Xbox One 1080p struggle because Microsoft ‘cheaped out’

By Alan Ng - Jul 8, 2014

It has been a wide talking point among gamers on how the Xbox One has failed to live up to expectations so far from those who are specifically looking to play every game in 1080p resolution and 60FPS.

The PS4 on the other hand has been a lot more welcoming, with the big shock being that Call of Duty Ghosts – an Xbox endorsed game had a lower resolution compared to the PS4 version.

This week, we have some new information as to why this could be happening. Many gamers like to just enjoy games regardless of resolution, but it now looks apparent that the technical side of games are just important to those who want to know every little detail before dropping $60 on a game.

Take a look at the following series of Tweets though. Gamepur’s Sehran Shaikh asked Stardock CEO Brad Wardell a simple question on why Xbox One games struggle to hit 1080p with most game releases, while on PS4 it is usually no issue at all.

Here is the reply, which also contains an answer from another user who jumped into the conversation. This user put it down to Microsoft’s memory bandwidth and not utilizing the ESram efficiently.

As you can see, Stardock’s CEO agrees with this explanation, even going as far to say that ‘Microsoft cheaped out on the RAM’. For those that need the reference point here – the PS4 uses the superior GDDR5 RAM, while Microsoft uses DDR3 RAM instead.

This difference in memory could be the sole reason why most Xbox One games are not hitting 1080p without having to be upscaled each time. It happened with Call of Duty Ghosts, Assassin’s Creed 4, Diablo 3, COD Advanced Warfare and many more.

Even exclusives like Titanfall, Ryse and the upcoming Sunset Overdrive are not 1080p either – is this simply down to Microsoft not using GDDR5 RAM like Sony?

Surely there are further reasons to this, but the debate is ongoing it seems. Let us know your thoughts on this and whether you agree with the bold statement that Microsoft ‘cheaped out’ on the RAM usage on the Xbox One.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus.

Also See: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 and Type Cover Bundle, a perfect Christmas gift

xbox-one-1080p-limit

  • Charles – The Great and Powerf

    Thank you for remembering to include the “G” on the GDDR5 RAM. That G stands for graphics by the way. The RAM is meant for Graphics but does all processing on the PS4. Everyone’s been forgetting it lately. While it is certainly true that GDDR5 RAM has larger bandwidth (more lanes on the highway), it is the SAME speed as DDR3 RAM. What you are not hearing, is that ESRAM doesn’t have BUS. There’s no information highway to get to ESRAM. Its built into the Graphics Processor. Its the microwave thats small but cooks quick. Most devs right now are trying to cook full meals in the Microwave. Meals for an entire party of folks… Its not a good practice. You send some graphics processing to DDR3 RAM. But limit the traffic on the highway by using the Microwave for the little stuff. Once Devs start figuring this out or Microsoft starts pre-packagine it (DirectX 12), the PS4 IS BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. Its done. PS4 is so far behind the 8 ball its ridiculous. Exclusives for PS4 are contract based (Infamous), exclusives for XBox One is lack of capability based (Titanfall). Titanfall could not be developed for the PS4. And just for you eletrical energy snobs out there, you can save more electricity with the XBox One than you can with the PS4. You just have to turn it all the way off with each use!

    • It should be about the games

      That’s the best explanation of ESRAM I have read on the net. Many have tried to explain it before but for layman’s, like me, yours is the only one that made sense.

      • Josh101

        If that makes sense to you, than let me explain further. The small partition of 32Mb’s of ESRAM the information passes through, will only allow ants to cross these highways. Small bits of information. 8GB’s of GDDR5 ram allows mack trucks, semi’s and high speed trains down it’s highway at very high speeds with a TON more information.

        • It should be about the games

          Ok, so now I’m confused again. Is ESRAM a good thing, or not?

