• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 4 PS4 vs XBO comparisons are out - 50% more pixels, higher framerate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Gloomy said:
They are night and day better though.

Even if they weren't... it's still running at a higher resolution while being faster. Everyone can understand that. What I can't understand is why you keep defending garbage. And when I find the answer to that, I'll know the reason why we're even having this conversation 😉
Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If the X1 version looks like garbage, then so does the PS4 since they look largely the same.
 
cmdrdredd said:
It's not cheating, it's incorrectly outputting the video. It's a system flaw. Whether or not it's limited to the dev kit or not is unknown. Overblown gamma is something that happened with the 360 as well which crushed blacks for detail loss in some games.

The output of the Xbox is losing details by crushing blacks and washing out the whites. The RGB Full Range setting on the dev kit used was not working, so it doesn't look better when examined closely. This is being looked into by DICE. In addition the XB1 had no Ambient Occlusion like the PS4 and PC which will be in place at launch apparently. For whatever reason it was turned off or didn't work. I provided the link to twitter comments from DICE and the Q&A from eurogamer that talks about how they capture the video and what causes differences to be noticed.
Click to expand...

The funniest part about all of this is that even though the Xbone version was running with crushed blacks, boosted contrast, reduced textures, less anti-aliasing and no ambient occlusion, many people preferred the look solely because boosting the contrast makes things look sharper. We don't want realism, we want reduced visual fidelity with overblown contrast; it's just more appealing. It's similar to audio fidelity getting shot to hell as publishers push boosted albums that clip the audio because louder sounds better to consumers, never mind the fidelity.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Check your facts.

GT5 not 1920x1080 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis



Forza 3 720p upscaled so not 1920x1080 http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/e3-2009-forza-3-runs-at-1080p60fps-oh-wait-no-it-doesnt-does-it/



Wipeout HD resolution drops to avoid slowdown but has screen tearing as a result http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/wipeout-hds-1080p-sleight-of-hand
Click to expand...
All of the games you listed are running at the same resolution or better than XB1 and 1280x1080 is basically equivalent to 1440x900 (which is what PS4 is running... apparently).

You don't think it's pretty pathetic that after 8 years we can't jump from 720p to 1080p?


720p in 2006 was amazing stuff. 900p is not amazing stuff in 2013/14


This new console generation has a shelf life of <5 years. There just isn't enough power to keep it going for 8 years like the PS3/360 did.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
The funniest part about all of this is that even though the Xbone version was running with crushed blacks, boosted contrast, reduced textures, less anti-aliasing and no ambient occlusion, many people preferred the look solely because boosting the contrast makes things look sharper. We don't want realism, we want reduced visual fidelity with overblown contrast; it's just more appealing. It's similar to audio fidelity getting shot to hell as publishers push boosted albums that clip the audio because louder sounds better to consumers, never mind the fidelity.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point: yes, boosting contract makes things look sharper, but we do want realism. The problem is that life doesn't look as washed out as the PS4 version, nor does it have all the jaggies that the Xbone version has.

This begs the question, which is the bigger concern (along with the faulty palette of the Xbone version)?

The remarkable takeaway here is that the PS4 is doing more work and producing a technically superior image that doesn't really pay off unless you dissect it with a fine-toothed comb or are trained/experienced to identify such subtleties (and to the unwashed masses, they ARE subtleties at best).

Detail in life isn't dull. My 10 year old son pegged the PS4 image as the dullest of the bunch, which stood out more to both of us than the Xbone's aliasing issues, color palette, sub pixel separation, etc. The Xbone wasn't just the "catchiest" image between the two, it seemed to be the most realistic, all things considered.

I'm not really arguing a particular point here, I just find the situation a little fascinating 🙂
 
TreVader said:
All of the games you listed are running at the same resolution or better than XB1 and 1280x1080 is basically equivalent to 1440x900 (which is what PS4 is running... apparently).

You don't think it's pretty pathetic that after 8 years we can't jump from 720p to 1080p?


720p in 2006 was amazing stuff. 900p is not amazing stuff in 2013/14


This new console generation has a shelf life of <5 years. There just isn't enough power to keep it going for 8 years like the PS3/360 did.
Click to expand...

None of those games are running 1080p which was your claim. You wanna move the goalposts because you were wrong.

