• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what Richard Leadbetter thinks about all this? We did tell him his Digital Foundry comparisons and Microsoft regurgitated PR articles were completely off point. Really bizarre when ordinary forum posters are more logical in tech theory and maths compared to actual supposed experts in the field. Oh well..

Hopefully this entire last year shows journalists that GAF isn't just a forum full of whiney ignorant posters (though we have that too lol), and in fact, looking past that we have numerous well versed people who in my ways are more in tune and on point with such things compared to actual journalists, tech types and PR people that write for actual tent pole gaming sites or otherwise.

You were better off and better informed reading the GAF tech comparison threads and general threads about these two new consoles than you were reading about them elsewhere, even on gaming sites.

Hear Hear!

Great post.
 

Skeff

Member
I just assumed we'd gravitate to 720p because it would offer the best balance of resolution, asset quality and affects. You want global illumination and particle effects out the wazoo? Gotta pay for it in resolution.

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...
 

RexNovis

Banned
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.
 
I wonder what Richard Leadbetter thinks about all this? We did tell him his Digital Foundry comparisons and Microsoft regurgitated PR articles were completely off point. Really bizarre when ordinary forum posters are more logical in tech theory and maths compared to actual supposed experts in the field. Oh well..

Hopefully this entire last year shows many journalists (who I feel sometimes downplay forums like this) that GAF isn't just a forum full of whiney ignorant posters (though we have that too lol), and in fact, looking past that we have numerous well versed people who in my ways are more in tune and on point with such things compared to actual journalists, tech types and PR people that write for actual tent pole gaming sites or otherwise.

You were better off and better informed reading the GAF tech comparison threads and general threads about these two new consoles than you were reading about them elsewhere, even on gaming sites.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

I don't think TC would have created this thread if he didn't trust his sources.
 

Chobel

Member
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.

It's confirmed.
 

Tagg9

Member
If you guys want a good laugh read the Xbox One subreddit.

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.

The problem is that the stuff that was supposed to make up for the weaker specs all got dumped. So instead of having a crapload of additional, but different value at the cost of performance, we get the worst of both worlds.

It's times like this that it's important to step back and thank 2013's Fuckup of the Year, Yusuf Mehdi for completely failing at his job.
 

CoG

Member
We still don't know if there are any underlying graphical differences between the versions either. Like AA, SSAO, or shadow quality. Imagine if the One has some of those ratcheted down to even sustain 30fps? Can't wait for DF on this one.
 
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!).
 
And in either case, the game is native 1080p. That might not mean much, but we know the Xbox One has issues with native 1920x1080 games. In this case the team handling the port clearly felt getting 1080p up and running smoothly on Xbox One alongside PlayStation 4 was more beneficial than crunching the resolution down to 720p for a framerate boost. End of the day, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition's main goal is to show off the improved assets, scene density, special effects, and image quality over the last generation. Both at 1080p does a better job of that than one at 720p.
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.
 

kinggroin

Banned
And a case of every other aspect of Sony's PS4 also being significantly more powerful

more difficult to develop for, significantly less powerful = differences like this all gen

everyone should just get used to it early on in the gen so it doesn't drive them insane

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.
 

Skeff

Member
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.

Gaming journalists:

ChallengeAcceptedBlackTextSS.png
 

RE_Player

Member
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.
I don't know which to refresh more this thread or the Xbox One subreddit. Both hilarious.
 

IN&OUT

Banned
MS in the phone with TR developers as we speak...offering them $XXXX just to say nice things about Xbone....but don't tell anybody we told you.
 

EL CUCO

Member
I wonder what Richard Leadbetter thinks about all this? We did tell him his Digital Foundry comparisons and Microsoft regurgitated PR articles were completely off point. Really bizarre when ordinary forum posters are sometimes more logical in tech theory and maths compared to actual supposed experts in the field. Though granted some posters on here do actually work in the field. Oh well..

Hopefully this entire last year shows many journalists (who I feel sometimes downplay forums like this) that GAF isn't just a forum full of whiney ignorant posters (though we have that too lol), and in fact, looking past that we have numerous well versed people who in my ways are more in tune and on point with such things compared to actual journalists, tech types and PR people that write for actual tent pole gaming sites or otherwise.

You were better off and better informed reading the GAF tech comparison threads and general threads about these two new consoles than you were reading about them elsewhere, even on gaming sites.
god_damn_right_breaking_bad.gif
 
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.


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>
 
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
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
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.

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.
 
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.

do-not-want-dog.jpg


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.
 

stktt

Banned
I like to read all about technology and have been following xbox1/ps4 threads even though I may not get either one of them anytime soon.

It is so hard to believe that with the billion dollars Microsoft put into customising and tweaking xbox1 hardware, that they got so soundly beaten by Sony for the performance crown. The only hope Microsoft has, is if the newer game engines have optimisations for its architecture and close the gap in performance, because last gen titles are clearly in PS4's favour by a significant margin.

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.

do-not-want-dog.jpg


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.
 
Nobody can argue frame-rate differences don't impact gameplay and aren't immediately apparent.
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.
 
If you guys want a good laugh read the Xbox One subreddit.

Oh it can't be that bad...

For the most part games that need to be 60 fps on Xbox One will be 60 fps, I don't consider Tomb Raider to be one of those games.

It really depends on how anal you're really about it and the question than becomes that if all you care about is the best looking and running version why not invest in a gaming pc?

Waiting for you AP and major Nelson to come in and explain this.

This completely has to do with the games development, especially a last-gen port is most likely not going to take advantage of something like this. Games that start rolling out in the years to come will take advantage of the dedicated servers more and more as time goes on.

And I'm sure a side by side comparison shows a microscopic difference to the eye. Sounds to me like Microsoft is using frames and graphical configurations more efficiently... think about it, less frames, same res... Cant wait to play a 60fps on my X1

:|
 
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.
 

Skeff

Member
Oh it can't be that bad...

:|

Ok this one:

And I'm sure a side by side comparison shows a microscopic difference to the eye. Sounds to me like Microsoft is using frames and graphical configurations more efficiently... think about it, less frames, same res... Cant wait to play a 60fps on my X1

confused me, I tried thinking about it long enough to make sense of it, but nothing happened, can someone help me out here?
 
Oh it can't be that bad..

:|

Wow those are gold

Especially love

Waiting for you AP and major Nelson to come in and explain this.

Pennello's got some splaining' to do!

And

And I'm sure a side by side comparison shows a microscopic difference to the eye. Sounds to me like Microsoft is using frames and graphical configurations more efficiently... think about it, less frames, same res... Cant wait to play a 60fps on my X1

I don't even know how to respond to this one
 

chadskin

Member
If you guys want a good laugh read the Xbox One subreddit.

This one's a gem, by XboxUncut:

This completely has to do with the games development, especially a last-gen port is most likely not going to take advantage of something like this. Games that start rolling out in the years to come will take advantage of the dedicated servers more and more as time goes on.
Just think about it, Tomb Raider already has a net code written up, it already has a built multiplayer and the infrastructure already exists... why would you redo all of that just for a port of the game to the latest consoles?
 
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?

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.
 

Tagg9

Member
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.
 

nib95

Banned
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?

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.
 

Rich!

Member
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
 

RexNovis

Banned
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.

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
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom