what extent does Xbox One X's higher spec translate into a closer lock to a native 4K?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
freshslicepizza342d ago

"What's clear is that as good an upgrade as the PS4 Pro version is, Xbox One X goes one better, with a much closer lock on the target 4K resolution. In PS4 Pro's case, a full 3840x2160 is only hit around interior areas, like the bar at New Tristram, or small dungeons. But in practice, Sony's machine tends to run at lower numbers in the town itself - while Xbox One X hits 4K almost perfectly throughout."

Looks to be quite an upgrade from the regular Xbox One.

Obscure_Observer342d ago


Yeah, would be interesting if they had included the OG console in this comparisson as well.

341d ago
darthv72341d ago

Never played a Diablo game but I hear good things.

Babadook7341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

Well. I believe xbox one x wins this one. Thank goodness for 3x zoom.

Bahamut342d ago

Considering the price of the console, I'd HOPE the Xbone X could play this 5 year old game at 4k.

_LarZen_342d ago

Most modern PC’s can’t even rund this old game at 4K 60fps.

343_Guilty_Spark342d ago

So why doesn’t the Pro do it since the game is so old ?

itsmebryan341d ago

The price. LMAO if $100 will make or break you then you have bigger problems. Well we know a $400 "premium" console can't handle 4k and a 5 year old game. But, I guess you get what you paid for. Smh

Nodoze341d ago

But, I guess you get what you paid for. Smh

We sure do. A healthy library of software with some AMAZING first and third party exclusives that you cannot play anywhere else. Anyone with a PS4 and PC is good to go. No need at all for the 1X.

timotim341d ago

You didnt think this one through enough did you?

S2Killinit341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

pretty close though. I mean, its slightly sharper on x as expected. But not much of a difference.

well, I mean with the Pro you are also getting exclusive games (you know that thing that sells consoles). Since the resolution is the only thing the x has over its competition, we need to know what difference you are paying $550+ for.

EatCrow341d ago

As oppposed to 100 less and cant manage.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 341d ago
spreadlove342d ago

Xbox One X is a true 4k console, or should i say native.

GNCFLYER341d ago

No it isn't. Lots of upscaling with it as well. Check out the list.

If it stayed at 4k native then you can call it that. It also drops resolution. Not as much as pro but it does.

Did you see them in motion, they look identical. Keep the fanboy wars at a minimum please . That way we can have real discussions.

zaherdab341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

true or fake whatever looks good i'll take it ... doesnt have to be the best version of hte game ever; u will game where your friends in these games regardless .... if it was a question of power noonne would have bought the original xbox one

MagicBeanz341d ago

Yeah it uses checkerboard rendering just like Pro and according to this very article drops from the 4K target just like Pro so yeah defenitly a "True" 4K console just like Pro.

2pacalypsenow341d ago

Unless it renders every game in Native 4k, its not a true 4k console.

NoPeace_Walker341d ago (Edited 341d ago )


"Diablo 3 ISN'T NATIVE 4K on XboneX. 

Spreadlove SPREADING lies!"

Man, chill out. It is only videogame, it is not life or death. No need to shout and replying to every comment that say it is. LOL

Dannylew341d ago

n.. it's not a true 4k console.

EatCrow341d ago

You should know that its only recently that devs have been trying to mantain steady fps throughout a game.
Not too long ago...sure 1080p but fps would fluctuate all over the place.

The resolution goes down to keep the steady fps...if it didnt then the fps would drop...its not to say it cant run it on 4k throughout.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 341d ago
343_Guilty_Spark342d ago

How can you disagree with the real truth?

GNCFLYER341d ago

Which is what 1x owners should be looking at. It's quite the upgrade from the OG xbox1. Pro, not as much.

Comparing your 1x games with xb1 will give you better results. I watched the video. They had to pause and zoom in on hair for God's sake. You think you can see that while playing them side by side, no.

The 1x is a res upgrade like the PS4 was to the x1.

My neighbor has a og1 since launch. I've had PS4 since launch and usedbto play BField on his and him on mine. Couldn't see the difference.

timotim341d ago

Why are you getting down voted when all you was state facts which DF revealed haha?

MagicBeanz341d ago

I think the stand out quotes are "almost perfectly" and "it's especially interesting because both machines are dropping from the target 4K". Man so close.

Dannylew341d ago

yes.. all good.. bt sony never says that every game are able t run in native 4k at 60fps locked with graphics clearly enanched like ULTRA settings on pc....

but it's a shame that microsoft says all this things and a game from 2010 don't run at 4k native 60fps FIXED without dynamic res.. it's only a shame..
500 for this ?.. no thanks.. a console without nothing is a device that have to stay on the resellers.

500 ... and it's not capable and no.. it's not a true 4k native hardware.

freshslicepizza341d ago

Show me where Microsoft said that every game is going to run at native 4k and 60fps. They didn't even say all games were going to be native 4K, it's just something you guys fabricated because it was known from the start Microsoft was going to allow third party to do what they wish.

