xBone Call of Duty: Ghosts running at 720p? (RUMOUR)

[RikuoAmero]

Ouch, don't they both share PC architecture?

Yes, but.

The Xbone uses a slower GPU and RAM, exactly how much slower the GPU is Microsoft refuse to confirm, but when all they'll say is that it's got '853mhz and 5billion transistors' that's not an overly good sign.

More importantly, the Xbone uses normal DDR3 RAM with a 32MB esRAM chip on the processor itself, which gives it a maximum bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. By comparison the PS4 is using GDDR5 (which is broadly DDR3 but with a much higher writes per clock cycle to handle graphics processing better) with a maximum bandwidth of 176 GB/s, when it comes to handling large texture files and high screen resolutions, that will make a difference.

Also, the Xbone reserves 3GB for system use, so 5GB is available to games, we don't yet know how much the PS4 wants, but if it's equal or less space then the performance gap will widen over time as games become more demanding and screen resolutions go up (these consoles will probably be seeing 4k screens by the end of their life cycle).

TL,DR: Microsoft are using normal PC RAM whist Sony are using more expensive parts made specifically for graphics.

I'll have to call bull on the possibility of console 4K gaming. Ain't gonna happen, at least not on the Xbone/PS4. PC is only just barely able to pull off 4K at 60fps and that's with multiple dedicated high end GPUs, like the Geforce Titan or AMD's R9 290X. The consoles are using APUs, which are graphic cores embedded within the CPUs. Yes, they're powerful, but not that powerful.

 

[kilenem]

I think COD games haven't really tried to push the envelope on graphics because they get 60 FPS on Xbox. Usually its lower on PS3 I don't know what the FPS is on PC and wii U.

edit Wii U is below 60 and PC is higher

 

[Hero in a half shell]

i don't really see what the big deal is considering unless you enjoy the game graphics/fps mean nothing and if that is the reason you hate a game then there is a problem and its not with the game

The main issue is that this shows the difference between what the Xbox One and the PS4 are capable of, and if the next gen console is maxxed out with next gen. games already at only 720p that's quite a big issue. As has been stated before, the power of the console doesn't just relate to how good the graphics are, but how many calculations can be done, so the limitations of the console limit the size of the games, the amount of objects that can be rendered at once, the amount of other characters and enemies on screen at one time, the screen tear and pop in textures, the sophistication of the AI and the lag of the game.

 

[octafish]

Ouch, don't they both share PC architecture?

As for it being an issue with the Xbone's OS I can't say I'm surprised. Windows 8 has failed on multiple levels, what's one more to the pile?

Multiple levels? I'm no fan of the metro interface, or making wmc an additional cost, but Windows 8 at its core is a better MS OS than all that came before it.

I find it hard to believe that a tiny difference in RAM speed makes a huge difference in overall performance in games. I suspect that COD will run at 1080 on the Xbone.

 

[RicoADF]

Jesus, really? That seems really heavy - how can it justify needing 3GB? And that would leave the console with 5gb for actual gaming..
Well.... *insert unbearably smug comment about PC here*.

Seriously though, what the hell are Microsoft thinking? I really like the 360, but with the One it's like they're actually trying to lose customers.

Well 3GB for kinnect, OS etc. The PS4 will also use some on the OS but we don't know how much yet. Expected to be less without the kinnect requirement. I think Microsoft wanted to remove any lag and make Kinnect smooth, which dedicating 1-2GB would do well. Thing is no-one wants it.
In regards to PC I wouldn't get too smug yet, the OS (probably Windows) uses ram too and being Windows its quite bloated, not to mention having other crap in the background so if you have 8GB like my system your probably using about 2GB on non gaming processes leaving around 6GB usable.
That's not bad when you consider 99% of games are 32bit software and cannot read or use more than 4GB which is why I haven't got more ram yet, it'd be literally useless. Now that Galactic Civ 3 and a few other games are finally going 64bit I'll be looking at doubling my current system ram (kept the slots free for just such an upgrade).

 

[Chris Terrell]

you are not going to see a difference between PS4 and Xbox One on multi-console releases. only games made just for that system even then the difference is almost non-existant.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I'll have to call bull on the possibility of console 4K gaming. Ain't gonna happen, at least not on the Xbone/PS4. PC is only just barely able to pull off 4K at 60fps and that's with multiple dedicated high end GPUs, like the Geforce Titan or AMD's R9 290X. The consoles are using APUs, which are graphic cores embedded within the CPUs. Yes, they're powerful, but not that powerful.

I don't think 3840x2160 will happen either, but I expect both consoles to be chucking out more than 1080p by the end of their lifespan (and upscaling it the way current consoles do with 720).

I didn't think in 2005 that games console would hit 1080p, nobody I knew even had a 1080p TV and my 512MB graphics card just about maxed BF2 at 720p, now every Xbox comes with a HDMI cable instead of the Component/SCART cable of eight years previous. If 4k moves in at the rate HD did both consoles will have to address it somehow, the PS4 is HDMI 1.4 (maybe even 2.0) compliant and will support 4k (except for gameplay) on release, so Sony at least is looking ahead.

