• 167 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

Straight from NeoGaf with verified sources:

Verified sources close to Rocket Chainsaw have detailed performance and rendering quality of both the Xbox One and PlayStation builds of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition. And for that we’re thankful. So here it is!

On average:

PlayStation 4

= 60 fps

Xbox One

= 30 fps

Yes, the PlayStation 4 build is, on average, twice the framerate of the Xbox One build. Both builds are rendering at native 1080p resolution, and generally look the same in graphical effects (though some minor differences may apply). Performance is a different matter. Both feature unlocked framerates, meaning framerate fluctuates between higher and lower values. The Xbox One build can technically reach around 45 fps, though this performance is generally only achieved during the most empty, simplest environments. For most of your play, and during action scenes, the Xbox One build will sit on around 30 fps. On the other hand, the PlayStation 4 build will attempt to hit 60 fps as often as possible, and does a pretty good job of doing so, but does have slight dips under 60 fps during certain scenarios.

So there it is. Both 1080p. PlayStation 4 = ~60fps average. Xbox One = ~30fps average. Take with a grain of salt if you’d like, but we’ve confirmed it on our end, and confirmation for the rest of the world is only a week away.

I'm pretty stunned the performance gaps in third party titles continually favor PS4 as much as they do. So what do you guys think? Is this a big deal? Will 3rd party games continually favor PS4 this gen?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=756518

#2 Posted by NMC2008 (1237 posts) -

This is looking REALLY really bad for MS and their Xbox One choices, but I guess we will see in the future, I feel like MS is going to have to work a lot harder with exclusives this gen as seemingly every multiplat is better on PS4.

#3 Edited by Brundage (382 posts) -

WHO CARES!? I'm so sick of people obsessing over frame rate. It's a single player game, 30 frames isn't that big of a deal...Jesus.

#4 Edited by TriBeard (134 posts) -

I think it is a big issue, but not for most people. For one, idk how many console users that aren't enthusiasts like pretty much everyone on this site are going to really care. As long as it's reasonably smooth, they probably won't notice, or know what the issue is if they do. Secondly, as a PC gamer, it really sucks for me because if the XBone is barely able to run games at 1080p at launch, how are devs going to really innovate and make better looking games with new and better AI's and other resource intensive things? It can't be good for that side of it either. Perhaps once devs get to know the weird sort of cache thing the xbox one has, they can close the gap. But until and unless that makes a difference, this, or running at a lower resolution on the xbox is what we are going to see, and that is really a poor choice on microsoft's part to not invest the extra money in the hardware now so that it doesn't feel outdated at launch, let alone years down the road.

#5 Edited by LucidDreams117 (410 posts) -

"WHO CARES!?" <- What he said

#6 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@brundage: I like my games looking as good as possible so... I care? =|

#7 Posted by Hoboassassin54 (27 posts) -

Who cares

#8 Edited by BigJeffrey (5078 posts) -

there was a frame rate battle?

#9 Posted by JZ (2125 posts) -

@brundage: well frame rate is an actual thing that you can see, unlike resolution

#10 Posted by Bulby33 (599 posts) -

I played the game on the 360 with 30 frames per second and it was fine.

Though, I would rather it run at 60. As an Xbone owner, it's a small bummer. I wasn't planning on playing the definitive version, though.

#11 Posted by Pr1mus (3951 posts) -

Unlocked framerate can be the worst. If the game can't handle a constant 60 i'd rather have it locked at 30 than see it jumps up and down constantly.

In any case the game does look good and if the PS4 ends up running it at mostly 60FPS and 1080p then maybe the hardware isn't that depressing after all. Considering the magic Naughty Dog is doing on PS3 with The Last of Us it will be interesting to see what they can do on PS4.

#12 Edited by LucidDreams117 (410 posts) -

@demoskinos: if you really care about best looking games, you'd get a PC. This just starts the flame war over and over again. How about we wait and year and see what happens. Remember all the shitty ports PS3 had early on? Now, people swear by that console. You have wonderful looking games like The Last Of Us. You get a great valued service like PSN Plus.

Be the better person and don't help fuel the flames.

#14 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4420 posts) -

Well the PC can push past 60, soooooo....lol I'm fucking around


#15 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@luciddreams117: I'm not "fueling" flames. I don't see why this needs to start a flame war. Can we not have a conversation about this without flaming and fanboyism?

#16 Posted by Korwin (2896 posts) -

@brundage said:

WHO CARES!? I'm so sick of people obsessing over frame rate. It's a single player game, 30 frames isn't that big of a deal...Jesus.

I do, this is useful consumer information to me.

#17 Edited by CreepingDeath0 (176 posts) -

@jz said:

@brundage: well frame rate is an actual thing that you can see, unlike resolution

Sooo... you'd rather play a game that ran at a consistant 100fps but at 800x600 resolution? Weirdo.

#18 Posted by TheHT (11526 posts) -

Haha, oh man. At least it's only Tomb Raider HHD.

#19 Edited by NMC2008 (1237 posts) -

Well the PC can push past 60, soooooo....lol I'm fucking around

Do you have a video of this happening with TressFX enabled? In my experience everything is fine until TressFX comes into play then it goes to shit.

#20 Posted by Wolfgame (816 posts) -

I'm on the outside looking it on this, but didnt eurogamer report that dead rising 3 has significant frame rate drops? The only real difference is there isn't a equivalent version on ps4 to compare it to. Those issues may have been resolved, but I can say if I were gonna buy this game I would have wanted to know this, so I think it's worth knowing and considering, it doesn't have to be interpreted as an attack on MS, but we have been walking that line in most topics lately. I am seeing it more frequently where regardless how reasonable the concern is it quickly descends into allegations of an unsubstantiated witch hunt.

#21 Edited by Korwin (2896 posts) -

@creepingdeath0 said:

@jz said:

@brundage: well frame rate is an actual thing that you can see, unlike resolution

Sooo... you'd rather play a game that ran at a consistant 100fps but at 800x600 resolution? Weirdo.

Considering Call of Duty on 360 only ran at something like 1024x640 up-scaled or something close to that ... it would appear that is the general consensus.

#22 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@wolfgame: Even Brad said that the game gets pretty framey at times. So yeah. I think you can even see the frame rate drop in the Quick-look he did.

#23 Posted by Korwin (2896 posts) -

@nmc2008 said:

@colourful_hippie said:

Well the PC can push past 60, soooooo....lol I'm fucking around

Do you have a video of this happening with TressFX enabled? In my experience everything is fine until TressFX comes into play then it goes to shit.

Yeah the PC TressFX stuff was rubbish, half the frame rate for some swishy hair. Apparently they've updated it for this version so it's not a completely performance whore on the GPGPU side of things.

#24 Posted by LucidDreams117 (410 posts) -

In my opinion, this kind of thing will only effect those who have both consoles or are still on the fence. For me, I bought my console because of the games. Not performance. Games like Titanfall and Halo and Xbox Live. I'm guessing, this early into the life of these consoles, it's the games and services of each console that made people pick em. I wonder how common it is that people chose performance over games.

The one thing I always bring up is last generation and the shit PS3 got early on for the crappy ports. Now look at that console.

#25 Posted by TriBeard (134 posts) -

@korwin: I played through the game with it enabled, and there were only one or two times where I noticed it drop a little, but I can see where it would be an issue for some.

#26 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@luciddreams117: That is entirely different batch of circumstances though. The problem with the PS3 was that the cell processor was incredibly hard to work with as well as the memory being fragmented in weird ways. PS4 and as far as I know XB1 both use the (x86) file system this time around so its less of developers figuring things out and more the raw power in the box isn't exactly up to snuff with what is in PS4. Remember, a lot of memory and system resources are being devoted on XB1 to the second operating system that powers the snap fuctionality.

#27 Edited by LucidDreams117 (410 posts) -

I played through Dead Rising 3, which I enjoyed a lot more than I ever thought I would, and if the frame rate did drop, I either didn't notice or didn't care. Fun is fun. Like Vinny said, it holds up pretty good considering all the zombies on screen. Sometimes frame rate just doesn't matter to some people.

My cousin plays COD Ghosts on his PS4. Every time I've been over, the drops in frame can be kind of bad. But either he doesn't notice. Or doesn't care. He enjoys it.

#28 Edited by Korwin (2896 posts) -

@tribeard said:

@korwin: I played through the game with it enabled, and there were only one or two times where I noticed it drop a little, but I can see where it would be an issue for some.