Christopher341d ago

Moldy, Microsoft stuck their foot in their mouth with the "true 4k" advertising which they are still saying today. You can argue meaning, but you can't argue how that is purposefully being used to sell an idea that isn't really true.

As to others here, I do question if the people arguing the $100 more for Xbox One X and looking better but not always 4k spent $400 on hardware that hits 4k even less often if at all. Seems like if your logic is too gauge price with ability to hit 4k, both options would be bad investments.

Rude-ro341d ago

Three consoles in 4 years... it better be better or they would be the laughing stock of the world.

341d ago
+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 341d ago
TankCrossing342d ago

Nice, though I'd say it is a surprise that the Pro isn't getting better results, more-so than any impressive feat for the X. D3 isn't all that taxing.

Still, it is a fun game in spats. I might pick up the Necromancer DLC.

maybelovehate342d ago

Awesome game and it can be very taxing. The amount of ai and effects on screen is rather insane.

343_Guilty_Spark342d ago

Well it can be taxing so that is a lie

TankCrossing342d ago (Edited 342d ago )

Not a lie. I'm basing this on PC performance, where 4k60 was attainable when this game launched. It doesn't take a power house PC.

Obviously it isn't completely trivial to run as not even the X locks 4k completely. I just think the Pro could do better if Blizzard (or whoever handled the patch for them) really needed it too.

Christopher341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

4k60 was not attainable at release unless you forgot that they stored so much in the cloud that you got server response lag which caused stuttering to happen very often. Let alone it definitely wasn't possible with all the best textures and effects running on screen at once.

TankCrossing340d ago (Edited 340d ago )

^^ Based on what?

Here are some benchmarks from 2012 when the game released:

Unfortunately 4k isn't benched, but at 1600p the GTX 680 and the Radeon 7970 both run the game at 108fps. It is a quite safe assumption that either card could run 4k60 or there abouts. Stands to reason a single R9-290 would smash 4k60 (and I promise you it does).

So back full-circle, I'm surprised the Pro doesn't put in a better result.

WeebLord341d ago

In 2012 no one was running this at 4k and it sure as hell wouldn't be easy even with a pair of GTX 680's.

4k in 2012 lol, that's rich.

TankCrossing341d ago

In 2013 I was running it 4k30 stereoscopic 3d, so yeah 4k 60 was well within reach.

WeebLord341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

I'm calling bullshit.

Or you actually had 5k+ to spend on a display.

TankCrossing341d ago

Call what you like. I had a Samsung UE55F9000, and it cost a little over £2000.

Zeke68341d ago

@ Tank
You can stop lying now, at august 2013 it was relased at a MUCH higher price than £2000:
"Evidence of this comes from British electrical retailer Currys, which has over this week put up a preorder page for the Samsung UE55F9000 priced at £4,299, with an availability date of between 4-6 weeks which brings us to August"

"In 2013 I was running it 4k30 stereoscopic 3d, so yeah 4k 60 was well within reach."
Not on that TV for sure...
You know it's not hard to google the spec's on your TV.. so once again, stop lying.

TankCrossing341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

@Zeke68 i didn't even mention the RRP, and i don't really see what the price of my AV equipment has to do with how demanding D3 is.

Still, because it irks me to be called a liar for no apparent reason:
-I had a Samsung UE55F9000 until I gave it to my Sister last year.
-I had 2 r9-290Xs under water.
-I used the Tridef 3D software
-Both the cards and the TV were limited by the HDMI spec, so 4k30 SBS 3D was the best I could do in 2013
-a couple of years later I upgraded the One Connect box on the TV to the 2015 model and got a Club3D displayport to HDMI 2.0 adapter, finally attaining 4k60 on that TV
-I played Diablo 3 a bit just to see how much better it was at 60fps (footnote: A lot better).

And that little story brings us nowhere. All we've really learned is the value of being thorough in your research, which has nothing to do with how the Pro handles Diablo what-so-ever.

TankCrossing341d ago (Edited 341d ago )

And for reference, here is an article from 1177 days ago where I mentioned it:

Oh and 1504 days ago

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 341d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 340d ago
MegaMohsi342d ago (Edited 342d ago )

TLDR: Xbox One X version hits native 4k most of the time as opposed to the Pro version which averages 1628-1728p. X version has the same high end features found in the Pro and PC versions. No high resolution textures. Performance is fantastic across the board.

Bahamut340d ago

So for the people who absolutely need the native 4k, they can spend the extra $100. They won't get the best games that this console generation has given us (Playstation and Nintendo own those, sorry), but they will have the strongest console to play 3rd party games for $500 plus tax.

maybelovehate342d ago

Looks like they did an amazing job.. Now please add HDR please

butchertroll341d ago ShowReplies(8)
butchertroll341d ago ShowReplies(1)
butchertroll341d ago ShowReplies(1)