-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
- Status
It's TressFX 2.0
Raoul Duke
Banned
PS4 will likely remain 1080p for the entire Gen thanks to the shape of the architecture (1.8 Tflops but 32 ROPs) By dropping resolution on PS4 your not going to gain too much performance and the loss of 1:1 pixel mapping will be a big hit.
I expect 1080p/30 for PS4 and 900p/28 for XB1 for the second half of the Gen, with PS4 getting a few more effects.
Of course that's just my opinion though it is the same opinion I've held since E3...
Demoskinos
Member
I do believe they mentioned that they rebuilt or at least tweaked the TressFX for this version.
GayForMaster
Banned
There it is guys! Proof that Xbone is indeed weaker. PROOF that there's a substantial difference in power between the two.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
A port of a year-old game really shouldn't be taken as proof.
So can this source be trusted? Is this 100% confirmed? If so, this is pretty blatant in its implications for the XB1 platform as whole. I knew there was a power disparity but 60/30 fps split is a HUGE disparity. Granted so is 1080/720 but this just seems like a much more concrete difference. Nobody can argue frame-rate differences don't impact gameplay and aren't immediately apparent.
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
Pretty expected when you consider that GAF is a community of enthusiastic gamers with thousands of opinions and experience in the industry, that aren't tied to a certain position because of fear of losing sponsorship/ad revenue.
Reading GAF this summer/early fall was amazing with all the debates and opinions coming out on subjects like DRM, Powergaps, Moneyhats, etc.
Multiple people have confirmed seeing this in action, and we have had confirmation by Crystal Dynamics, and also the fact that Crystal Dynamics are pretty hesitant to discuss and show the One version basically confirms that this is true.
Mass Effect
Member
next gen, not this gen
Oh, sorry. People still use next-gen to refer to this gen (PS4/Xbone/Wii U), so it gets confusing sometimes.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I don't think TC would have created this thread if he didn't trust his sources.
Chobel
Member
It's confirmed.
I love it. Now they're defending Microsoft's always online vision by saying all the features that brought would have made up for the hardware deficiencies.
bigboss370
Member
holy shit this is practically exactly like how it was pre next gen launches...every other week MS/xbox would get bad news (this time being the shady promo w/ machinima) and Sony/PS4 would get good news (200% as many fps!).
NullPointer
Member
I'm just glad that each dev seems to be making their own informed resolution/framerate/effects trade-offs and trying to get the most out of each platform. That's all we can really ask of them on a game by game basis.
Do we also have to get used to insufferable "neener neener" threads too?
I think the amount of delusional GAFers concerning the horse power difference between the Xbox one and ps4 are far less than console warriors would have you believe; many of these replies are completely unnecessary.
This is great news in any event, as it means the PS4 is going to continue outputting at a performance level equal to today's upper mid range PC! Even more exciting is the prospect of improvements as we move forward, which is typical for any console generation. Good times ahead.
...There has been "proof" that the Xbox One is weaker for many months now. Even before the consoles released.
Lol, did they think cloud is supposed to save them? Lmao
I don't know which to refresh more this thread or the Xbox One subreddit. Both hilarious.
EL CUCO
Member
CosmicGroinPull
Member
If they can argue that one can't discern 1080p from 720p under normal couch-to-TV distances, they CAN argue that the general public can't tell 60fps from 30fps and only the hardcore could.
There, I've done your job for you, MS. <XB1M13>
Why not?
SwiftDeath
Member
Wow this is what happens when I go to play some ACIV
That's a big difference. As others have said I'm sure Pennello looks rather foolish now
That's a big difference. As others have said I'm sure Pennello looks rather foolish now
dolabla
Member
LMAO, that ish is pure GOLD!
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
It is not confirmed. What is confirmed is that the PlayStation 4 build sits around 60fps. See: the recent live stream with the producer.
This particular report is mine, so the sources were contacted by me, and I wholeheartedly trust these sources to know. Secret sources. What they told me is in the feature/OP.