        • Josh101

          In comparison to GDDR5 straight to GPU/CPU on board. No, it’s not good for ease of development. As a developer you have two systems to code for. One allows you to essentially drop your entire game into GDDR5 and let the machine do it’s job. The other system requires you to optimize specifically to the ESRAM. Adding a ton of extra work. The 32Mb of ESRAM is a hindrance to development but it’s needed because Microsoft decided to use cheap DDR3 RAM. They gimped their console horribly, ESRAM probably hurt the system more than helped it, since it’s taking up precious GPU compute unit space. That means basically they took up space on the graphics card with ESRAM. Giving the competition a 6 compute unit advantage.

      • Not_true

        Factual PS4 Hardware Advantages: +6 CUs, +540 GFlops (40% greater) or more, +16 ROPs, +6 ACEs/CQs, better GPGPU support (volatile bit and onion+ gpu cache bypass bus), better performing CPU, faster unified memory, and less OS overhead.

        If they’re both running at the same resolution the Xbox version will have lower framerate, more screen tear, and/or less visual effects, or the PS4 hardware isn’t being pushed. Any game running on Xbox One can be run with better framerate/resolution/visual effects on PS4.

        Anyone with technical knowledge knew PS4’s game graphics performance would be better for the entire generation as soon as the specs were official. That was well over a year ago. Apparently it’s taking some people a LONG time to come to terms with reality.

        Every console or gaming device has a power budget that can be put towards resolution, framerate, or visual effects. PS4 has a higher total budget than Xbox, and good PCs have an even higher budget.

        Forza 5 or Horizon 2 would run better on PS4, and Driveclub would run worse on Xbox. Quantum Break would run better on PS4, and The Order would run worse on Xbox.

        Both Sony and MS have world class coders that will extract every bit of performance out of their consoles with their drivers/APIs/SDKs. The difference is PS4 simply has more powerful hardware to work with, so it will always stay ahead in graphics performance.

        “PS4 is off the shelf” is a myth, PS4’s SoC has several important customizations especially to GPGPU compute.

        PS3 was more powerful than 360, but a nightmare to code for. PS4 is both more powerful AND easier to code for. It’s a win/win for PS4.

        GDDR5 is superior to DDR3+on-die ESRAM in pretty much every way in terms of actual games performance.

        Even if Xbox had a far more powerful CPU and 10000GB of 10000 GB/s memory, it’s ability to render graphics is STILL limited by the weaker GPU. There’s no getting around the weaker GPU, there’s no free lunch.

        DDR3+ESRAM is still a size and bandwidth bottleneck and difficult to code for. The DMA registers help transfer data between DDR3 and ESRAM, they aren’t super special sauce.

        XB1 has memory size and bandwidth bottlenecks, weaker GPU and GPGPU, only 16 ROPs, and OS virtualization overhead that degrades gaming performance. Take your pick.

        DDR3+ESRAM is more complex and expensive yet resulted in a less powerful system than the PS4. It’s a lose-lose from a design perspective. It was a poor design decision for gaming graphics performance.

        Exclusively console 1080p 60 FPS games on PS4: MGS V, CoD Ghosts, FFXIV, Tomb Raider, MLB The Show 14, Resogun, Trials Fusion, Diablo 3, Project Cars, Metro Redux, more.

        If a game runs 50+ FPS average it’s generally called “60 FPS”.

        Don’t forget PS4’s +16 ROPs and better GPGPU support with 6 more ACEs, volatile bit flag, onion+ bus, fully unified GDDR5 memory instead of split ESRAM/DDR3, etc.

        PS4’s large GPGPU advantage will widen as devs take advantage of it. It’s not just 2 to 8 ACEs (asynchronous compute engines), but the volatile bit flag, unified memory, and onion+ GPU to RAM cache bypass bus. Not only does PS4 have more CUs to do compute on, but it can do compute work more efficiently with less impact on rendering.

        Examples of GPGPU include Resogun’s voxels, Infamous’ particle system, The Order’s soft body, cloth, and object destruction physics, and MGS’s simulated weather. To port those to Xbox devs will need to reserve already limited CUs for compute or remove those features entirely.

