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

[7H3]

LOL that's so wrong

[ethomaz]

LOL that's so wrong

It is terrible bad... looks at this pic from the Gamespot review.



Looks like split-screen lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L0Dz_-fklQ

[7H3]

decent review

[ethomaz]

Another gif from XB1 version.

[Dr. Pezus]

My eyes can't handle this shame

[7H3]

man I hope they fix that or something... that's crazy bad

[ethomaz]

My eyes can't handle this shame

I said before I prefer a variable framerate with better gameplay with some screen tearing over a locked 30fps and little to no screen tearing but this amount of screen tearing is just ridiculous... I can't handle it... in this case the locked 30fps looks way better.

Uncharted 1 had some good amount of screen tearing but even so it was way low than that game on XB1.

[ethomaz]

man I hope they fix that or something... that's crazy bad

They fixed... there are a optiion to vsync and lock the framerate at 30fps... day one patch.

[ethomaz]

Face-Off: Sniper Elite 3 (Thanks ethomaz@VizionEck)

Instead, Rebellion looks to have focused on optimising the in-house technology in order to boost performance, targeting 60fps on both Sony and Microsoft's new consoles while providing enough visual flair to comfortably eclipse the majority of last-gen console titles. The decision to aim for the gold standard in frame-rate in a shooter that requires the player to make precision shots is arguably the right call, although in practice neither console version of Sniper Elite 3 manages to achieve the perceptual 60fps that defines the likes of the Call of Duty titles. This is something that more strongly affects the Xbox One version of Sniper Elite 3, which also features a few additional graphical shortcomings compared to the PS4 and PC releases.

That said, resolution is clearly one area that hasn't been compromised on either console platform, with both delivering a native 1080p presentation, combined with the use of post-process anti-aliasing that successfully avoids excessively blurring texture detail - something you can check out in the video below or the Sniper Elite 3 comparison gallery. A light coating of sub-pixel shimmer mildly taints the otherwise reasonably solid image quality, but it is only a minor drawback. Judging by the way coverage is applied across the whole scene it looks like a customised FXAA variant may be in play, and this is hinted at by the edge-smoothing options in the PC menu, which offers low, medium and high settings. The latter is used on both PS4 and Xbox One and we also opted to use this setting for our PC capture session.

Outside of these differences, the PS4 game matches up closely to the PC release, aside from featuring a lower level of anisotropic filtering (we reckon it's 8x against 16x on the PC) that mildly impacts distant texture sharpness. On the other hand, things appear a little more ropey on Xbox One, with Rebellion making a number of graphical sacrifices, perhaps in order to achieve native 1080p while targeting 60fps. These mainly come down to a reduction in texture filtering. Indirect shadowing is also limited to screen-space ambient occlusion, while the PS4 and PC appear to utilise a more advanced implementation known as obscurance fields. This effect takes into account the radius between objects across the entire scene to produce a steady fall off with the indirect shadowing between light and dark areas, whereas SSAO creates a simpler black halo around objects that doesn't take into account such properties. [Update: Rebellion says they're present on Xbox One and that's confirmed, but we're still seeing what looks like its omission in certain places as seen in the comparison zoomer above.]

In terms of console performance, achieving a similar level of stability is out of the question - both versions feature fluctuating frame-rates that impact upon the overall experience. However, it is the PS4 that comes closest to delivering a 60fps experience, although frame-rate varies wildly from scene to scene. The opening act provides us with a close comparison across both consoles in a situation that sees the engine being heavily stressed as particle effects, explosions, and scripted environmental destruction litter these early scenes.

Here we see similar frame-rates across both consoles, with the PS4 version edging out an occasional 5-10fps lead while remaining solidly v-synced. In comparison, the Xbox One game tears constantly and this generates additional judder and a distinct screen wobble that proves distracting when shooting targets from far away. As we move further into the stage, the differences become more pronounced despite the action shifting into slightly quieter territory, with the PS4 hitting a near-solid 60fps while the Xbox One game trails behind in the mid-40s. [Update: Thanks for the comments, yes, the Xbox One launch day patch adds a v-sync option. It's actually an adaptive v-sync that appears to lock gameplay to 30fps, with occasional tearing when the engine dips below that target, as you can see from the videos below.]

The performance analysis suggests that Rebellion wanted to target 60fps on both platforms but simply wasn't able to closely achieve anywhere near that on the Xbox One without compromising image quality. In which case a choice was made to disable v-sync in order to get the fastest controller response possible and to allow for the higher frame-rate, albeit at the expense of some horrible screen tearing. Consistency metrics are revealing here because we actually see more latency during frame drops on the PS4 due to the strict adherence to v-sync - frames are either rendered at 16.67ms or 33.3ms when frames are dropped - but the poor frame-rate and judder caused by the tearing means that Xbox One never 'feels' more responsive in practice, even though frame-time hovers a lot more closely around the desired 16.67ms mark.

