Digital Foundry Face-Off @ Performance Analysis (Latest: DriveClub Preview 2)

[ethomaz]

This will be my first cool thread to my fellow VizionEckers (?).

OP to be updated to awesome levels.

Game	Publisher	Developer	Best Platform 1	Summary
Borderlands 2	Sony Computer Entertainment	Iron Galaxy Studios	PSV	Click Here
Child of Light	Ubisoft	Ubisoft Montreal	PC > PS4 > XBO > Wii U = PS3 = 360	Click Here
Daylight	Guy Studios / Atlus	Zombie Studios	PC > PS4	Click Here
Diablo 3: Ultimate Evil Edition	Blizzard Entertainment	Blizzard Entertainment	PC > PS4 > XB1 > 360 > PS3	Click Here
EA Sports UFC	EA Sports	EA Canada	PC > PS4 > XB1	Click Here
Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn	Square Enix	Square Enix	PC > PS4	Click Here
inFamous First Light	Sony Computer Entertainment	Sucker Punch Productions	PS4	Click Here
inFamous Second Son	Sony Computer Entertainment	Sucker Punch Productions	PS4	Click Here
Lego The Hobbit	Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment	Traveller's Tales	PC > PS4 > XBO	Click Here
Mario Kart 8	Nintendo	Nintendo EAD Group No. 1	Wii U	Click Here
Metro Redux	Deep Silver	4A Games	PS4 > XB1 > 360 > PS3	Click Here
Murdered: Soul Suspect	Square Enix	Airtight Games	PC > PS4 = XB1	Click Here
Outlast	Red Barrels	Red Barrels	PC > PS4 = XB1	Click Here
Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare	Electronic Arts	PopCap Games	PS4 > PC > XB1	Click Here
Sniper Elite 3	Rebellion Oxford	505 Games	PC > PS4 > XB1	Click Here
The Amazing Spider-Man 2	Activision	Beenox	PS4 > XBO	Click Here
Titanfall	Electronic Arts	Respawn Entertainment	PC > XBO > 360	Click Here
Trials Fusion	Ubisoft	RedLynx	PC > PS4 > XBO > 360	Click Here
Watch Dogs	Ubisoft	Ubisoft Montreal	PS4 > PC 2 > XBO > PS3	Click Here
The Last of Us Remastered	Naughty Dog	Sony Computer Entertainment	PS4 > PS3	Click Here
Wolfenstein: The New Order	Bethesda Softworks	MachineGames	PC > PS4 > XBO > PS3	Click Here

¹ Platforms showed into articles
² Before PC patch

[ethomaz]

Face-Off: Watch Dogs (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

Booting up Watch Dogs on Xbox One directly after a PlayStation 4 play session is a surprisingly pleasant experience. 792p? Really? The introductory engine-driven cut-scenes - along with many other in-engine sequences - are a remarkably close match, not only with the PS4 version, but with the PC release running at full 1080p. Moving into gameplay, the difference becomes more evident, but one thing to make clear from the off is that the emphasis in Watch Dogs' presentation is on lighting and effects and how they interact with materials, and this kind of emphasis remains flattering despite the difference in resolution. Titanfall - another 792p title - didn't compare well to its higher-resolution equivalent, but Watch Dogs on Xbox One gets away with it.

If there's one word to sum up the advantage that PS4 Watch Dogs has over its Xbox One equivalent, it's refinement. Reduced aliasing here, less frequent screen-tear there - the impression you get is of a game that fundamentally offers the same package but feels a little more polished and solid on the Sony platform. Obviously, given the choice we'd take the extra refinement, but Xbox One owners can still buy Watch Dogs safe in the knowledge that Ubisoft Montreal's gameplay vision is delivered intact.

In truth, our overall conclusions on image quality haven't significantly changed since we posted our initial Watch Dogs performance analysis on Wednesday. The resolution difference between Xbox One, PS4 and our chosen PC setting (in this case, native 1080p) isn't really an issue during cut-scenes, but is more keenly felt during gameplay - especially on objects highlighted by the strobing white hacking overlay. Some HUD elements actually appear to be anti-aliased as part of the console post-process, so they can look a touch rougher on Xbox One, but this isn't really a massive issue.

Ambient occlusion is probably the next most noticeable difference, especially in the rather stark midday sunlit environments, where it comes into its own in adding depth to the scene. MHBAO is Ubisoft's in-house solution, described by Nvidia as a "half-resolution, console quality... technique" and seems to be in place on both PS4 and Xbox One, and it's also the standard solution for PC out of the box. However, the strength of the effect is significantly lowered on the Microsoft console, reducing the impact of the effect somewhat. PC owners get the real benefit with the inclusion of Nvidia's HBAO+, which luckily works on any graphics card. In its high setting, there's an almost night-and-day difference and we highly recommend enabling this. There is a GPU hit, but despite its Nvidia origins, it seems to be vendor-agnostic in terms of performance.

We've previously covered console performance and have little else to add - Watch Dogs is a pretty solid title on PS4, adopting a 30fps frame-rate cap and utilising adaptive v-sync when the engine fails to complete rendering the next frame in the allotted 33ms window. By and large, gameplay remains at the target frame-rate with few deviations beneath - the exception being packed scenes with lots of cars and explosions. Xbox One operates on much the same level - the difference being occasionally more noticeable screen-tear that occurs a little more frequently. Unlike the PS4 version, tearing can also infiltrate cut-scenes and general driving too, though it is rare.

Watch Dogs Performance Analysis (Thanks nbnt@GAF)

Let's kick off with some initial observations on image quality. Generally speaking, intricate texture detail and high-contrast edges aren't the most obvious elements of Watch Dogs' visual make-up, so the good news is that despite lacking a full 1080p framebuffer, the PS4 edition remains a very handsome-looking game compared to the PC release running at maximum settings. The surprise is how close the pared-down Xbox One game compares; after Titanfall's aliasing issues, we had concerns about Watch Dogs' visual presentation, but it manages to acquit itself rather well overall, as the shots below should demonstrate.

However, pure pixel count isn't the only adjustment Ubisoft Montreal has made. Ambient occlusion is also reduced, if not removed completely on Xbox One, which is a bit of a blow given that the effect is really needed in the harshly lit daytime scenes. On top of that, shadow quality also appears to move down a notch on the Microsoft console, although this is only noticeable when you view things up close.

One of the elements we like about the PS4 version is that performance is pretty strong for an open-world title. It feels solid, motion is fluid, and controller latency - while a little muggy - is at least consistent for most of the duration. First impressions on making our way through the first mission Xbox One are rather positive: the game seems to be a complete match for the PS4 version, locking at 30fps.

When render time runs over budget, an adaptive v-sync kicks in when the game can no longer sustain 30fps, resulting in the manifestation of screen-tear until overall engine load has stabilised. Therein lies the principal difference between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of the game - the Microsoft console runs over budget more often, especially in driving sections, meaning more tearing. Noticeable, but not especially annoying on PS4, the Xbox One version is somewhat more intrusive in this regard - with tearing even appearing in certain cut-scenes, which remain completely solid on the Sony console.

Perhaps more disappointing are the issues with PC performance. We noted a lot of comments online about stutter and can confirm that this is an issue, even with powerful gaming hardware. It appears that streaming of assets is the major culprit as adjusting texture quality has much more of an effect than dialling back graphical presets. We'll go into depth on PC performance in the full Face-Off, coming soon, but first impressions are that while the stutter issue remains in effect on Nvidia hardware (with v-sync active, we see occasional frame-time dips from 16ms to 33ms to 50ms), it is much more of an issue with the AMD cards. Even going nuclear and throwing a top-end 290X at the problem didn't produce a satisfactory experience.

Watch Dogs PS3: has last-gen hardware had its day? (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

Built from the ground up with the new generation of gaming hardware in mind, it's easy to forget that Ubisoft Montreal's new open-world cyber-thriller is actually a cross-generational release, also available for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Multi-platform titles are necessarily built with scalability in mind - it's essential for the PC gaming market - but the question we're interested in today is whether Watch Dogs is a sign that we're finally at breaking point. Should last-gen hardware be left behind by AAA developers? Or does less-capable hardware still offers a viable alternative?