AMD cards generally faired a lot better than Nvidia cards when it was released, GK104 based Kepler cards (770, 680 etc) generally did pretty poorly when it came to opencl compute performance. The GK110 stuff helped even that stuff up a lot more but AMD still holds the performance crown in that department (hence why their cards are selling for a bajillion times MSRP at the moment because of all those coin mining assholes).

#29 Posted by benspyda (2038 posts) -

That's pretty rough if true. Looks like I'll definitely want to pick up a PS4 for multiplat stuff. I guess they may be back in stock soonish.

#30 Edited by Brundage (382 posts) -

@demoskinos: you're missing the point though.. This game is a port, and it's coming out in the first year of the next gen launch cycles. Odds are there wasn't to much time spent on optimizing for the new systems and there hasn't been as much time for developers to tinker with the systems. I just think it's to early to see this as a big deal.

#31 Posted by Wolfgame (816 posts) -

@brundage: I don't know if that argument holds up though, I mean developer experience is just as new for PS4 also. If what you said was true then it would mean that the performance on PS4 would suffer as well.

#32 Edited by rangers517 (194 posts) -
@luciddreams117 said:

@demoskinos: if you really care about best looking games, you'd get a PC. This just starts the flame war over and over again. How about we wait and year and see what happens. Remember all the shitty ports PS3 had early on? Now, people swear by that console. You have wonderful looking games like The Last Of Us. You get a great valued service like PSN Plus.

Be the better person and don't help fuel the flames.

1." If you care about graphics you'd buy a pc."

It's not some binary thing where either you buy the highest end PC or you don't care about graphics at all. A ton of people just bought new consoles and expect a graphical/performance leap and want to know they're getting the most bang for their buck, so this stuff will be analyzed. I highly doubt I'd be able to build a $400 PC that can run this game at 1080/60 with tressfx on which is pretty resource intensive, like it seems the PS4 can.

2. "Well last time the ps3 caught up, maybe this time some magic will happen and Xbone will catch up too!"

The ps3 and 360 were pretty close in power but the ps3 was really difficult to develop for. This time the PS4 is more powerful and easier to develop for. We're already seeing bigger differences than we saw most of last gen. I expect this will continue for this whole generation.

#33 Posted by Korwin (2896 posts) -

@wolfgame said:

@brundage: I don't know if that argument holds up though, I mean developer experience is just as new for PS4 also. If what you said was true then it would mean that the performance on PS4 would suffer as well.

More or less this. They had equal time to devote here so really it would come down to either development trouble or limitations with the Xbox hardware, or the Xbox dev tools just not being up to the same level as the Playstations.

#34 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Anyone saying who cares is someone that apparently likes to get hoodwinked into buying a console that is more expensive yet can't play games the same way as the competition. Either that or the port job for the Xbox One isn't all that good.

#35 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1844 posts) -

@phatmac said:

Anyone saying who cares is someone that apparently likes to get hoodwinked into buying a console that is more expensive yet can't play games the same way as the competition.

HEY I LOVE THAT MOVIE

#36 Posted by JayEH (535 posts) -

Damn. Well I'm taking this with a grain of salt until the game actually releases though. But that's quite the difference.

#37 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4420 posts) -

@luciddreams117 said:

I played through Dead Rising 3, which I enjoyed a lot more than I ever thought I would, and if the frame rate did drop, I either didn't notice or didn't care. Fun is fun. Like Vinny said, it holds up pretty good considering all the zombies on screen. Sometimes frame rate just doesn't matter to some people.

My cousin plays COD Ghosts on his PS4. Every time I've been over, the drops in frame can be kind of bad. But either he doesn't notice. Or doesn't care. He enjoys it.

Good for him and good for you, but other times framerate and other performance areas do matter which is why I regret absolutely nothing by going deep into PC but at the same time I'll watch the new consoles from a distance to see which one ends up getting their shit together.

I'm not paying money on anything that is going already going to show its age this early in the life cycle. New Halo game being promised to run at 60 fps is the one holdout game I'm keeping my eye on to see whether or not anyone can salvage some kind of comparable performance to the PS4

#38 Posted by Brundage (382 posts) -

@wolfgame: yeah that does makes sense.. But still, we have no idea internally how much time was spent on each port for each specific system plus loads of other variables. If this is still happening a year or two from now then I would start to worry. I still think it's way to early to make anything of this.