        Digital Foundry proves that PS4 multiplat games consistently run at higher res, framerate, and/or visual quality.

        PS4 version of Watch Dogs has higher shadow quality, higher resolution, less screen tearing, higher framerate, better depth of field, and far better ambient occlusion over Xbox.

        PS4 version of Wolfenstein has higher average resolution and higher shadow quality over Xbox. The Xbox version lowers resolution down to 960×1080 to maintain 60 fps. The Xbox version of wolfenstein is 1080p if you’re staring at a wall or empty room. Otherwise it’s lower during actual gameplay.

        PS4 version of Thief has higher res, framerate, and mostly higher visual effects. It’s superior in almost every way aside from trilinear filtering being traded off for parallax occlusion mapping over Xbox.

        PS4 version of Trials Fusion has higher resolution and framerate over Xbox. Texture data is identical with texture streaming times dependent on hard drive speed.

        PS4 version of BF4 has higher resolution, higher average framerate, and better effects over Xbox.

        Some use cherry picked screenshots from where a streamed texture was 0.01 seconds from fully loading and try to use it as false proof PS4 has worse textures. This is wrong and deceptive. Hard drive speed is the main issue in texture streaming load times. Installing a SSD in PS4 decreases texture streaming times dramatically. The texture data on most multiplats is identical.

        Texture data is identical between console versions. Sometimes texture streaming issues crop up in one or the other version, or even on PC. That’s generally dependent on hard drive speed. If you run a game off an SSD texture streaming issues are much less.

        Texture streaming issues can also happen if you start a game before it’s fully installed to the hard drive, or if you load from a save file and some textures haven’t been loaded from the drive into RAM yet.

        “Sharper colors” is just the crushed blacks bug on the Xbox that can be replicated by adjusting the contrast or sharpness on your display. Oversharpening and crushed blacks are a bad thing for visual quality.

        Xbox One AAA multiplats (Watch Dogs, Witcher 3, CoD: Advanced Warfare) will run 720-900p for the lifetime of the system.

        PS4 could run Ryse, Forza, Dead Rising 3, or any Xbox exclusive at higher res/framerate/effects, as it has more powerful hardware.

        Infamous is technically superior to Ryse in every way. 1080p, 35 fps average (according to DF), open world, next gen visual effects, cutscenes are mostly realtime, etc. Almost all of Ryse’s cutscenes are pre-rendered movies.

        The Order, Uncharted 4, and pretty much any Naughty Dog game will easily trump Ryse’s visuals while running at a higher resolution and framerate. Driveclub at E3 2014 was widely called the best looking console racing game.

        Ryse is a 900p, 25 fps average, QTE corridor brawler with copypasted barbarian enemies and CG movie cutscenes in comparison.a

    • Josh101

      Once Devs start figuring this out or Microsoft starts pre-packagine it (DirectX 12), the PS4 IS BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. Its done. PS4 is so far behind the 8 ball its ridiculous.”
      ^^
      You have got to be kidding me. You do realize that Microsoft is actually behind the curve with their programming right? Developers have been using multi-core development for years. Microsoft IS JUST NOW CATCHING UP TO THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY. Not to mention, no amount of software will make a computationally weaker CPU/GPU combination work as well as a more powerful CPU/GPU combination. Such as the Xboxone vs the PS4. Anything software related the PS4 can do, better at that. It has more GPU compute units, better gaming ram AND twice the ROPS to do so. People don’t listen to this bull.
      ^^
      Exclusives for PS4 are contract based (Infamous), exclusives for XBox One is lack of capability based (Titanfall). Titanfall could not be developed for the PS4.”
      ^^
      You are kidding. Infamous is not contract based. It’s made by a first party studio owned by Sony. ALL of Microsoft’s exclusives are paid for. They bribed Respawn for exclusivity, that’s it. If they couldn’t make Titanfall for PS4, why are they making Titanfall 2 for PS4? What you said is a straight up lie. Microsoft simply bribes for their exclusives. Titanfall, Sunset Overdrive, Plants vs Zombies, Gears of War, Alan wake, Call of Duty DLC, I could easily keep going. Sony actually has their own 1st party studios to make quality exclusives.