To get to the heart of the matter, we have the PS3 version to compare with Watch Dogs' PlayStation 4 release, the technical strengths of which we've already covered in detail. The Disrupt engine benefits from the newer Sony console's processing power to handle the AI and physics elements of a vast Chicago city sandbox - all delivered at 1600x900 and backed by a stable 30fps. Meanwhile, on PS3 it's fair to say the core mechanics hold together faithfully enough, with all abilities, missions and areas transferring unscathed, but the gloss over the top is significantly pared back and the resulting visuals can be startlingly different at times.

In terms of the base image, PS3 pushes out a native resolution of around 1152x648, reinforced by what appears to be an FXAA solution for edge treatment - the weakest option on PC. But as you can see from our head-to-head video below (and the Watch Dogs PS3 vs PS4 comparison gallery), this is far from the biggest issue with the game's visual make-up.

The biggest step backwards is easily in the lighting department. The opening baseball stadium mission is a great example, with individual spotlights on PS4 illuminating each room with a strong bloom effect. On PS3, this is noticeably pared back and most light sources are stripped out completely from the scene - making for a much darker, dimmer image. It's an unfortunate loss and one that sticks out most vividly in our cross-gen comparison gallery.

As for the shadows themselves - there's no PC preset equivalent to what the PS3 is using. Instead, we have a percentage-closer filtering (PCF) method at play, also recently seen in the PS3 edition of Metal Gear Rising. It's a solution that typically gets use on the platform as an alternative to the dithered shadows on 360 counterparts, delivering sharper shadow outlines to outdoor buildings, trees and characters. It looks stark and lacks subtlety, and while it avoids the dithering artefacts of the PS4 shadows, it comes at the cost of heavy aliasing when viewed up close.

Both textures and shadows are affected by a heavy filtering cascade too, noticeably creeping along the ground just a few paces ahead of Aiden Pearce. Curiously, actual texture resolution is a mixture of PC presets, based on location. At our initial hideout on PS3, for example, the detail on the wall-projected map of Chicago matches the quality of the PC's high settings. However, outdoors pavements and fences fall closer to the garish medium setting - a significant downgrade from PS4.

Unfortunately, even with all these nips and tucks Watch Dogs simply doesn't run well on the PS3. It's a constant tussle for 30fps that rarely resolves itself successfully, and instead the game tends to flatten out at the 20fps line during our tests. This makes for some truly choppy visual feedback that makes handling cars in rapid pursuits feel off-kilter.

Additional

Does Watch Dogs deliver on its stunning E3 2012 reveal?
Was there really a Watch Dogs graphics downgrade?

Summary

PS4

• 1600x900p @ 30fps


• SMAA


• Ambient Occlusion (AO)


• Better framerate


• Less screen-tearing

Xbox One

• 1408 x 792p @ 30fps


• SMAA


• Removed/reduced Ambient Occlusion (AO)


• Lower shadown quality


• Worse framerate


• More screen-tearing

PS3

• 1152x648p @ 30fps


• FXAA, heavily aliasing


• Removed most light sources, darker, dimmer image


• Worst shadows quality


• Terrible framerate (rarely 30fps, down to 20fps)


• Bad textures

[Shinobi-san]

I wish Ubisoft had spent more time polishing the PS4, XB1 and PC versions....it feels like neither version really impresses.

[Dr. Pezus]

Lol, this makes all the youtube comments like "PC master race" "shaming console graphics" etc. on trailers and gameplay vids for it a lot funnier (I'm a PC gamer and yet I find those elitist comments annoying). The graphics aren't that good on any platform but the PC version seems to be terribly optimized.

[darkknightkryta]

Lol, this makes all the youtube comments like "PC master race" "shaming console graphics" etc. on trailers and gameplay vids for it a lot funnier (I'm a PC gamer and yet I find those elitist comments annoying). The graphics aren't that good on any platform but the PC version seems to be terribly optimized.

Yeah I was messing around with the PC version.  It really doesn't look better than a really good PS3 game.  Nor does it run well.

[ethomaz]

Yeah I was messing around with the PC version.  It really doesn't look better than a really good PS3 game.  Nor does it run well.

