For those who care: Digital Foundry re-caps "resolution-gate"(Hardware analysis)

#31EoinPosted 11/5/2013 6:45:36 AM
Ramsus082 posted...
What I'm wondering is, if Infinity Ward has all these resources then why are they using a current-gen engine for their games? Just because CoD sells no matter what and they can get away with it? Lame.

Infinity Ward are clearly no longer the primary developers of Call of Duty so perhaps the responsibility for the creation of a next-gen engine has been given to Treyarch, for debut in 2014's CoD game. Activision may have thought this was good timing - they get to release a CoD this year across multiple generations and nobody is too bothered about the current-gen engine because it'll still be better on PS4/Xbox One, and then they get to release next year using a new(ish?) engine.

mike468 posted...
I really don't think it's GPU that is holding it back.

Here are the tech specs for the GPU:

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2086/xbox-one-gpu.html

The way I see it, it's the fact the XBO is running 2 separate OS's to multi-task and do everything else besides games.

Maybe MS is a little to ambitious with the system and the esRam is holding it back. I'm not saying it is, as I don't know much about computer hardware/architecture, but if the system doesn't have enough ram/resources to run all games at 1080p 60fps, all while doing everything else MS wants it to do. Then they obviously should have bumped the ram.

A RAM bump wouldn't have helped at all, unless you mean the ESRAM, in which case there'd have been complications. 32MB of ESRAM is actually quite large, compared to the CPU and GPU, and needs to fit into the APU (alongside CPU and GPU on a single chip). The need to physically accommodate the ESRAM meant that Microsoft had to sacrifice elsewhere, and it appears that the GPU was where they chose to sacrifice.

In short: the GPU is part of what's holding the Xbox One back. The ESRAM is another part. The amount of RAM isn't an issue. The twin OS system (with lightweight hypervisor counted as a third OS) isn't an issue either - it's taking some system resources to do other things, but that is standard for modern consoles anyway.

MeaglesV posted...
The Order looks SICK. But correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't it 800p, with black bars on the top and bottom of the screen?

800p isn't the best way to describe it, I think. "800p" suggests a resolution a little bit higher than 720p (1280x720, 921,600 pixels per frame). With "800p" I'd expect a resolution of 1420x800, or 1,136,000 pixels per frame. The Order, though, is 1920x800 - 1,536,000 pixels per frame, quite a big jump from both 720p and "800p". Unfortunately this is one of the limitations of describing resolutions using only the vertical measurement - it's not a full description of the picture.
#32InjusticeRebornPosted 11/5/2013 6:47:19 AM
More conjuration...

This is interesting however:

Skynet82997 posted...
"A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience."

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-ps4-review-g794d21b/#continued


Looks like both systems have their issues......


Will have to keep an eye on both.
#33strawberry11Posted 11/5/2013 7:27:05 AM
Rybal posted...
This article was somewhat surprising, considering how Pro-MS Leadbetter has thus far been.


I don't think he has been Pro-MS. Leadbetter got pelters because he published a series of articles detailing his interview with some MS engineers, which were accused of being MS puff pieces. They weren't. The only problem with the interview was that he didn't really appraise or critically analyze what they were saying.

But it turns out, now that are games coming out and solid comparisons to be made, that they were digging their own grave with what they were saying in the interview. This is the point he makes in this article
---
Yes my game is Wiggle jiggle.
#34bob15xPosted 11/5/2013 7:47:26 AM
InjusticeReborn posted...
More conjuration...

This is interesting however:

Skynet82997 posted...
"A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience."

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-ps4-review-g794d21b/#continued


Looks like both systems have their issues......


Will have to keep an eye on both.


I think we are just seeing IW as they are, a piss poor developer with bad programing skills. I think all their good staff are gone.
#35Exodus_PrimePosted 11/5/2013 8:14:05 AM
It's a good read, nice post TC. Reading that reminds me of the COD:Ghosts review I was reading on IGN this morning, the reviewer I forget his name but it's up on the site, he mentions how there was severe framerate drops on both the PS3/PS4 when he was playing, he mentions he tried the 360/PS3/PS4 versions, I don't doubt if he was trying it on the Xbox 1 it would of had some drops as well.
---
Xbox One and PlayStation 4
Because I can buy both.
#36_Elite_Bushido_Posted 11/5/2013 8:30:11 AM
Telerium posted...
Telerium posted...
Council_of_Rage posted...
FOXSOLID posted...
The Order ALONE blows away any XB1 game out of the water in terms of graphics.


There hasn't been any footage of The Order yet. Just pre-rendered trailers.


That trailer wasn't pre-rendered at all according to the latest article in Gameinformer. When visiting RAD studios they watched the same trailer where the devs messed with lighting, camera and other effects in real-time. That was all recorded from an in-game cutscene, so those are The Order's graphics


EDIT- Oh someone already said that. Also the 800p black bars is a movie format, which is why it's like that. Does it intentionally for cinematic purposes.


But I just watched Dark City on blu ray and it covered the whole screen on my 50 inch
---
$ony Ponie$ and trolls- http://tinyurl.com/lalpn7d
FC: 0834-1795-7959
#37Thewinner14Posted 11/5/2013 8:30:30 AM
bob15x posted...
InjusticeReborn posted...
More conjuration...

This is interesting however:

Skynet82997 posted...
"A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience."

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-ps4-review-g794d21b/#continued


Looks like both systems have their issues......


Will have to keep an eye on both.


I think we are just seeing IW as they are, a piss poor developer with bad programing skills. I think all their good staff are gone.


I believe that all the original staff, the ones who built the amazing foundations that the modern drivel is built upon, were fired by activision. The only thing IW now has in common with the IW that created Call of Duty, is the name
---
6 Bible translations, 1 app: http://www.jw.org/en/online-help/jw-library/
#38EoinPosted 11/5/2013 8:35:44 AM
_Elite_Bushido_ posted...
But I just watched Dark City on blu ray and it covered the whole screen on my 50 inch

Did you really have to post this again?

I checked the listing for Dark City. The movie has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. So does the Blu-ray version. It should not be covering the entirety of your screen, assuming that you have a 16:9 screen. It should have black bars at the top and bottom. If it does not, you are either zooming in (losing detail at the sides) or you are ruining the picture by stretching it vertically.