      • celze20

        DirectX 12 is for PC’s to “write to the metal”. Consoles already write to the metal, and the differences when it hits on consoles won’t be that mind blowing.

        • Josh101

          Exactly!! Not to mention, Microsoft supports tend to think that the ICE Team is just going to sit on their thumbs and not optimize for the PS4 more. I think it’s pretty much proven that Naughty dog and the ICE Team are some of the most brilliant coders in the world.

      • Andy Stephenson

        Actually DX.12 Won’t be making much of a difference at all “don’t expect much of a change” major nelson Xbox department chief.. And from what I hear the nex ps4 clock speeds will blow Xboxone out the water even if DX 12 is capable of having it run on all 8 cores.. The ps4 can do the same but without the bulky OS… 3 of them in the Xboxone.. The ps4 will be doing it quite a lot more efficiently.. You don’t believe me xboxers? Well you will have to see..but it’s going to happen

        • Doubtful.

        • Andy Stephenson

          Ha deluded if you think a DX update will close the gap.. Hardware is everything. An Xboxone won’t change into anything better an you can’t polish a turd

        • The gaps already closing. DX is just an added performance boost.

        • Not_true

          Factual PS4 Hardware Advantages: +6 CUs, +540 GFlops (40% greater) or more, +16 ROPs, +6 ACEs/CQs, better GPGPU support (volatile bit and onion+ gpu cache bypass bus), better performing CPU, faster unified memory, and less OS overhead.

          If they’re both running at the same resolution the Xbox version will have lower framerate, more screen tear, and/or less visual effects, or the PS4 hardware isn’t being pushed. Any game running on Xbox One can be run with better framerate/resolution/visual effects on PS4.

          Anyone with technical knowledge knew PS4’s game graphics performance would be better for the entire generation as soon as the specs were official. That was well over a year ago. Apparently it’s taking some people a LONG time to come to terms with reality.

          Every console or gaming device has a power budget that can be put towards resolution, framerate, or visual effects. PS4 has a higher total budget than Xbox, and good PCs have an even higher budget.

          Forza 5 or Horizon 2 would run better on PS4, and Driveclub would run worse on Xbox. Quantum Break would run better on PS4, and The Order would run worse on Xbox.

          Both Sony and MS have world class coders that will extract every bit of performance out of their consoles with their drivers/APIs/SDKs. The difference is PS4 simply has more powerful hardware to work with, so it will always stay ahead in graphics performance.

          “PS4 is off the shelf” is a myth, PS4’s SoC has several important customizations especially to GPGPU compute.

          PS3 was more powerful than 360, but a nightmare to code for. PS4 is both more powerful AND easier to code for. It’s a win/win for PS4.

          GDDR5 is superior to DDR3+on-die ESRAM in pretty much every way in terms of actual games performance.

          Even if Xbox had a far more powerful CPU and 10000GB of 10000 GB/s memory, it’s ability to render graphics is STILL limited by the weaker GPU. There’s no getting around the weaker GPU, there’s no free lunch.

          DDR3+ESRAM is still a size and bandwidth bottleneck and difficult to code for. The DMA registers help transfer data between DDR3 and ESRAM, they aren’t super special sauce.

          XB1 has memory size and bandwidth bottlenecks, weaker GPU and GPGPU, only 16 ROPs, and OS virtualization overhead that degrades gaming performance. Take your pick.

          DDR3+ESRAM is more complex and expensive yet resulted in a less powerful system than the PS4. It’s a lose-lose from a design perspective. It was a poor design decision for gaming graphics performance.

          Exclusively console 1080p 60 FPS games on PS4: MGS V, CoD Ghosts, FFXIV, Tomb Raider, MLB The Show 14, Resogun, Trials Fusion, Diablo 3, Project Cars, Metro Redux, more.

