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

[ethomaz]

Face-Off: Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn on PS4 (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

Square Enix handed in a solid MMORPG with Final Fantasy 14 Online: A Realm Reborn, despite a gruelling two-year development period that saw the original game rebuilt and radically redesigned with a new engine, gameplay systems and network infrastructure. We've already covered the PC and PS3 versions of the game extensively, but now there's a PS4 version in town. Freed from the shackles of seven-year-old hardware, does it mean console players can finally enjoy the same polished experience available on PC?

Previously, producer/director Naoki Yoshida has said that the developers were targeting a native 1080p presentation for this PS4 version, with similar graphics quality to the PC version running on maximum settings. Taking a look at the framebuffer, we can indeed confirm a full HD resolution, backed up by a fairly standard FXAA implementation.

Image quality is a match for the PC version, right down to the slight texture blur and shimmering across sub-pixel elements of the scene. The pixel precision afforded by 1080p ensures scenery and characters in the near field appear reasonably clean and well-presented, although it fails to prevent the appearance of jaggies elsewhere.

A Realm Reborn on PS4 was also supposed to be targeting a consistent 60fps frame-rate, but the final version of Realm Reborn actually comes with an unlocked frame-rate (capped at 60Hz) and the goal of keeping things north of 30fps. It's a similar set-up to Square Enix stable-mate Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, and suggests the game is more demanding to run than its origins on ageing hardware might imply.

Looking closely through the shots in our Final Fantasy 14 triple-format comparison gallery, the only real difference between the PS4 and PC is the visibly lower level of anisotropic filtering on Sony's console. The PC version operates with 16x AF in our shots, while reduced effect on PS4 leads to texture details becoming blurred when viewed from sharp angles, although otherwise the artwork remains relatively crisp and clear.

Another key graphical advantage over last-gen is the way assets are handled on PS4 and PC as you explore the expansive environments. Level-of-detail transitions are far less aggressive, and as a result characters and the surrounding scenery are less prone to culling at a distance. Small bushes, fences and other objects are clearly visible on the horizon, resulting in a world that feels more alive and detailed when you gaze across the landscape.

Of course, the vast technical upgrade over the PS3 version is perhaps to be expected, but more impressive perhaps is the lengths to which Square Enix has gone in integrating the PS4's unique features. Basic DualShock 4 functionality is similar way to PS3 version, although there are more Cross Hotbar customisation options, but the touchpad really helps, putting a decent replacement for a PC mouse at the tip of your finger.

Summary

PS4

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps (1280x720p @ 60fps ingame option)
• FXAA
• Unlocked frame-rate (most time 30-45fps)
• Lower level of anisotropic filtering (AF) compared with PC
• Slight texture blur and shimmering across sub-pixel elements of the scene compared with PC

[ethomaz]

EA Sports UFC demo performance analysis

This one is based in the Demo... so I won't put in the list until the final version but you can see the differences:

Both 900p@30fps
4xMSAA PS4 / 2xMSAA Xbox One
Better motion blur on PS4
Better effects and IQ on PS4

[Dr. Pezus]

EA Sports UFC demo performance analysis

This one is based in the Demo... so I won't put in the list until the final version but you can see the differences:

Both 900p@30fps
4xMSAA PS4 / 2xMSAA Xbox One
Better motion blur on PS4
Better effects and IQ on PS4

Not 1080p?! Wtf

[ethomaz]

Not 1080p?! Wtf

Lock the pictures on the article... there are a festival of jaggies and blurry.

[ethomaz]

Face-Off: Borderlands 2 on PlayStation Vita (Thanks nhlducks35@GAF)

It's an unfortunate move for an open-world action RPG, with some of its sparser areas clearly built to suit a higher player count - though this isn't a killing blow for the overall experience. Borderlands 2 is presented at the Vita's full native resolution of 960x544, marking it as one of the few big-budget titles to pull this feat off. This spares us some nasty upscaling issues with its stylish black comic-book style borders, and means it look very crisp. There is no anti-aliasing to speak of, but the Vita's smaller screen does help minimise the distraction of jagged edges.

With the Vita release updated to version 1.1 - the latest at the time of writing - we go into comparisons with its PS3 and 360 siblings expecting the worst on the visual front. Indeed, as shown by our head-to-head comparison video below, it's clear that a downgrade is in place for just about every facet of Borderlands 2's visual design - a state of affairs you can look at more closely in our Borderlands 2 PS Vita/PS3/Xbox 360 comparison gallery. Most striking is the removal of all shadows, which in concert with the dropped texture resolution leaves the world looking very plain by contrast.

To start, an adaptive v-sync setup is in place as with PS3 and 360, allowing the Vita to tear frames whenever it drops from 30fps. Unfortunately this happens more often than any other version, with 20fps often being the average during battle with a regular Bullymong pack - and descending far lower for a boss encounter with Captain Flynt. In a scenario involving columns of fire rising from the floor, we hit 15fps as a baseline for the duration of the fight, with hiccups causing further drops to a record low of 8fps.