#39 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -
@korwin said:

@wolfgame said:

@brundage: I don't know if that argument holds up though, I mean developer experience is just as new for PS4 also. If what you said was true then it would mean that the performance on PS4 would suffer as well.

More or less this. They had equal time to devote here so really it would come down to either development trouble or limitations with the Xbox hardware, or the Xbox dev tools just not being up to the same level as the Playstations.

Exactly this. People roll their eyes and scoff about people bringing up the GDDR memory thing in PS4 but that may very well be the thing that helps the PS4 to edge out the XB1 on a consistent basis this gen. If XB1 finds a way to up the performance that is awesome but If I was a XB1 owner I'd find this trend troubling.

I'm sure developers will figure out ways to squeeze more out of the XB1 and work with and I can only hope that the XB1 can keep pace with the PS4.

#41 Edited by Brundage (382 posts) -

@demoskinos: yeah but you're already calling this a trend. We're not even a year into the systems life cycles and we're judging the performance of launch titles. There hasn't been enough multi platform releases to call any kind of trends yet and comparing the performance between launch titles is what crazy people do.

#42 Posted by EXTomar (4848 posts) -

Waiting for the PC version which feels like the correct way to go.

#43 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1844 posts) -

@extomar said:

Waiting for the PC version which feels like the correct way to go.

But don't you know the PS4 is a supercharged PC?

#44 Posted by GreggD (4508 posts) -

@brundage said:

@demoskinos: yeah but you're already calling this a trend. We're not even a year into the systems life cycles and we're judging the performance of launch titles. There hasn't been enough multi platform releases to call any kind of trends yet and comparing the performance between launch titles is what crazy people do.

We're not even a fucking THIRD of a year into it. Jeez, man. Fuck all this shit, I'm gonna go play TR on my PC...

#45 Edited by ThatOneDudeNick (659 posts) -

I mean... PS4 is more powerful. So the frame rate should be better if they're not locked. Don't get me wrong, both machines are fine. But it should come as no surprise that a lot of games are going to run better on PS4. Whether or not that means anything to you is an opinion. From a logical standpoint, none of this is surprising. The more interesting thing to me is that they don't seem to be optimizing the game for XB1 or lowering some effects to chase 60fps. I wouldn't judge a console's potential by a cash grab port of a last gen game. The same way resolution and frame rates of cross-generation games like BF4, AC4, and Ghosts didn't matter to me.

PS4 isn't going to magically leap way out ahead of XB1 because of it's performance. Multi-platform games are usually be built to run on the weaker console. PS4's power advantage isn't as meaningful as we make it out to be. It is strange to me that the internet can't have a facts-based discussion about platform comparisons without people feeling the need to "defend" their console or PC. PS4 is more powerful. A lot of games will run or look better on PS4. XBox One is a good console as well. I'm a PC gamer that owns a PS4 that's currently used more for Youtube and Netflix than gaming. *shrugs*

#46 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@brundage: I like my games looking as good as possible so... I care? =|

get a pc then.

#47 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@extomar said:

Waiting for the PC version which feels like the correct way to go.

But don't you know the PS4 is a supercharged PC?

not sure if sarcasm or you just make a hell of a ignorant statement.

#48 Edited by csl316 (8985 posts) -

@brundage: I like 30 fps for single player games. But people on this board tend to think that 60 is always better and 30 fps is unacceptable. At least, that's what happened last time this discussion was brought up. Dozens of people couldn't fathom how 30 is ok, even occasionally preferable.

#49 Posted by LiquidPrince (16020 posts) -

People need to shut the fuck up about PC power every time a discussion is going on about console vs console. I have a high end PC, the X1 and the PS4... Doesn't mean that I'm going to constantly pop into threads and say, "you guys should get the PC version cause obviously it's better hur hur..." Some people don't have a high end PC so it makes a difference to them which console performs better. The graphics card I have in my PC cost $499... as much as an X1... Not everyone has the luxury of having that. So you know, back off.

#50 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Frames per second is something I only notice if I play a game at 60 for a long time then immediately play something that is 30, but even then I stop noticing after 10 minutes