          If a game runs 50+ FPS average it’s generally called “60 FPS”.

          Don’t forget PS4’s +16 ROPs and better GPGPU support with 6 more ACEs, volatile bit flag, onion+ bus, fully unified GDDR5 memory instead of split ESRAM/DDR3, etc.

          PS4’s large GPGPU advantage will widen as devs take advantage of it. It’s not just 2 to 8 ACEs (asynchronous compute engines), but the volatile bit flag, unified memory, and onion+ GPU to RAM cache bypass bus. Not only does PS4 have more CUs to do compute on, but it can do compute work more efficiently with less impact on rendering.

          Examples of GPGPU include Resogun’s voxels, Infamous’ particle system, The Order’s soft body, cloth, and object destruction physics, and MGS’s simulated weather. To port those to Xbox devs will need to reserve already limited CUs for compute or remove those features entirely.

          Digital Foundry proves that PS4 multiplat games consistently run at higher res, framerate, and/or visual quality.

          PS4 version of Watch Dogs has higher shadow quality, higher resolution, less screen tearing, higher framerate, better depth of field, and far better ambient occlusion over Xbox.

          PS4 version of Wolfenstein has higher average resolution and higher shadow quality over Xbox. The Xbox version lowers resolution down to 960×1080 to maintain 60 fps. The Xbox version of wolfenstein is 1080p if you’re staring at a wall or empty room. Otherwise it’s lower during actual gameplay.

          PS4 version of Thief has higher res, framerate, and mostly higher visual effects. It’s superior in almost every way aside from trilinear filtering being traded off for parallax occlusion mapping over Xbox.

          PS4 version of Trials Fusion has higher resolution and framerate over Xbox. Texture data is identical with texture streaming times dependent on hard drive speed.

          PS4 version of BF4 has higher resolution, higher average framerate, and better effects over Xbox.

          Some use cherry picked screenshots from where a streamed texture was 0.01 seconds from fully loading and try to use it as false proof PS4 has worse textures. This is wrong and deceptive. Hard drive speed is the main issue in texture streaming load times. Installing a SSD in PS4 decreases texture streaming times dramatically. The texture data on most multiplats is identical.

          Texture data is identical between console versions. Sometimes texture streaming issues crop up in one or the other version, or even on PC. That’s generally dependent on hard drive speed. If you run a game off an SSD texture streaming issues are much less.

          Texture streaming issues can also happen if you start a game before it’s fully installed to the hard drive, or if you load from a save file and some textures haven’t been loaded from the drive into RAM yet.

          “Sharper colors” is just the crushed blacks bug on the Xbox that can be replicated by adjusting the contrast or sharpness on your display. Oversharpening and crushed blacks are a bad thing for visual quality.

          Xbox One AAA multiplats (Watch Dogs, Witcher 3, CoD: Advanced Warfare) will run 720-900p for the lifetime of the system.

          PS4 could run Ryse, Forza, Dead Rising 3, or any Xbox exclusive at higher res/framerate/effects, as it has more powerful hardware.

          Infamous is technically superior to Ryse in every way. 1080p, 35 fps average (according to DF), open world, next gen visual effects, cutscenes are mostly realtime, etc. Almost all of Ryse’s cutscenes are pre-rendered movies.

          The Order, Uncharted 4, and pretty much any Naughty Dog game will easily trump Ryse’s visuals while running at a higher resolution and framerate. Driveclub at E3 2014 was widely called the best looking console racing game.

          Ryse is a 900p, 25 fps average, QTE corridor brawler with copypasted barbarian enemies and CG movie cutscenes in comparison..

    • Not_true

      PS4’s hardware is more powerful for gaming graphics performance and
      it will show in some way if devs are pushing the hardware. That’s
      reality, sorry if you don’t like it.

      Factual PS4 Hardware Advantages: +6 CUs, +540 GFlops (40% greater) or more, +16 ROPs, +6 ACEs/CQs, better GPGPU support (volatile bit and onion+ gpu cache bypass bus), better performing CPU, faster unified memory, and less OS overhead.

