Xbox One is the only console with AAA title 1080P 60FPS Updated 4K 60FPS

Fatboi1

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
60,379
Reputation
7,928
Daps
110,553
That quote is before the patches.

This is the situation as of today



You are correct framerate is king. Xbox Won:king:
You are incorrect again

Let's post the rest of the article.
It's an advantage also seen in The Witcher 3's in-engine cut-scenes. As before, PS4 automatically locks to the 20fps line at any sign of dropping below 30fps. By comparison Xbox One lurks at the 25fps mid-point, freely updating with frames as and when they become available. The net result is that PS4 typically runs at a slower, more sluggish rate in every scene tested. Where performance goes below 30fps on Xbox One, the read-out is also identical to its results before patch 1.03 - meaning no performance boost is apparently made to these stress-points. The only difference here is that it now hits a 30fps ceiling.

On balance, it's an improvement on both sides but Xbox One owners have a bigger reason to celebrate this update. Though it struggles to match the clarity of PS4's native 1920x1080 output, the 30fps cap is better adjusted for Microsoft's platform in practice, with fewer stutters during play giving it a tangible performance advantage. Neither PS4 or Xbox One releases are perfect, and pop-in is still a major issue in built-up areas - plus a jitter (also seen on PC) when changing the speed of camera motion. We hope these are the focus of the next patch, but in the here and now, The Witcher 3 is at least in a better state now than on release.
Basically the game is hardly finished being optimized on both consoles and even PC as evidenced by the last sentence. Overall, this says a lot about what you're really cheering on.


The Witcher 3 runs at 900p/30FPS COMPARED TO 1080P/30FPS on the PS4. So the PS4 is rendering 633,000 more pixels at the same framerate with optimization still to come. The Xbox One is running the game with less information being rendered. Breh, face it, the Xbox One is weak compared to thee PS4. That's like saying you are just as powerful as someone who benches more than you on average because you sometimes can do more reps once in a while, while ignoring that you're lifting 15lbs less than the other man.

U lose :umad:




jJTDhHN.gif
 
Last edited:

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
68,847
Reputation
3,679
Daps
108,315
Reppin
Tha Land
You are incorrect again

Let's post the rest of the article.

Basically the game is hardly finished being optimized on both consoles and even PC as evidenced by the last sentence. Overall, this says a lot about what you're really cheering on.


The Witcher 3 runs at 900p/30FPS COMPARED TO 1080P/30FPS on the PS4. So the PS4 is rendering 633,000 more pixels at the same framerate with optimization still to come. The Xbox One is running the game with less information being rendered. Breh, face it, the Xbox One is weak compared to thee PS4. That's like saying you are just as powerful as someone who benches more than you on average because you sometimes can do more reps once in a while, while ignoring that you're lifting 15lbs less than the other man.

U lose :umad:




jJTDhHN.gif
"Framerate is king"

Finds out ps4 has the worse framerate

"PS4 has the higher resolution"


fukking clown:smh:
 

Fatboi1

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
60,379
Reputation
7,928
Daps
110,553
"Framerate is king"

Finds out ps4 has the worse framerate

"PS4 has the higher resolution"


fukking clown:smh:
"Framerate is king" was uttered by ya'll nikkas. Titanfall doesn't run stable as most other games don't.

You can't try to talk about Ps4 having a worse framerate in this game all the while ignoring the fact that it's also running at a higher resolution. Framerate, Resolution and other things make up a game. Frames are made up of images. You can't talk about framerate and ignore resolution.

Facts: The Witcher 3 still has optimizations left to do on all platforms. It's not perfect as said by the analysis YOU QUOTED from. When further optimzations come and PS4 has an even more unwavering 30fps at 1080P, what will be your excuse?? XB1 running the game at 900P breh.

YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT FPS AND NOT RESOLUTION AS THEY GO HAND IN HAND.
:snooze:
Sorry breh but.. u lose.


:umad:
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
45,387
Reputation
3,761
Daps
68,712
Reppin
Michigan
This is a lie. I don't know why people often say this because of one or two games that may have not been optimized suddenly representing the whole system. Most of the time, those games that "struggle" as you call it get's patched right away to be much more stable. Most of the time a game has a frame rate analysis and it might drop to 28 one time in some huge multi explosion set piece for example and then you hear gamers go "IT'S NOT STABLE!!". shyt is gross over exaggeration.

