As i said in previous post, you probably referring on an old vg247 link. Well, little correction - vgleaks link. Btw. that document is from 2012, man. Nobody knows then which audio chip in PS4 was. Cerny only said that PS4 has dedicated audio chip. I don't know what you trying to prove us.
The Witcher 3: 1080p/30fps on PS4, 900p/30fps on Xbox One
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
As i said in previous post, you probably referring on an old vg247 link. Well, little correction - vgleaks link. Btw. that document is from 2012, man. Nobody knows then which audio chip in PS4 was. Cerny only said that PS4 has dedicated audio chip. I don't know what you trying to prove us.
Glorified G
Member
It's not 2013. People have come to grips of the differences between the two.
Well, some people have.
I dont either. Which is why its strange you've gotten what I said so wrong.
fluffydelusions
Member
I priced them out in Austria, same sales tax. I think you just don't know where to shop for PC components
(Don't worry, few people do)
Also a good point.
elder semen
Banned
You should hold off on making that joke until we actually see what is possible with cloud compute. Presumably this E3 will have lots for us to look at in that regard, at least in terms of first party stuff (Crackdown, etc).
That lacks any specifics on the PS4s audio chip though. The articles that talk about it make it seem rather specific. I don't see anything to back up your claim that the Xbox one has a much better audio chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7513/ps4-spec-update-audio-dsp-is-based-on-amds-trueaudio
RowdyReverb
Member
Idk if you're joking, but I actually prefer the 1080pr in recent games like Far Cry 4 and Halo 2: Anniversary over 900p. There is noticeably less "shimmering". I wonder why CDPR aren't following that trend
Its just a way for haters to mock PC and the people who game on PC because they can't find any other ways to attack the platform in a negative light. It has no basis in common sense.
Its the same for those certain PC players who find reasons to rag on the console crowd just because the hardware is not as good or the selection of games is not as extensive. Its all bullshit platform wars in the end no matter the allegiance.
Game on what you want to game on
MDSLKTR
Member
His post history should tell you everything you need to know. It's still hilarious he took the effort to quote all of this for that
I don't really think any game can rely on "cloud compute" unless it's designed to be always online. Which (I'm strongly presuming) Crackdown isn't.
"The power of the cloud making your Xbox One run better" was just marketing mate.
I play a lot of Battlefield 4 on my PS4 which is 900p. All of the other titles I have on that console are 1080p. I have to look much harder at the screen and even squint at times to pick out the details when playing the 900p game. Everything is fuzzier. There's a difference. Although I sit close to the screen when I play.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
As someone who was going to either upgrade their PC or buy a PS4 and ended up getting a PS4. I can understand your position.
You can't add main RAM and eSRAM. 133 is just the last peak bandwidth I heard quoted. The numbers you're quoting are theoretical peaks as well and a while back devs were saying it was much easier to hit that peak on PS4.
The Shape chip and the TruAudio on PS4 are very sinilar.
Excellent! Im glad everyone approves and is happy of this strangers consumerism choice.
elder semen
Banned
It's the current build...which almost certainly has has no actual graphics optimizations done to it at all since around E3 of last year or earlier. Typically devs in open world games have to iron out a heap of nasty bugs before focusing on optimizing visuals. Game is out in late May, for reference. They explicitly noted the resolution wasn't necessarily final.
Infinite_Daremo
Member
Keep fighting the good fight.
Agreed agreed agreed
Copping out? I've kept up with this, explained myself, and you conveniently dodge admitting the truth of what I'm saying. Which is entirely predictable, sadly.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I find it interesting that some people relish in the stating of what should be obvious and expected (PS4 version being visually superior to the XOne version in most measures) while simultaneously betting sensitive and salty at the stating of what should also be obvious and expected (the PC version being better than the PS4 version).
You can dish it out without catching feelings. You should be able to take it too.
You can dish it out without catching feelings. You should be able to take it too.
Well, he probably never heard about it when he linked an old vgleaks article.