      If they’re both running at the same resolution the Xbox version will have lower framerate, more screen tear, and/or less visual effects, or the PS4 hardware isn’t being pushed. Any game running on Xbox One can be run with better framerate/resolution/visual effects on PS4.

      Anyone with technical knowledge knew PS4’s game graphics performance would be better for the entire generation as soon as the specs were official. That was well over a year ago. Apparently it’s taking some people a LONG time to come to terms with reality.

      Every console or gaming device has a power budget that can be put towards resolution, framerate, or visual effects. PS4 has a higher total budget than Xbox, and good PCs have an even higher budget.

      Forza 5 or Horizon 2 would run better on PS4, and Driveclub would run worse on Xbox. Quantum Break would run better on PS4, and The Order would run worse on Xbox.

      Both Sony and MS have world class coders that will extract every bit of performance out of their consoles with their drivers/APIs/SDKs. The difference is PS4 simply has more powerful hardware to work with, so it will always stay ahead in graphics performance.

      “PS4 is off the shelf” is a myth, PS4’s SoC has several important customizations especially to GPGPU compute.

      PS3 was more powerful than 360, but a nightmare to code for. PS4 is both more powerful AND easier to code for. It’s a win/win for PS4.

      GDDR5 is superior to DDR3+on-die ESRAM in pretty much every way in terms of actual games performance.

      Even if Xbox had a far more powerful CPU and 10000GB of 10000 GB/s memory, it’s ability to render graphics is STILL limited by the weaker GPU. There’s no getting around the weaker GPU, there’s no free lunch.

      DDR3+ESRAM is still a size and bandwidth bottleneck and difficult to code for. The DMA registers help transfer data between DDR3 and ESRAM, they aren’t super special sauce.

      XB1 has memory size and bandwidth bottlenecks, weaker GPU and GPGPU, only 16 ROPs, and OS virtualization overhead that degrades gaming performance. Take your pick.

      DDR3+ESRAM is more complex and expensive yet resulted in a less powerful system than the PS4. It’s a lose-lose from a design perspective. It was a poor design decision for gaming graphics performance.

      Exclusively console 1080p 60 FPS games on PS4: MGS V, CoD Ghosts, FFXIV, Tomb Raider, MLB The Show 14, Resogun, Trials Fusion, Diablo 3, Project Cars, Metro Redux, more.

      If a game runs 50+ FPS average it’s generally called “60 FPS”.

      Don’t forget PS4’s +16 ROPs and better GPGPU support with 6 more ACEs, volatile bit flag, onion+ bus, fully unified GDDR5 memory instead of split ESRAM/DDR3, etc.

      PS4’s large GPGPU advantage will widen as devs take advantage of it. It’s not just 2 to 8 ACEs (asynchronous compute engines), but the volatile bit flag, unified memory, and onion+ GPU to RAM cache bypass bus. Not only does PS4 have more CUs to do compute on, but it can do compute work more efficiently with less impact on rendering.

      Examples of GPGPU include Resogun’s voxels, Infamous’ particle system, The Order’s soft body, cloth, and object destruction physics, and MGS’s simulated weather. To port those to Xbox devs will need to reserve already limited CUs for compute or remove those features entirely.

      Digital Foundry proves that PS4 multiplat games consistently run at higher res, framerate, and/or visual quality.

      PS4 version of Watch Dogs has higher shadow quality, higher resolution, less screen tearing, higher framerate, better depth of field, and far better ambient occlusion over Xbox.

      PS4 version of Wolfenstein has higher average resolution and higher shadow quality over Xbox. The Xbox version lowers resolution down to 960×1080 to maintain 60 fps. The Xbox version of wolfenstein is 1080p if you’re staring at a wall or empty room. Otherwise it’s lower during actual gameplay.

      PS4 version of Thief has higher res, framerate, and mostly higher visual effects. It’s superior in almost every way aside from trilinear filtering being traded off for parallax occlusion mapping over Xbox.