There's also the issue that the analogue sticks on the Xbox One controller simply don't feel as quick to respond as those on the PS4's DualShock 4. It seems like the overall range is spread across more travel - how far the sticks physically move - resulting in a heavier feel that lacks the twitch sensation available on the PS4. That said, even with these compromises it's clear that Rebellion made the right choice where gameplay is concerned: enabling v-sync would almost certainly have things locked closer to 30fps than would be ideal - affecting controller response in the process - and this would have resulted in a heavier feel to the game that would have set it even further apart from the PS4 and PC versions.

Summary

PS4

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps
• FXAA
• 8x AF
• Close to Ultra Settings in PC at same resolution
• 5-10 fps dips under heavy action scenes

Xbox One

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps (Locked 30fps if V-Sync enable)
• FXAA
• None or lower AF
• Lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing
• Trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen
• Suffers a lot from tearing

[ethomaz]

Another E3 demo face-off.

Tech Analysis: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Nothing new... XB1... 900p and framerate issues.

[ethomaz]

For these that want to see how Destiny compared with old gen consoles.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-destiny-ps3-beta

[ethomaz]

Destiny PS4 vs Xbox One Beta.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-destiny-xbox-one-beta

Of course, the difference between the current 1600x900 throughput on Xbox One and the full 1920x1080 on PS4 is perceptible, even through the heavy FXAA post-process anti-aliasing in effect on both.
[...] Put side-by-side, the Xbox One produces slightly fuzzier detailing on these elements, though the actual quality of textures - and filtering - is a complete match between the two.

But before we go on, there's one very important question we need to address. Is any comparison from the beta relevant at all when Bungie has already stated its intention to run the final Xbox One release of Destiny at full 1080p, matching its PlayStation 4 counterpart? Will that increase in resolution come at the detriment of anything else? While the additional 10 per cent of rendering resources afforded by the recent Kinect-unbundling XDK update are welcome, it does not offer up enough GPU horsepower to bridge the gap between 900p and 1080p rendering.


But even in the Xbox One's improved 1080p build, one nit-pick stands out between the next-gen consoles; a change to the HUD. On PS4 we see a three-dimensional curved display for ammo and health gauges, backed by a chromatic aberration after-effect. The Xbox One, meanwhile, adopts the flat designs also laid across the last-gen versions' screens, delivered without the extra visual twist. This is obviously a minuscule detail in the grand scheme of what the game achieves, and largely comes down to personal preference.

For the campaign side, the Xbox One stutters only fleetingly during an early shoot-out in the Restoration mission. But in line with the PS4, it's otherwise a smooth, fully v-synced 30fps game during every other battle. The only other nit-pick is a brief stutter during fast travel with the Sparrow. In our synchronized test we see a level streaming hiccup occurring between the Steppes and Mothyards areas, curiously affecting the PS3 and PS4 versions in the exact same spot.

All in all, it's a very encouraging scenario. Both next-gen consoles run at the same levels of world detail in this early build, with Xbox One also a match for the PS4's stable frame-rate. The only bug-bear is the 900p versus 1080p differential, where the PS4 benefits from a clearer image. However, based on footage released of the 1080p Xbox One build so far, this is to be corrected with no apparent sacrifices to visuals elsewhere. Where performance is concerned, we'll have to see nearer release whether this 1080p playback is achieved with no impact to the game's smooth, consistent frame-rate.

[ethomaz]

Digital Foundry vs The Last of Us Remastered (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

So let's look at the tentpole enhancements as Naughty Dog has outlined them. Principally, we're looking at 1080p resolution at 60fps in both single and multi-player, a 4x detail increase to texture maps and a 2x resolution boost to shadow maps. Texture streaming is no longer required owing to the PS4's prodigious RAM, and there's longer draw distances, better LOD and improved particle effects. In essence, Naughty Dog has scaled up the original game to full HD and boosted assets to match, while doubling frame-rate. How does that look? Well, we've prepared a 22-minute 60fps gameplay capture here, downscaled from full resolution captures, and we've provided a 1080p60 download that should work just fine on most modern computers - and indeed the PlayStation 3.

This segment - chosen to leave the heart-rending prologue unspoiled - gives a much better account of the quality of the game than the prologue, and it's important to point out that this is a remaster, not a remake. Where existing higher quality assets are available (for example, cut-scene character models) they are utilised, but there's little evidence to suggest that Naughty Dog has upgraded any of the environments, or boosted geometry. First impressions aren't actually that impressive - The Last of Us' prologue initially has you in control of an unenhanced character model and despite the mooted enhancements to texture and shadow quality, the overall impression is that next-gen is actually much more of a leap than you'd give it credit for. Geometry quality is unimpressive, environment detail is relatively spartan and this section does little to showcase the game at its best.

It's also apparent that there's still a yawning chasm between the quality of the pre-rendered cinematics - almost certainly rendered at a much higher resolution, then downscaled - and the game itself, resulting in a jarring leap between FMV and gameplay not helped by a small pause between them. Uncharted's cinematics were rendered in-engine but were designed to look like gameplay with seamless transitions, making for a more consistent experience and that is lacking here. What's clear is that Naughty Dog has completely re-rendered each cut-scene though - they would have been 30fps on PS3 to match the gameplay, and they're running at 60 here, with compression artefacts only really a noticeable problem on very dark scenes.