 

[sir neillios]

I personally don't get why games suddenly have to be 1080p/60fps

Except PC gaming enthusiasts (even most pc gamers are still only running average setups) most people have not gamed at that yet consistently and we've all managed absolutely fine for years, consoles only started doing any form of HD 5 years ago. Making it so a game can run at 1080p in 60fps will make absolutely squat in the way of difference to the end product over using a resolution of 1680x1050/1600x900 or something similar. I'd rather all the technological advancement went on creating better worlds, I don't need better graphics in GTA V or Skyrim but I'd welcome larger worlds with more detail and better AI.

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you, but having since graduated to the master race, I have seen how easy it is to get a decent frame-rate at a high resolution. My graphics card is a mere 1GB HD 6850, it cost me £170 in a store, so I could probably have got it slightly cheaper online. 90% of games will run at 1080p with 40+fps. Apart from the witcher 2 and crisis 3, my point is that when a relatively cheap PC which games won't be highly optimized for can run them that well, there is no excuse for a brand new box to not be beating it in performance. I mean it's only CoD for pete's sake! Those games are never cutting edge.

 

[J Tyran]

You can say the current hardware is good all you want, but I want to see the interesting ways an increase can change games, GTA V was a beautiful game, but the hardware of this gen is obviously being pushed to its limit to handle the game. With better hardware, even if they don't improve the graphics in anyway, they could do things like, have more pedestrians and cars on the screen at the same time, give pedestrians more complex behaviors in larger groups, increase the online mode and how many players can sit in the lobby, make jets and airplanes fly faster since there is less load streaming the entire map, and so on and so forth.

You can see how much GTA V stretches the current consoles in the AI, particularly vehicle AI. Outside scripted chase scenes in missions its hopeless, they crash into each other and walls and cops can only kamikaze into you head on. So much of the machines resources are concentrated on creating the world it barely has anything left for vehicle AI.

 

[WhyWasThat]

Next gen huh....

Why in recent years has advancement in gaming slowed to a snails pace or even reverted and gotten worse?

Law of diminishing returns?

Anyway, I don't know what you're talking about. The few games we've seen that are TRULY next-gen (ie. built from the ground up for next-gen consoles and not being released on current hardware as well), such as Killzone: Shadow Fall, Ryse, inFamous: Second Son and The Order: 1886 (check out the latest gameplay screens) are significantly improved graphically over anything we've seen released for PS3 or Xbox 360.
These are launch games too. Everyone knows that the games only get more impressive as time goes on in a generation, as the devs get more experienced with the technology (just compare Resistance: Fall of Man to The Last of Us, for goodness' sake).

And finally, bear in mind that - unless you've actually had some hands-on time with the PS4 or Xbox One yourself - all we've seen of next-gen games so far is gameplay videos on the internet. Wait until you're sitting in front of your 1080p television with the pad in your hands before making a final judgement.

 

[JazzJack2]

Anyway, I don't know what you're talking about. The few games we've seen that are TRULY next-gen (ie. built from the ground up for next-gen consoles and not being released on current hardware as well), such as Killzone: Shadow Fall, Ryse, inFamous: Second Son and The Order: 1886 (check out the latest gameplay screens)

None of those are impressive examples of next-gen progress at all.

Ryse is a joke, since it has such shitty, linear, QTE fest gameplay you think they would be able to put some power into the graphics, but nope 900p, 30 fps and if my memory serves me right they even copy and pasted the same battle animation over and over to the make the big battles (and other lazy stuff like that).

Killzone seems to have poor draw distance and texture quality, although it's hard to tell since it's one of those games that thinks it's visually appealing to have tons of bloom, explosions and just general fast-paced confusion going on on the screen which turns it all into a hazy mess (so it's hard to tell what it's like graphically.)

There are no gameplay videos for 1886 so I can't say.

The new InFamous looks the best out of them all graphically but still seems to suffer from really poor draw distance (even more noticeably than Killzone.)

At the end of the day though none of these are progress anyway given that I can fire up games right now that look graphically more appealing and/or demand more from hardware for gameplay purposes.

are significantly improved graphically over anything we've seen released for PS3 or Xbox 360.

But still don't compare to the graphics people can get on computers right now, which is the real problem, you think after seven years of the same consoles there would be a serious push in the hardware to try and supersede or at least match what PCs have had for quite a while now and yet they are still playing catch up.

And finally, bear in mind that - unless you've actually had some hands-on time with the PS4 or Xbox One yourself - all we've seen of next-gen games so far is gameplay videos on the internet. Wait until you're sitting in front of your 1080p television with the pad in your hands before making a final judgement.

Given my experience with how accurately these videos have represented graphics in the past I suspect I will be even more underwhelmed by the graphics when they are actually released and I can actually play them and see them for myself.

 

[pilouuuu]

Of course XBone will run at 720p. I also doubt it'll get to 60 FPS. Xbone is a next gen console just in name. It's dated even before release date.

The real next gen is and always will be called PC.