Borderlands 2 Vita's tendency to stutter is the greater of two evils here. While a lock at even a constant 20fps would have been barely passable, level streaming and bursts of alpha effects in battle cause regular hiccups - making the camera suddenly jolt in directions never intended. It's borderline uncontrollable at times, and in conjunction with the tearing, makes a complex area like Sanctuary a real sight to behold. Improvements are promised in this area via a future patch, but just how much more can be trimmed from Borderlands 2's core functionality or visuals remains to be seen.

Summary

PS Vita

• 960x544p @ 60fps
• No AA
• Bad framerate (avg. 20fps on battles hitting down of 15fps or even 8fps)
• Dropped all shadows
• Dropped texture resolution

[Dr. Pezus]

And I just finished BL2 at max and physx effects on PC lol. Looked dang good

[ethomaz]

And I just finished BL2 at max and physx effects on PC lol. Looked dang good

The game was fine on PS3 with some drops with a lot happening on screen but from what I read about the Vita version it is close to unplayable.

[ethomaz]

Seems like PS4 will receive a day one patch to 1080p.

http://www.cinemablend.com/m/games/EA-Sports-UFC-Could-1080p-PS4-900p-Xbox-One-64534.html

[ethomaz]

Digital Foundry released a article talking about Watch Dogs downgrade.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-was-there-really-a-watch-dogs-graphics-downgrade

Yeap... it was

[ethomaz]

Next-Gen Face-Off: Titanfall (Thanks ElTorro@GAF)

Bearing in mind this particular focus, it should come as little surprise to see that Titanfall's assets and rendering properties are almost a complete match between Xbox One and PC. The console gains access to the "insane" texture quality levels of the computer version - which requires a 3GB video card to run smoothly - and aside from an "only noticeable in still shots" downgrade to shadow quality, most of the rendering assets are very close indeed between both versions.

The 792p resolution on Xbox One is a curious one. It's a 21 per cent increase over 720p, and the use of multi-sampling anti-aliasing makes it punch a little above its weight in an era where the more usual post-process AA can actively harm image quality at lower resolutions (as seen on Battlefield 4 on Xbox One). However, when we first saw Titanfall, we were pretty certain we were seeing 720p or something close to it (1366x768 perhaps). We remain curious about why Respawn would choose this particular framebuffer size, as that additional 21 per cent of resolution isn't giving us a boost in quality commensurate with the GPU resources being allocated to it. The question is, could that graphics power have been better deployed elsewhere?

There's been plenty of talk about Titanfall's sub-native resolution, but while that is not exactly ideal, the biggest problem we have with the game in its current format is that the magic combination of ingredients that made Modern Warfare work has come slightly off the boil here: the Xbox One version simply cannot sustain the required 60fps. The consistency in performance just isn't there and so the gameplay often doesn't feel quite right.

So, just like the beta, we see Titanfall frame-rates on Xbox One dip into the mid-30s at its worst, and at those points the rock-solid consistency we saw in the early iterations of the Modern Warfare experience is gone, and with it - arguably - the essence of the "twitch" shooter. In mitigation this does tend to happen while you're seated in your Titan, so the need for ultra-low latency controls is lessened, but there's no doubt that the player's immersion in the experience is dented by the compromised performance.

Respawn's adaptive v-sync decision works out OK for general, on-foot pilot gameplay but there's still too much of the 'adaptive' and not enough of the 'v-sync', resulting in an obvious tearing that impacts visual consistency. However, the effects vary: with little in the way of left/right panning, it manifests almost like a 'wobble' - noticeable, but nothing that unduly affects the quality of the gameplay. However, in the middle of pitched battle, with the player spinning around to tackle new threats, the tearing is very obvious and highly distracting.

Well, we put some time into this and didn't spot any single-digit frame-rates, but this is clearly a great way to stress-test the game, and we can well imagine that if all 12 Titans were let loose in a confined space, frame-rates could plummet to a noticeably unacceptable level.

We ran the game on our recently constructed "next-gen" Digital Foundry PC, pairing a six-core AMD FX-6300 with a GeForce GTX 760. Texture quality needs to drop to very high, but otherwise, everything is on max and we can hit 1080p60 with lashings of anti-aliasing, but the performance level is not sustained - but still a clearly noticeable improvement over Xbox One. Frame-rates were OK overall, but it's a little sobering that the same machine achieves a higher overall performance level on Battlefield 4 on high settings. We also tried our high-end games machine featuring an overclocked Core i7-3770K matched with a GTX 780. At this point we could run Titanfall on insane texture settings with maximum anti-aliasing with just occasional stutter at 1080p, but we lost the 60fps lock when ramping up the resolution to 2560x1440.

When we spoke to Respawn producer Drew McCoy at Gamescom last year, we were fully onboard with the "frame-rate is king" response when we asked about the possibility of 1080p60 on Xbox One. The key to the best Titanfall experience is all about the frame-rate - it's a crucial element of the interface between player and game and it's a core element in defining the gameplay. The end product is still a massive entertaining, highly playable piece of software, but on Xbox One at least, the performance level clearly isn't anywhere near locked to the magic 60fps, with Respawn sailing dangerously close on occasion to nerfing the the magic formula that makes this game great.