Not to make your head explode but have you ever heard of texture resolution, draw distance, polygon count, particle effects, bokeh depth of field, ambient occlusion, tessellation, or deferred rendering? These are much more advanced on the ps4/xb1 and some effects would not function on the GPUs inside the 360 or ps3.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
The funniest part about all of this is that even though the Xbone version was running with crushed blacks, boosted contrast, reduced textures, less anti-aliasing and no ambient occlusion, many people preferred the look solely because boosting the contrast makes things look sharper. We don't want realism, we want reduced visual fidelity with overblown contrast; it's just more appealing. It's similar to audio fidelity getting shot to hell as publishers push boosted albums that clip the audio because louder sounds better to consumers, never mind the fidelity.
Click to expand...

When people are shown where detail is lost it is a different reaction though. Now people start asking why.
 
Man, it's almost as if you guys have never played Battlefield. I've always thought huge maps and draw distance has been a mainstay of the series since BF2. And you need good resolution to really experience it.

K3m2jZ9.png


Okay, yeah, all that's been pointed out is stairstep powerlines and jaggy scaffolding. But you know what, you really will notice it a lot more when it's an enemy on top of a building, or down the street. It matters a lot, and a lot more when the image is actually moving. There's a lot of diminishing returns at play here in terms of money:res, and obviously the PS4 seems to be pretty high up there in those terms.

But I think 1600x900 is too low, and 1280x720 is just unplayable garbage. I think DICE should have delayed it a month (if it was a matter of fine tuning performance), or just dropping the quality a little and giving us at least 1080P on the PS4. But I don't know, maybe that would have been not feasible.

720P is just a mess. Yuck.
 
BikeJunkie said:
Which I totally understand. On paper, the PS4 is the better image. In my living room, not so much. If "cheating" produces a more attractive image, then they need to cheat their asses off.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I want to see the image how the developer spent time to make it look like. It's like an iPhone 5 screen vs a GS4 screen, the latter makes things pop by default but you'd want color accuracy to know what things actually look like for real.

If a developer WANTS those contrasty looks, they can implement it in game, no need for the console to force it (if that is what was happening, who knows if it's dev side or console side).
 
I think the PS4 and PC versions look a lot more realistic. The contrast issue makes the XO version look more cartoony with over saturated colors and too much black. I wonder what dark scenes will look like? It is pretty obvious that 50% more pixels translates into a much crisper picture. There is no way I'd spend $500 to play games at 720p. Even 900p is disappointing, but somewhat understandable for a launch game.
 
tipoo said:
I disagree, I want to see the image how the developer spent time to make it look like. It's like an iPhone 5 screen vs a GS4 screen, the latter makes things pop by default but you'd want color accuracy to know what things actually look like for real.

If a developer WANTS those contrasty looks, they can implement it in game, no need for the console to force it (if that is what was happening, who knows if it's dev side or console side).
Click to expand...

Why would anybody take an iPhone 5 screen over a GS4 screen. That would be like taking a 360 over a PS4, because you like the way the 360 renders the color green.

I love how people are want to complain about things being "too real" or "too colorful". I have a GS4 and i'm dropping it for a 5s but ill tell you nobody is going Ooooh and aaaah at the iPhone 5 screen. Every time I bust out the GS4 it gets compliments. It's a garbage phone IMO cuz of android, but you can't fault the screen.


I think they do need to cheat their asses off. I couldn't care less what the game developer intended I want it to look good and play well.
 
From what I can tell in the above 3 images, the Xbox One and PC are very similar. The PS4 has a weird combo of high resolution and low detail... just look at the buildings on the horizon. The PS4 is the odd man out here.
 
TreVader said:
Why would anybody take an iPhone 5 screen over a GS4 screen. That would be like taking a 360 over a PS4, because you like the way the 360 renders the color green.

I love how people are want to complain about things being "too real" or "too colorful". I have a GS4 and i'm dropping it for a 5s but ill tell you nobody is going Ooooh and aaaah at the iPhone 5 screen. Every time I bust out the GS4 it gets compliments. It's a garbage phone IMO cuz of android, but you can't fault the screen.


I think they do need to cheat their asses off. I couldn't care less what the game developer intended I want it to look good and play well.
Click to expand...

Except black crush does NOT look good at all. Never. Why do you think video review sites always dock points for video quality when a film exhibits this? It loses shadow detail which is supposed to be part of the action.

TreVader said:
From what I can tell in the above 3 images, the Xbox One and PC are very similar. The PS4 has a weird combo of high resolution and low detail... just look at the buildings on the horizon. The PS4 is the odd man out here.
Click to expand...

You're also in need of glasses. It's clear you just want to troll these forums, so...i bid you farewell.
 
Last edited:
TreVader said:
Why would anybody take an iPhone 5 screen over a GS4 screen. That would be like taking a 360 over a PS4, because you like the way the 360 renders the color green.
Click to expand...