Performance is the key points here... overall image quality is better on PC but it issues put it behind PS4 version... things will change after patch fix.

[darkknightkryta]

Performance is the key points here... overall image quality is better on PC but it issues put it behind PS4 version... things will change after patch fix.

Yeah, but it still don't look to good.  Infamous is WAY better looking.

[7H3]

I've been enjoying the game... It is much bigger than inFamous with a lot more crud going on all at once so I'm not surprised it looks not as good as inFamous, but then again what does look that good?

[ethomaz]

Another future DF Face-Off

http://gamingbolt.com/shadow-warrior-runs-at-900p-on-xbox-one-and-1080p-on-ps4-both-versions-locked-at-60fps

[Dr. Pezus]

Another future DF Face-Off

http://gamingbolt.com/shadow-warrior-runs-at-900p-on-xbox-one-and-1080p-on-ps4-both-versions-locked-at-60fps

Also PvsZ in August

[ethomaz]

Face-Off: Wolfenstein: The New Order (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

id Tech 5 was designed from the ground up for 60fps gameplay, so what kind of results could be extracted from it now all the power of the new generation of consoles is at its disposal? With last week's release of Machine Games' Wolfenstein: The New Order, we finally found out. In our initial performance analysis, we went in search of the first cross-platform 1080p60 first-person shooter and while the game mostly delivered, the dicovery of a dynamic resolution suggested that, once again, PlayStation 4 had managed to trump its Microsoft rival.

After first isolating an obvious example of the tech at work on Xbox One, a more detailed look at the captures revealed that both versions of the game achieve their locked 60Hz update by adjusting the amount of pixels rendered at any given point, in effect balancing engine load in order to put consistent refresh and controller response first.

Having now completed our analysis, it's clear that the PS4 gains an advantage with smaller drops in resolution that occur less frequently than they do on Xbox One. Metrics in the area of 1760x1080 are found on PS4, while on the Xbox One this can drop to an extreme of 960x1080 in some scenes. This is usually identifiable by an increase in the amount of jaggies on screen, along with a slightly fuzzier appearance to the already gritty aesthetic that Machine Games employs throughout the game.

Featuring a similar file size on all platforms (around 40GB) the same artwork is used across the PS4, Xbox One and PC versions of Wolfenstein, with environments featuring a mix of incredibly high and extremely low-resolution textures. Despite asset parity, the level of anisotropic filtering is slightly higher on the consoles. Streaming is handled to a similar degree across all formats with variable levels of texture pop-in between the three platforms. There's no clear winner here - all three have issues at various points, although PS4 and PC owners should be able to improve matter by installing an SSD into those systems.

So just how scalable is id Tech 5? The true test of the engine would be to compare the results of the new consoles with the last. Unfortunately Bethesda didn't send us last-gen code, but we borrowed the PS3 version and stacked it up against The New Order running on PS4 to see the key advantages the new consoles bring to the game. Naturally, the target resolution is pegged at 720p on PS3, but a dynamic framebuffer regularly results in sub-HD visuals as the engine attempts to hold a solid 60fps - just as it did in the PS3 version of Rage. This results in a somewhat murkier look, with fuzzier geometry edges - exacerbated by the lack of anti-aliasing - and blurrier textures.

Performance Analysis: Wolfenstein: The New Order (Thanks stryke@GAF)

Key to this is the 60fps update. As the performance video below demonstrates, Wolfenstein: The New Order achieves a perfect frame-rate on both consoles - something Machine Games puts down to the nature of id Tech 5 itself.

Overall image quality also looks pretty close indeed between the two consoles: there's a base 1080p native rendering resolution (unfortunately short on anti-aliasing), parity in lighting and texture work and an identical feel to the way the game plays. However, there is one interesting difference - in the comparison above, you can see an area of the game that operates at something in the region of 1440x1080 on Xbox One, while the PS4 and PC versions remain at the native 1080p resolution.

Other Xbox One shots show no upscaling at all, perhaps suggesting some kind of limited dynamic resolution - or maybe it's just a bug specific to this particular part of the game, a cut-scene that quickly segues into gameplay. What's odd is that compared to the carnage seen elsewhere in the game, the scene indicated is relatively sedate, so the notion of a dynamic framebuffer that adjusts pixel-count according to engine load (something we did see used frequently in Rage) seems unlikely. We'll play on and see whether we see any more differences along these lines.