By and large, when you need the signature twitch-levels of response, Titanfall delivers, but it does so at a price - eye-rending screen-tear. That's a compromise that the erstwhile-Infinity Ward team members never implemented during their run on Modern Warfare and we were surprised to see it manifest so obviously here. As a result, the pure thoroughbred arcade experience that defined Call of Duty and is instrumental to Titanfall's success is left somewhat compromised, with a level of visual artefacting that frequently looks plain ugly.

To be clear though - while this is an easy win for the PC, any Titanfall purchase is still a good one. Respawn's focus on technology to facilitate fun as opposed to pushing back the frontiers of rendering has paid off, and while the Xbox One game has its issues, there's no doubt that the experience is enjoyable. However, from everything we know about the studio and what it sets out to achieve with its games, we can't help but feel that Xbox One under-delivers while the PC game is much closer to the experience the developers set out to create.

Titanfall has clear performance issues on Xbox One, but it's still a fun experience. However, when playing on PC, the fluidity in refresh, response and control is leagues ahead.

Face-Off: Titanfall on Xbox 360 (Thanks nbnt@GAF)

The 360's architecture is also tailored to carefully when it comes to resolution. A 1040x600 native frame-buffer is deployed, which falls curiously close to the number used in Infinity Ward's earlier Call of Duty titles. This is for good reason: it's a figure that carries the advantage of fitting within the console's 10mb EDRAM limit, a fast scratch-pad that opens up 2x MSAA to developers at a zero performance penalty.

Texture assets and geometry inevitably need the nip-tuck as well. From a memory standpoint, the ability to draw in textures as needed helps massively, but garish-looking normal maps do crop up in more complex areas like Fracture. There's a pixellated appearance to walls and ground surfaces that stands at odds with other objects, which can use markedly higher-quality maps. Geometry, on the other hand, is a very close match for the Xbox One and PC versions, with meshes mainly downgraded a step for objects in animation, or with dynamic properties.

But the most immediately eye-catching difference is to the game's lighting. Here the 360 is using a simplified, static lighting model which relies solely on pre-baking shadows around a level. Characters still produce shadows dynamically, with a much fainter contour to them than the rich outlines on Xbox One, but in a curious twist, these are no longer affected by an obvious shadow-filtering cascade. In all, the changes make the world appear altogether brighter, albeit with sharper shadows at a distance - a worthwhile trade-off given the huge savings in graphics processing.

Just as with the Xbox One release, the bigger issue with any surge of alpha effects is the dips in performance they can bring. For this release, gone is even a hope of holding at 60fps, and instead the 360 pushes out between 30 and 50fps when the frame-rate is unlocked. It's an uneven level of response that makes control less dependable than a perfectly locked 60fps, though still much smoother than a cap at 30fps.

By following similar routes through Titanfall's campaign we're able to better gauge performance between the 360 and Xbox One. On average, the older console carries a lower rate of refresh that bears out for controller response, creating an experience that feels less smooth. The Xbox One release does have persisting issues, however, and suffers from sharp, unexpected lurches downwards - often without a clear cause. It's a comparison that ends up flattering the optimisation work on 360, while casting doubts about the suitability of the underlying tech for newer platforms.

The frame-rate situation is also impressive in light of it being a game designed for a far faster platform. The game's controls come across as sluggish by comparison to the Xbox One edition, and the visuals suffer greatly for the high levels of screen-tear. Regardless, it has no aspirations to hit 60fps in the first place, meaning the 30fps lock option is a very attractive alternative - and one which would sit well on Xbox One given its own current difficulties hitting 60fps at times.

Additional

Watch Titanfall on Xbox One at 60fps
Tech Analysis: Titanfall beta on Xbox One and PC
Titanfall ships at 792p on Xbox One
Titanfall tech interview
Performance analysis: Titanfall on Xbox 360

Summary

Xbox One

• 1408x792p @ 60fps
• 2x MSAA
• Framerate dips to unacceptable levels in some cases
• Poor texture quality
• Screen-tearing
• Noticeable judder

Xbox 360

• 1040x600p @ 30fps
• 2x MSAA
• Locked framerate (there is a option to unlock where it runs between 30 and 50fps)
• Texture assets and geometry quality dropped compared with Xbox One version
• simplified, static lighting model which relies solely on pre-baking shadows

[ethomaz]

Diablo 3 is 1080p on PS4, 900p on XBO

Both version at 60fps.

[ethomaz]

Battlefield Hardline beta performance analysis

Has Frostbite 3 really hit 1080p at 60fps on PlayStation 4?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-battlefield-hardline-beta-performance-analysis

The best is 900p @ 40-60fps.

[ethomaz]

Tech Analysis: Destiny alpha on PS4

Nothing new here... 1080p with solid 30fps... FXAA.

[ethomaz]

Tech Analysis: Grand Theft Auto 5 on PS4

Well I think this one is just a article to clicks than anything else... wait the game be out to make the comparisons lol

[Riderz1337]

Tech Analysis: Grand Theft Auto 5 on PS4

Well I think this one is just a article to clicks than anything else... wait the game be out to make the comparisons lol

They made a tech analysis using just the trailer??

Well that's pretty dumb...What's the point lol