Pretending the sizes were the same, I meant. But even so, after the oohing and aahing is done with people may start to realize the GS4 at its default doesn't accurately represent reality, pushing reds too much in human faces, yada yada.

It's why people bother with getting their TVs calibrated.

And again, as I said, if a developer WANTS that look they can certainly adjust their own color palette to match. The console itself should just present the stock RGB palette though. Same with any content you view on your phone.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Gloomy said:
Man, it's almost as if you guys have never played Battlefield. I've always thought huge maps and draw distance has been a mainstay of the series since BF2. And you need good resolution to really experience it.

K3m2jZ9.png


Okay, yeah, all that's been pointed out is stairstep powerlines and jaggy scaffolding. But you know what, you really will notice it a lot more when it's an enemy on top of a building, or down the street. It matters a lot, and a lot more when the image is actually moving. There's a lot of diminishing returns at play here in terms of money:res, and obviously the PS4 seems to be pretty high up there in those terms.

But I think 1600x900 is too low, and 1280x720 is just unplayable garbage. I think DICE should have delayed it a month (if it was a matter of fine tuning performance), or just dropping the quality a little and giving us at least 1080P on the PS4. But I don't know, maybe that would have been not feasible.

720P is just a mess. Yuck.
Click to expand...

I don't need to see enemies on that crane from that distance. If I'm even thinking about shooting that way, I'll have a scope. Scratch that, everybody will have a scope with almost every gun. Nobody seemed to complain on the 360/PS3 and the resolution/detail was worse. Both next-gen console versions will be fine.
 
I don't see the big deal here in the comparisons. If you have to make giant screenshots of the exact same scene and/or point out stuff, then that tells me that just playing the game on either platforms, you wouldn't miss out on anything much less notice without studying it. Which seems silly to me being the point of the game is to actually play it.
I can see if you miss out on physics, objects, smoke, shadows or something like that but this comparison is a bit silly to me.
 
Seriously, I think people need to wait for the official release of both console and game before believing anything is concrete. Even the reviews are subject to potential updates post release. I understand some of you are really excited for next month, but you guys chew on the smallish bits of information websites throw out without any sort of context, especially when it is derived from pre-release code and drivers. Anyone from the PC world knows that changes in the driver can potentially have a huge impact on visuals, especially if feature sets are disabled. I think any objective comparison of hardware is completely in bounds, but from the software side pretty much everything is subject to change and exploitable. The MS imposed review embargo tells us that either they are incredible ashamed of the new Xbox, or more likely that they are still tweaking things and don't want pre-release software to be viewed as the final product. MS still has three weeks to tweak drivers and optimize code.
 
The more concerning thing for me while watching the video comparisons between the xb1, ps4 and pc was the antialiasing "crawl". Anti aliasing does cause a variety of problems in motion which while it looks good (or bad in the case of the xb1) in static shots in motion the difference between the 3 platforms is striking. That antialiasing crawl is seen by your eyes as movement, it constantly distracts and makes the image look very unrealistic. From an image quality perspective its a terrible effect to have. Both the PS4 and the xb1 have it but its so much worse on the xb1 than either of the other 2.

Its obviously a combination of the lower resolution and the lower quality anti aliasing they are using but it looks really bad. Its a real shame they couldn't do better than that on that hardware, I think they would have been better off reducing other image qualities than sacrificing so much on the temporal nature of AA. I'll be playing this one on the PC anyway but so far nothing I have seen has yet convinced me to buy either of the two consoles, yet the previous gen had me buying both before release.
 
BrightCandle said:
The more concerning thing for me while watching the video comparisons between the xb1, ps4 and pc was the antialiasing "crawl". Anti aliasing does cause a variety of problems in motion which while it looks good (or bad in the case of the xb1) in static shots in motion the difference between the 3 platforms is striking. That antialiasing crawl is seen by your eyes as movement, it constantly distracts and makes the image look very unrealistic. From an image quality perspective its a terrible effect to have. Both the PS4 and the xb1 have it but its so much worse on the xb1 than either of the other 2.

Its obviously a combination of the lower resolution and the lower quality anti aliasing they are using but it looks really bad. Its a real shame they couldn't do better than that on that hardware, I think they would have been better off reducing other image qualities than sacrificing so much on the temporal nature of AA. I'll be playing this one on the PC anyway but so far nothing I have seen has yet convinced me to buy either of the two consoles, yet the previous gen had me buying both before release.
Click to expand...

i'm curious which of these 12 launch titles got your interest for a PS3.

http://kotaku.com/the-ps3-had-12-games-at-launch-heres-what-they-looked-513396910
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top