Summary

PS4

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps (dynamic resolution down to 1760x1080)


• Bad AA implementation


• Pop-in textures (can be improved with better HDD)


• Better shadown quality

Xbox One

• 1920 x 1080p @ 60fps (dynamic resolution down to 960x1080)


• Bad AA implementation


• Pop-in textures


• Lower shadown quality

[ethomaz]

Digital Foundry vs Mario Kart 8

When it comes to performance, Nintendo has always aimed to deliver a rock-solid 60 frames per second with each home console Mario Kart and, aside from Mario Kart 64, it has always managed to achieve just that. There was never any doubt that Mario Kart 8 would fall right in line with the rest of the series but upon seeing it for ourselves we immediately noticed that something was amiss. During gameplay we experienced the regular appearance of duplicate frames manifesting as a constant but subtle stuttering effect. Upon analysis we determined that the game suffers from extended clusters in which a duplicate frame is displayed every 64 frames. What this ultimately means is that, during normal gameplay, Mario Kart 8 continually drops down to 59fps. This may not seem like a big deal - most will probably not notice it at all, and it has zero affect on playability - but it has a noticeable impact on image fluidity that mars what would otherwise be a perfectly consistent frame-rate. And for us at least, once it is seen, it can't really be unseen.

Unfortunately, two-player split-screen operates in much the same way, suffering from the same frame-rate disturbances of as single-player, provided CPU racers are enabled of course. It's with the three- and four-player modes that things become even more fascinating. At first glance the four-player split-screen mode appears to operate at 30fps, but if you look closer you'll notice something interesting: the HUD updates at 60Hz. Digging deeper we were able to determine that the complete image is still updated 60 times per second with the top and bottom sections refreshing on alternative frames.

By most standards, Mario Kart 8 is an incredibly polished game with beautiful visuals, a high frame-rate, magical playability and an excellent menu system. By Nintendo's stratospheric standards, however, we dare say that it falls just a bit short. When a Nintendo game goes gold you better believe the final product will be complete and polished to perfection. In the case of Mario Kart 8, the issues we encountered with performance and image quality do detract just a little from an otherwise totally solid experience - and bearing in mind its previous, relentless push for gaming perfection, it leaves us wondering just how the stutter in particular managed to slip past Nintendo QA. Thankfully, the issue should only really stick out to those most sensitive to frame-rate and shouldn't impact the experience for most people, while the sheer fun and imagination injected into this title clearly trump the technical limitations in the image make-up.

Sumary

Wii U

• 1280x720p @ 60fps for SP (well rock solid 59fps to be fair)


• 1280x720p @ 30fps for Split-screen


• No AA


• Pop-in LOD for environment objects

[Raven]

Face-Off: Wolfenstein: The New Order

Sumary

PS4

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps (dynamic resolution down to 1760x1080)


• Bad AA implementation


• Pop-in textures (can be improved with better HDD)


• Better shadown quality

Xbox One

• 1920 x 1080p @ 60fps (dynamic resolution down to 960x1080)


• Bad AA implementation


• Pop-in textures


• Lower shadown quality

Now wait just a dang minute. I was told that Wolfenstein looked better on Xbox One...

[ethomaz]

Now wait just a dang minute. I was told that Wolfenstein looked better on Xbox One...

Who told you that?

Outside of the more aggressive dynamic framebuffer on the Xbox One, there's little to separate it from the PS4 game. Shadow quality is slightly better on the PS4, but the artwork, effects and lighting are all basically identical. The PS4 holds up the closest in delivering a native 1080p experience at 60fps, so benefits from slightly more consistent image quality. As such, once again it's the PS4 release that is our preferred console choice. However, the differences between the two consoles are minor and Wolfenstein is really a worthwhile purchase no matter which one of these systems you own.

[Raven]

Who told you that?

I was joking. I was pretending to be an Xbox fan who was using battleship screenshots to prove the X1 version was better. I can't remember which site it was but they tried to pull that.