This is just not true at all. I'd wager less than 5% of games on PS4 actually have performance problems that was because of hardware. As a matter of fact, I'd bet you that almost every multiplat game performs better on PS4 at higher resolution WITH stable frames on top of better visuals. Saying game performance is sacrificed for resolution is visuals is another propaganda lie from Xbots. Their titles they claim as "performance kings" often have the same issues.
Titanfall was often presented as "Framerate is king" and even after their latest update, the game still drops heavily.




Five seconds in and frame drops. Let this happen on a PS4 game and it's "PS4 is weak as hell lies lies" and then you see that annoying "1080p/60fps or death" tweet posted by cornballs ignoring that dude who said that works for indie games. :mjlol:

We seen that on GTA V where the PS4 version had denser grass and whatnot whilst still maintaining 1080p/30fps while the XB1 version didn't have that option. Almost every MAJOR third party game is better on PS4. Don't let these Fox fivee spinning Xbots tell the story. You can look up any game you want and post it here and I can almost bet it runs better and/or looks better on PS4.


The OP tried to say The Witcher 3 is worse on PS4 when that's a bold face lie. He just simply saw "Uncappeed framerate for XB1" and assumed higher meant better even at the expense of frametime fluctuation which makes for inconsistent frames and tearing.

Here is the summary from Digital Foundry.


Having read that we see that the PS4 version is the best version on the console front though some slight hitches which also affect the XB1 version but let these fox five like posters front and tell you otherwise. Breh, y'all can't try and tell me about this stuff :mjlol: I keep up to tabs on these things. Xbots skim and skew, i peruse articles.

Nope. I don't find the OS better. I find it annoying having to dive into menu after menu to go somewhere and how certain simple things like a friends list is behind apps. I agree it gets more updates but that's obvious given the whole Windows OS thing it has going on.

Bullshyt. Value is a subjective metric. I cannot find a reason to own an Xbox One and anything you like it for would be a waste for me. I DON'T care about watching TV live on Xbox and I don't really use media center features like that on consoles. I have a PC. Tell me what does Xbox One have that PS4 needs right now?? PS4 just got DLNA the other day. PS4 on the other hand has features that benefit me such as Remote Play, share play and the other things both have such as streaming and sharing and a multitude of third party apps such as hulu and EPix or Crunchyroll if I ever wanted to watch anime(again which I'd do on my PC.) There's literally nothing on the Xbox front that appeals to my taste. What am i missing here? Is there some feature that's so crazy and cool i forgot to mention?? because it often boils down to voice gestures and TV. I've yet to actually see these "features" that Xbots keep harping on about.


The one game I like on Xbox (Gears) is coming to PC and Halo 5 looks ehh to me. I know I'd probably play it a few times and not play it again. Gears 4 looked like more of the same and literally didn't look "next gen" at all gameplay wise. It literally looked like the same old cover shooter that it's been for the past decade.




Breh, PS Now is NOT a viable alternative to BC. That shyt is cool but I wouldn't want that instead. A PS1/PS2 emulator would be much better. Architecture, if that's what is preventing PS4 from having PS3 BC than PS Now is the only solution. Other than that PS Now as it stands should be an optional thing.



Let's be real breh, nikkas ain't checking for old games like that. Pretty much every big game that people wanted to play last gen has been remastered and again if you have a gaming PC, most of those games can be had on PC for cheap. Just like you often say remasters are a waste of money when you can get the game for cheap on older hardware, same applies here. Don't believe the hype, people aren't going to be heavily using the BC feature likee that.

if to reach 1080p you have to drop down to 30fps that's a struggle to reach the resolution. If you can't lock it in at a guaranteed 30FPS that's even more of a struggle. 30FPS is and will always be a compromise made due to inferior hardware in comparison to the software.

That criticism is independent of the Xbox One. That console has its own problems.

If Playstation Now isn't a viable alternative to backwards compatibility then what is? It's not possible to emulate the Cell on the PS4 because the hardware isn't advanced enough to emulate the complex architecture of the Cell.

All Sony's competitors now offer some form of backwards compatibility. The Wii U for even has it. Sony has a means to delivering a method of playing old games on the new hardware. It's the most viable means they have yet they'd rather charge you to play the games you already own unless you keep the old hardware.

I probably have about 80 PS3 games alone still and I still have to hook up the PS3 to play them. I can play my Wii games on my Wii U and this fall I'll be able to play my Xbox 360 games on my Xbox One. I'd love to be able to play my PS3 games on the PS4 even If I had to put the disc in and stream them.

In fact we can take all current generation hardware.
3DS plays DS games
PS Vita plays digital PSP games
Wii U plays Wii games
Xbox One can and will play Xbox 360 games
PS4 doesn't play PS3 games.