      PS4 version of Trials Fusion has higher resolution and framerate over Xbox. Texture data is identical with texture streaming times dependent on hard drive speed.

      PS4 version of BF4 has higher resolution, higher average framerate, and better effects over Xbox.

      Some use cherry picked screenshots from where a streamed texture was 0.01 seconds from fully loading and try to use it as false proof PS4 has worse textures. This is wrong and deceptive. Hard drive speed is the main issue in texture streaming load times. Installing a SSD in PS4 decreases texture streaming times dramatically. The texture data on most multiplats is identical.

      Texture data is identical between console versions. Sometimes texture streaming issues crop up in one or the other version, or even on PC. That’s generally dependent on hard drive speed. If you run a game off an SSD texture streaming issues are much less.

      Texture streaming issues can also happen if you start a game before it’s fully installed to the hard drive, or if you load from a save file and some textures haven’t been loaded from the drive into RAM yet.

      “Sharper colors” is just the crushed blacks bug on the Xbox that can be replicated by adjusting the contrast or sharpness on your display. Oversharpening and crushed blacks are a bad thing for visual quality.

      Xbox One AAA multiplats (Watch Dogs, Witcher 3, CoD: Advanced Warfare) will run 720-900p for the lifetime of the system.

      PS4 could run Ryse, Forza, Dead Rising 3, or any Xbox exclusive at higher res/framerate/effects, as it has more powerful hardware.

      Infamous is technically superior to Ryse in every way. 1080p, 35 fps average (according to DF), open world, next gen visual effects, cutscenes are mostly realtime, etc. Almost all of Ryse’s cutscenes are pre-rendered movies.

      The Order, Uncharted 4, and pretty much any Naughty Dog game will easily trump Ryse’s visuals while running at a higher resolution and framerate. Driveclub at E3 2014 was widely called the best looking console racing game.

      Ryse is a 900p, 25 fps average, QTE corridor brawler with copypasted barbarian enemies and CG movie cutscenes in comparison.

      • I know all about X1

        actually X1 has the faster CPU, it just has more overhead and back ground processing going on; or it can do so much more such as snap, Skype whatever you want while keeping the game running in a separate or the same window- PS4 doesn’t have this. The 16 extra ROPs are useless as the PS4 GPU is too weak and could never fill them; it is just to look better on paper. With DX12 the PS4 looses to X1 with it’s unified processing and esp with GPGPU calculations. The Gddr5 can not match the esram on the same APU.
        MS will always have better sdk to go along with the hardware Sony can’t spend the money the MS does for constant os/sdk updates. Esram and the GPU setup is meant for cloud computing… remember the X1 an always connected system? So with it’s power stripped away by consumers and it’s hardware holding it’s own the X1 is doing great. Just wait for some of the MS exclusives in 2015 that are going to show the true difference/benefits in remote processing capabilities… and ill will say this there is a reason MS bought Nokia.

        • Not_true

          Substance Engine benchmarks and developer Matt on neogaf both state PS4’s CPU has better performance despite being clocked lower.

          The extra 16 ROPs are not useless.

          According to Project Cars devs PS4 has “faster unified GDDR5 memory” when it comes to real world games performance.

          Both Sony and MS have world class coders that will extract every bit of performance out of their consoles with their drivers/APIs/SDKs. The difference is PS4 has more powerful hardware to work with, so it will stay ahead in graphics performance.

          Xbox’s ESRAM and GPU are not “made for cloud computing”, that is pure misterxmedia nonsense.

  • Charles Hodge

    ESRAM is not cheap its the opposite of cheap, And the it utilizations is down to development. Its no secret that its harder to develop games on the XB1. Bear in mind, MS in house studios have all released 1080p games.
    History repeats its self. 8yrs ago Sony ps3 had the same issue with cell. next gen it will be Gpgpu compute as the industry leans toward Ai.