However, more GPU-intensive effects may have impacted The Last of Us Remastered's other major enhancement: 60fps gameplay, doubled from the PS3 30fps standard (and based on our analysis videos, a target it frequently had issues sustaining). To answer the question everyone's been asking, frame-rate isn't locked to 60fps, but The Last of Us Remastered does spend the vast majority of its time at the optimal refresh. Problems can kick in during busy combat scenes, and just like the PS3 version, particles and transparent effects in particular can take their toll - the first confrontation with a fungus-spewing Bloater sees frame-rate hit a minimum of 48fps.

The good news is that this is pretty much as bad as it got across multiple hours of gameplay, and it's telling that in the 14-minute performance analysis video below (comprised of a number of gameplay clips), the game holds its lock well for the vast majority of its duration. You'll need to skip ahead to the nine minute mark to see the combat clips that caused genuine issues for this first iteration of the Naughty Dog engine running on PS4. At this point it has to be said that the game's day one patch was not available for testing, so there remains the possibility that things may improve once that hits - and we'll be sure to update you if that is the case.

Face-Off: The Last of Us Remastered (Thanks Vashetti@GAF)

Striking at the opportune moment, Naughty Dog's award-winning The Last of Us is now available to PlayStation 4 owners in remastered form - giving both newcomers and double-dippers alike a chance to play the game in lush 1080p at 60 frames per second. For impressions of how the adventure holds up on next-gen hardware when played from a fresh perspective, be sure to check out our earlier tech analysis from Digital Foundry chief Richard Leadbetter. In this article however, we'll be addressing the returning crowd; indeed for those who loved the PlayStation 3 original, is there enough here to make the game's campaign worth another play-through? Is there more to it than just a resolution and frame-rate bump?

The first thing I'll say is that expectations going in were cautiously managed. I was disappointed to see the game absent from Sony's E3 spot this year, and Naughty Dog's roll-out of information prior to the expo proved treacle-like at best. In an earlier interview with Edge, creative director Neil Druckmann even conceded to the difficulty of translating the game's PS3-focused engine to PS4, where his team's emphasis was much less on adding new bells and whistles - and more on simply getting the code to run.

"We expected it to be hell, and it was hell," Druckmann says. "Just getting an image onscreen, even an inferior one with the shadows broken, lighting broken and with it crashing every 30 seconds, that took a long time." In the end, getting the game running as faithfully to the original as possible has proven a priority, alongside a simple image quality boost "akin to looking at a DVD versus Blu-ray."

But having played the game extensively on patch version 1.00, and several hours of the day-one update 1.01, we can confirm this is a very stable, faithful revisiting of the original game. Not only that, but it's received upgrades beyond the bump to 1080p - an increase in resolution that makes it necessary to push draw distances out further, boost texture map quality, and add occlusion mapping to decals. For a close look at the game's evolution (and occasional side-steps) between PS3 to PS4, check out our head-to-head video and zoomer gallery below.

With under a year to turn this project around, it's clear there are some rocks left unturned on this PS4 re-release, but where attention has been paid the difference is huge. For example, there's a notable update to the opening Quarantine area, where building brickwork is vastly more defined and crisp. We also see zero texture pop-in issues as we walk around the jungles that skirt Bill's Town, with the PS4's high access-speed GDDR5 memory making level streaming a non-issue. This is as opposed to the PS3 game's reliance on pulling assets from optical and hard disk drives, which could produce the occasional pop-in.

Performance compared to PS3 is night and day. Infrequent drops to 50fps (with 46fps being the lowest on record) are the worst of it, most notably during the initial Bloater boss battle. There are occasional dips besides this around flooded inner-city areas, but the experience is predominantly on the 60fps line. Compared to the PS3, with its variable 20-30fps readout, we're looking at a frame-time reading that sticks largely to a sharp, responsive 16ms, while the PS3 routinely dips as low as 50ms.

Naughty Dog also offers a 30fps toggle, which caps the frame-rate to half the game's top-end refresh. Other Sony first party releases let players dabble with a similar option, such as Killzone: Shadow Fall and infamous: Second Son, though in this case there's really no need. Drops from the 60fps target simply aren't frequent enough to justify it, whereas in the latest Killzone it helps to avoid the regular lurches between 30-60fps.

Summary

PS4

• 1920x1080p @ 60fps
• 4x detail increase to texture maps
• 2x resolution boost to shadow maps
• Longer draw distances, better LOD and improved particle effects
• Frame-rate isn't locked to 60fps, but The Last of Us Remastered does spend the vast majority of its time at the optimal refresh

PS3

• 1280x720p @ 30fps
• Framerate between 20-30

[ethomaz]

New DF article up.



I will update when get at work.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-last-of-us-face-off

[darkknightkryta]

The funny thing I find is that the blurry shadows in the PS3 version actually look more realistic than the other 2.