Nonetheless, I encourage all people to take shit like this with a grain of salt because scepticism > believing random internet rumours. It's totally, 100% legit, factual information from my position, but you're not in that position so scepticism is warranted. You'll find out the truth in about a week anyway.
Parapraxis
Member
I think maybe Raider-Gate?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Console with notably stronger GPU performs better at the exact same resolution. Not much of a surprise.
I've said it before, and will say it again, I would sooner sacrifice resolution before anything else. They opted for resolution parity over all else. I don't think that was the right decision. I've been of the thought that developers so far were making the right decision: They were opting to just lower the resolution, rather than compromise on other aspects of their game.
Fantastic job on the PS4 version, not so much on the Xbox One version. Should've just gone with 900p or something. I genuinely believe one version having a higher resolution is one thing and not so much a big deal breaker, but more or less twice the frame rate right out of the gate? Mega yikes, and borderline unacceptable. To add to that, 1080p and 30fps is the target on the xbox one version, so there's likely to be certain dips in performance below 30fps on that version. That normally isn't too big a deal so long as performance is more or less consistent and hovers around very playable. I don't have a problem with 30fps titles. However, when you hear the other version performing at or close 60fps with dips to lower numbers under certain situations, it makes you wonder how much focus was put into performance maintenance for the Xbox One version. I imagine steps were taken there also, which brings me, potentially, to the biggest concern of all: In an effort to be 1080p on both, this drastically increases the very real likelihood that serious compromises were made to the graphics on the Xbox One version. That's my suspicion. If they haven't, then there's possibly serious performance issues to look forward to.
And if I'm correct, I only have one thought.
I pray other devs don't make a habit out of this. To heck with resolution parity. Go after parity on the more important stuff.
I've said it before, and will say it again, I would sooner sacrifice resolution before anything else. They opted for resolution parity over all else. I don't think that was the right decision. I've been of the thought that developers so far were making the right decision: They were opting to just lower the resolution, rather than compromise on other aspects of their game.
Fantastic job on the PS4 version, not so much on the Xbox One version. Should've just gone with 900p or something. I genuinely believe one version having a higher resolution is one thing and not so much a big deal breaker, but more or less twice the frame rate right out of the gate? Mega yikes, and borderline unacceptable. To add to that, 1080p and 30fps is the target on the xbox one version, so there's likely to be certain dips in performance below 30fps on that version. That normally isn't too big a deal so long as performance is more or less consistent and hovers around very playable. I don't have a problem with 30fps titles. However, when you hear the other version performing at or close 60fps with dips to lower numbers under certain situations, it makes you wonder how much focus was put into performance maintenance for the Xbox One version. I imagine steps were taken there also, which brings me, potentially, to the biggest concern of all: In an effort to be 1080p on both, this drastically increases the very real likelihood that serious compromises were made to the graphics on the Xbox One version. That's my suspicion. If they haven't, then there's possibly serious performance issues to look forward to.
And if I'm correct, I only have one thought.
I pray other devs don't make a habit out of this. To heck with resolution parity. Go after parity on the more important stuff.
It's up to you whether you believe the words of a moderator or not.
I lose 45 FPS with TressFX on my GTX 670. Its a massive resource hog.
Its using a lower version of TressFX by the looks of it.
It's not as if this is an unintentional oversight of their hardware design, though. Their console is designed around less raw power and a bigger emphasis on Kinect. It isn't so much a lack of talent as it is different priorities. After the first round of titles with differing resolutions, I can't say I'm surprised to see news like this.
Console with notably stronger GPU performs better at the exact same resolution. Not much of a surprise.
I've said it before, and will say it again, I would sooner sacrifice resolution before anything else. They opted for resolution parity over all else. I don't think that was the right decision. I've been of the thought that developers so far were making the right decision: They were opting to just lower the resolution, rather than compromise on other aspects of their game.