This is basically an industry standard feature available on every piece of hardware on the market that's currently supported except the PS4. You don't see the problem with that?
 

Fatboi1

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
60,379
Reputation
7,928
Daps
110,553
if to reach 1080p you have to drop down to 30fps that's a struggle to reach the resolution. If you can't lock it in at a guaranteed 30FPS that's even more of a struggle. 30FPS is and will always be a compromise made due to inferior hardware in comparison to the software.
That's a really weird way to look at it. Obviously any game can play at 1080P/60fps. Devs can sell screenshots. It's obvious that the average gamer can't tell the difference between 30 and 60. 30fps is not a compromise made due to inferior hardware, it's made due to developer choice. 30fps didn't stop GTA V from being the best selling game last generation. Nor did it really matter to the millions of gamers who bought Halo, Uncharted, Gears, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy etc. You witness the age of where devs are constantly under fire from forum posters claiming games were downgraded and now you're advising 60fps?? LOL good luck with that.

. Some things are often sacrificed to reach 60fps because doubling the framerate stresses the CPU significantly. If a developer is making a game that is complex with lots of stuff going on CPU wise, resolution doesn't really have anything to do with it. This was true with Trials for PS4/XB1. Raising the resolution often times means little to no fps drop in those situations. Even if there was more powerful hardware in the consoles, devs would choose to stress them out completely and cap to 30fps. A GTX Titan and a I7 5690X may offer 1080P/60fps on remasters and indies but that wouldn't mean every game would be 1080p/60fps. It'd still be 30fps. Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 yet games didn't run at 60fps compared to the PS2 versions because they just made the graphics better.

"While increasing the resolution only increases GPU load, increasing the frame rate also increases the CPU load significantly," Thoman told Polygon. "So in cases which are CPU-limited (or limited on the GPU by some very specific factors), you might be able to increase resolution while not affecting (or only slightly affecting) frame rates."-Durante from Polygon's "Why FPS and resolution matter" article.

That criticism is independent of the Xbox One. That console has its own problems.
ok.

If Playstation Now isn't a viable alternative to backwards compatibility then what is? It's not possible to emulate the Cell on the PS4 because the hardware isn't advanced enough to emulate the complex architecture of the Cell.
Nothing is. Unfortunately that's what I was getting at. PS Now will have to just serve those who do not own consoles or those who just want a netflix style way of playing games. Internet connections are getting better so sooner we will be playing games like that much better than now. What I used of PS Now was really good.

All Sony's competitors now offer some form of backwards compatibility. The Wii U for even has it. Sony has a means to delivering a method of playing old games on the new hardware. It's the most viable means they have yet they'd rather charge you to play the games you already own unless you keep the old hardware.
Breh you have to be kidding me. Sony spent MILLIONS to buy Gakai to offer this service and you think they'll offer that for free?? This doesn't make business sense. These companies are out to make money first and foremost, not appease hardcore vocalists. There can be some discretion sure, but to suggest that they'd offer free PS Now for every single user who wishes for it is absurd. NOBODY is going to do that. Server farms and cost of maintenance has to come from somewhere. An emulator is a one time software that just works on the users local hardare, much different example.

I
probably have about 80 PS3 games alone still and I still have to hook up the PS3 to play them. I can play my Wii games on my Wii U and this fall I'll be able to play my Xbox 360 games on my Xbox One. I'd love to be able to play my PS3 games on the PS4 even If I had to put the disc in and stream them.
You'd have to pretend not to understand PS3 architecture and PS4 architecture to even bring this up. You already said yourself BC of PS3 is not really going to happen. PS2 on PS3 only happened because PS3 had a PS2 in the OG models. Apples and oranges.

In fact we can take all current generation hardware.
3DS plays DS games
PS Vita plays digital PSP games
Wii U plays Wii games
Xbox One can and will play Xbox 360 games
PS4 doesn't play PS3 games.
Read my last point. Tough luck. This is the PS3's design fault.

This is basically an industry standard feature available on every piece of hardware on the market that's currently supported except the PS4. You don't see the problem with that?
So what should they do?? Redesign the PS4 and include the PS3 chips inside of it and sell it at a much higher price to the very small amount of people who want backwards compatibility? You don't see the silliness of that?
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
46
Reputation
10
Daps
197
Reppin
DMV
nikkas arguing which console better while I got both PS4/XB1 and a nice ass PC :francis:

Looking forward to Overwatch on PC,Gears on Xbox One and SFV on PS4 (None of that weeaboo JRPG and remaster bullshyt :skip:)


:blessed:
 
Last edited:
Top