Insane Metal
Member
It isn't. The audio on both systems is dealt with with a DSP on the GPU iirc, Shape was done specifically to deal with voice commands and kinect in general.
Also, people tend to remember every chip on the XBone and forget the 256MB of DDR3 and the ARM chip on PS4 to handle background tasks.
I think in BF's case, the fuzziness is explained by both the lower resolution as well as the bad FXAA implementation they used. Very prone to blurring.
Regardless of the specific title here and the 1080 vs 900 debate, I just want to say that this is not even remotely true; this is not how a dev cycle works man.
What have I failed to admit as truth? Start from your first reply to my post. Work your way down. Make assumptions about my opinions, knowledge and such. Maybe I'll get another reality I'm not seeing.
Edit: Since you got obviously worked up on a gif that I replied to a different poster that mocked your post I'll break it down:
I don't need to admit that which I already know (the concept as you call it) - of which you simply stated a part of and clinched to it to death - you labeled this as truth. "I was in denial to the truth from the start" - without me ever stating such disagreement (my first post, your first post). How you got to that conclusion in the first place is unknown to me (you never asked, nor do I remind myself stating such) - but that's part of what makes bait trolling a practice you often undertake. I wonder if you'll admit you made a bait post.
And yes you're right I will not admit to only a part of what I believe is correct. You assumed I did not know the concept, part of it that is - simply by failing to embrace it in agreement. Objectively, native resolution> non-native resolution (1080p>900p>720p). Yes, viewing distance and TV size does affect perceived difference. In normal viewing scenarios however, it is rather easy to spot the difference (2 ft desktops (16-26inch displays), 5ft -15ft (32-75 inch displays). Now the "easy" part is subjective. Someone can claim it's rather hard to perceive the difference, not "huge" - an untrained eye - however it's labeled. There is no such thing as objective truth in normal viewing distance scenarios - and definitely not objective truth in the words used to describe the differences. In extreme scenarios (viewing distance greater than 15ft.> the perceived difference does dramatically become lower and lower. So if you say for your specific situation the difference is rather small - I can chose to take your word at face value and nothing more. I would have to be there to gauge myself and I could either agree or disagree on the difference. That's subjective and I am free to make that claim.
Your post did not deserve my response. Certainly not when you start off the bat making assumptions as to what I perceive to "be the truth" and as to what I deny.
kingkenny76
Member
What? See my post earlier. It would easily cost €1,500 to build a PC just to play the recommended settings. Maybe the PC parts I'm picking aren't correct I don't know.
The point is (without getting all emotive about it) is there is no way in hell that €400 consoles will be able to beat a PC that costs twice as much (happy now)
What is TAA? I thought Ryse used SMAA T2X?
AFAIK the Order uses MSAA 4x and some form of postproc AA on top of that.
Crayon
Member
I personally don't find the difference huge either. But it's easily notable. And obviously preferable.
Right?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Ok then. Gonna look great on all platforms. Hope the framerate holds up. 
CD Projekt RED called playing on consoles a compromise anyway--as in getting a great experience and not really having to pay for a high level PC.
via Metro from GamerCenterOnline
via Metro from GamerCenterOnline
Makes sense. It's definitely noticeable.
Temporal Anti Aliasing. It blends two frames together to create the illusion of smoothness. Very prone to ghosting though, as seen in Reach, probably the worst implementation ever
elder semen
Banned
Stop listening to the random ppl here. You absolutely can add them as they are set up in parallel.
Quote by whom? Some know nothing posting here? Did you see my other post with Nick Baker's quote in it? Actual real world games/apps have been measured using 150 GB/s with just the eSRAM alone. Did you read my post at all?
Are you even reading what I typed? 176 GB/s is theoretical peak on PS4. 204 GB/s + 68 GB/s (272 GB/s) is theoretical peak combined on X1. Yes, it is much easier to hit the peak on PS4, but no game ever will. That isn't my point. If it were my point I would have been quoting 272 GB/s as the bandwidth for X1, which I wasn't. My point was real world, actual games/apps have been measured to hit 150 GB/s ONLY using the eSRAM and using that as an efficiency estimate for the main RAM nets us around 200 GB/s total bandwidth. Straight from the guy who designed it. He knows more than you do.