Fantastic job on the PS4 version, not so much on the Xbox One version. Should've just gone with 900p or something. I genuinely believe one version having a higher resolution is one thing and not so much a big deal breaker, but more or less twice the frame rate right out of the gate? Mega yikes, and borderline unacceptable. To add to that, 1080p and 30fps is the target on the xbox one version, so there's likely to be certain dips in performance below 30fps on that version. That normally isn't too big a deal so long as performance is more or less consistent and hovers around very playable. I don't have a problem with 30fps titles. However, when you hear the other version performing at or close 60fps with dips to lower numbers under certain situations, it makes you wonder how much focus was put into performance maintenance for the Xbox One version. I imagine steps were taken there also, which brings me, potentially, to the biggest concern of all: In an effort to be 1080p on both, this drastically increases the very real likelihood that serious compromises were made to the graphics on the Xbox One version. That's my suspicion. If they haven't, then there's possibly serious performance issues to look forward to.
And if I'm correct, I only have one thought.
I pray other devs don't make a habit out of this. To heck with resolution parity. Go after parity on the more important stuff.
Though we'd ideally not have to make such compromises in the first place, I would also lower the resolution or get rid of TressFX before sacrificing the higher framerate. Not that 30fps is bad at all, but 60fps is much more noticeable to me than resolution.
NullPointer
Member
I'll admit to being ignorant of the effect of unlocked framerates on control responsiveness. Makes sense but wasn't my first assumption.
I prefer 60fps at all times, don't get me wrong, but after the woe that is sub 30fps framerates an unstable framerate is my second concern. So much in games is muscle memory and rhythm and developing an instinctual percept-to-input feedback loop, and if framerates fluctuate too much your timing can be thrown off and the whole game can feel awkward. At those times I'd rather have a locked framerate, even if it was lower, if only because it would be more stable and dependable.
I'm also new to the concept of g-sync, as unlocked framerates on my PC have only gotten me crazy levels of tearing.
SwiftDeath
Member
Zombie James
Banned
Coolbgdog12
Member
The Xbox One version will look smoother as it's closer to 24fps which is the universally agreed upon framerate for beautiful filmic' like experiences. 60fps is too soap opera like and that is terrible for games so Microsoft didn't waste any hardware resources into making games play at undesirable frame rates.
-Online
Wow if true.
-Online
Wow if true.
Thank you for this.
Ok this one:
confused me, I tried thinking about it long enough to make sense of it, but nothing happened, can someone help me out here?
SwiftDeath
Member
Wow those are gold
Especially love
Pennello's got some splaining' to do!
And
I don't even know how to respond to this one
This was funny, but that last one. :| That's just sad.
sjagolinzer
Member
I believe that poster thinks the xbone version is more efficient because it hits the same resolution "in fewer frams". It's just misguided logic.
So, just out of curiosity - what would be the equivalent PC graphics cards for Xbox One and PS4 (and what would be the price difference)?
Based on this analysis of Tomb Raider PC - http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page2.html - it looks like the Radeon 5870 has comparable performance (60fp@1050p) with the PS4 and the Radeon 6970 has comparable performance (30fps @ 1050p) with the Xbone.
Both of these are pretty old cards by today's standard, though, so it's difficult to compare prices.
Based on this analysis of Tomb Raider PC - http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page2.html - it looks like the Radeon 5870 has comparable performance (60fp@1050p) with the PS4 and the Radeon 6970 has comparable performance (30fps @ 1050p) with the Xbone.
Both of these are pretty old cards by today's standard, though, so it's difficult to compare prices.
I also re-read it several times to get in the mind of the poster, but nope. Just lol'd. You have to be careful mind, because many of these could just be posts from paid astroturfers trying to obfuscate and confuse.
Nintendo were fine with 15-25fps during the N64 era. Microsoft is purely harkening back to that philosophy of design
I don't see what the issue is. As long as it stays above 10fps, its perfectly playable. The PS4 version will probably have been sped up by double to acheive the 60fps, so good luck trying to aim or jump over things when lara is moving at double the speed, LOL
I don't see what the issue is. As long as it stays above 10fps, its perfectly playable. The PS4 version will probably have been sped up by double to acheive the 60fps, so good luck trying to aim or jump over things when lara is moving at double the speed, LOL
Understood. Thanks for the reply and the candor. It's going to be interesting watching the reviews, features etc come out for this "Definitive Edition."
- Status