Even if we severely low ball the DDR3 RAM's real world usage efficiency it STILL easily eclipses the real world usage of the PS4's GDDR5. You could have 38% usage efficiency for the DDR3 in X1 and 100% perfect efficiency on PS4 and they'd still be equal.
...no, they aren't actually. One only does compression/decompression and some DMA work (PS4), the other does that on more than twice as many voices along with a bunch of other stuff. Stop.
Why is it so difficult for you guys to admit that X1 has hardware advantages in some areas over PS4?
They are using SMAA T1x, but its called TAA in options.
Was postAA component confirmed for The Order after all? I know that they were experimenting with it, but dunno what was finalized, but its quite possible that they are using some temporal technique too. Still, i think most of their blurriness comes from other sources, like CA, grain filters etc.
--
We are so past that. Actually SMAA T1x blends 4 frames and it is focused to eliminate ghosting even in comparison to SMAA T2x, its also the most effective AA technique to date for a cost of sharpness.
Man you're good. 30 or so posts into your GAF career, all guns blazing, secretsauce,resoloutions not noticeable, infinite power of the cloud, talking about bans and rules.
Found that secret chip yet?
You do understand that "The Power of the Cloud", as in, offloading Xbox One game calculations off to Azure is simply never going to happen, right?
It was all buzzword bullshit, and it was debunked in 2013.
Those recommended specs are worth 1500$ ?
elder semen
Banned
Wut? Of course it is. Would you like specific examples or something? o.0
Dude, stop.
They will be carting you off in a white van if you carry on rambling aimless gibberish.
It definitely isn't.
I would hope the technology had gotten better! Its been 5 years after all...its hard to believe back then, even FXAA wasn't even common yet. Reach would have looked tons better even with that pitiable solution in comparison to the abomination they came up with.
Jessie.Bristol
Member
Well, the game doesn't come out for about another 3 1/2 months. And CDPR has said the game is basically done, it is just bug fixing and polish. And who knows if the latest build the press got to see was even using the December XDK (the one that got Dying Light up to 1080p). Because these press builds are usually a few months old prior to being shown.
It remains to be seen what the final resolution on Xbox One will be.
Muppet of a Man
Member
This. The very recently leaked X1 sdk said that Devs could (real world) depend on 102 GB/s for the esram with spikes up to around 133 gb/s on occasion. While ps4's peak numbers are 176 GB/s, it is much easier to hit near peak numbers on ps4 due to a single unified pool of ram all with the same bandwidth, as well as the cutting down on contention for bandwidth due to copy overhead back and forth between cpu and gpu since ps4 essentially has a near complete HSA/hUMA memory subsystem architecture that is capable of assigning the volatile flag for bits of data that can be worked on by both cpu and gpu. This saves cpu and gpu cycles, making the system as a whole more efficient with its use of memory bandwidth.
Dreams-Visions
Member
let him believe.
Eddie_Khaled
Member
PC + PS4 and a Xbox one owner here.
Will get it in Xbox one ... because I pre-ordered the Wild Hunt edition in amazon uk for a £120 only.
I might double dip if i can find a cheap PC version.
Will get it in Xbox one ... because I pre-ordered the Wild Hunt edition in amazon uk for a £120 only.
I might double dip if i can find a cheap PC version.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
where would anyone get the idea that there are variables in place for 900p versus 1080p? regardless of size and distance its pretty obvious. take a screen shot at 900p and 1080p, put them on 2 23" monitors side by side, blow the 900p up to 1080p, and even at around 10 feet the differences would still be obvious
Replace that 23" with a 50" living room TV and it goes from obvious to blatant
Wondering if I will be able to hit 30FPS on ultra at 5760x1080...
Replace that 23" with a 50" living room TV and it goes from obvious to blatant
Wondering if I will be able to hit 30FPS on ultra at 5760x1080...