    • Charles Hodge

      We are less than one year into this generation. Comparison perfect dark on the 360 day one release compared to GTA5 last AAA game of the 360.
      future is bright.

    • Josh101

      Yeah, Microsoft has released 1080P games. All of them have been horribly gimped from their E3 presentations. Forza 5 being the biggest example. With cardboard PS2 era cutouts of stadium fans.

    • Not_true

      PS4’s hardware is more powerful for gaming graphics performance and it will show in some way if devs are pushing the hardware. That’s reality, sorry if you don’t like it.

      PS3 was slightly more powerful than 360 but very hard to code for. PS4 is both much more powerful AND easier to code for. There will be no parity.

  • Every game is not and will not be 1080p for both consoles. Not just Xbox.

    • Not_true

      Factual PS4 Hardware Advantages: +6 CUs, +540 GFlops (40% greater) or more, +16 ROPs, +6 ACEs/CQs, better GPGPU support (volatile bit and onion+ gpu cache bypass bus), better performing CPU, faster unified memory, and less OS overhead.

      If they’re both running at the same resolution the Xbox version will have lower framerate, more screen tear, and/or less visual effects, or the PS4 hardware isn’t being pushed. Any game running on Xbox One can be run with better framerate/resolution/visual effects on PS4.

      Anyone with technical knowledge knew PS4’s game graphics performance would be better for the entire generation as soon as the specs were official. That was well over a year ago. Apparently it’s taking some people a LONG time to come to terms with reality.

      Every console or gaming device has a power budget that can be put towards resolution, framerate, or visual effects. PS4 has a higher total budget than Xbox, and good PCs have an even higher budget.

      Forza 5 or Horizon 2 would run better on PS4, and Driveclub would run worse on Xbox. Quantum Break would run better on PS4, and The Order would run worse on Xbox.

      Both Sony and MS have world class coders that will extract every bit of performance out of their consoles with their drivers/APIs/SDKs. The difference is PS4 simply has more powerful hardware to work with, so it will always stay ahead in graphics performance.

      “PS4 is off the shelf” is a myth, PS4’s SoC has several important customizations especially to GPGPU compute.

      PS3 was more powerful than 360, but a nightmare to code for. PS4 is both more powerful AND easier to code for. It’s a win/win for PS4.

      GDDR5 is superior to DDR3+on-die ESRAM in pretty much every way in terms of actual games performance.

      Even if Xbox had a far more powerful CPU and 10000GB of 10000 GB/s memory, it’s ability to render graphics is STILL limited by the weaker GPU. There’s no getting around the weaker GPU, there’s no free lunch.

      DDR3+ESRAM is still a size and bandwidth bottleneck and difficult to code for. The DMA registers help transfer data between DDR3 and ESRAM, they aren’t super special sauce.

      XB1 has memory size and bandwidth bottlenecks, weaker GPU and GPGPU, only 16 ROPs, and OS virtualization overhead that degrades gaming performance. Take your pick.

      DDR3+ESRAM is more complex and expensive yet resulted in a less powerful system than the PS4. It’s a lose-lose from a design perspective. It was a poor design decision for gaming graphics performance.

      Exclusively console 1080p 60 FPS games on PS4: MGS V, CoD Ghosts, FFXIV, Tomb Raider, MLB The Show 14, Resogun, Trials Fusion, Diablo 3, Project Cars, Metro Redux, more.

      If a game runs 50+ FPS average it’s generally called “60 FPS”.

      Don’t forget PS4’s +16 ROPs and better GPGPU support with 6 more ACEs, volatile bit flag, onion+ bus, fully unified GDDR5 memory instead of split ESRAM/DDR3, etc.

      PS4’s large GPGPU advantage will widen as devs take advantage of it. It’s not just 2 to 8 ACEs (asynchronous compute engines), but the volatile bit flag, unified memory, and onion+ GPU to RAM cache bypass bus. Not only does PS4 have more CUs to do compute on, but it can do compute work more efficiently with less impact on rendering.

      Examples of GPGPU include Resogun’s voxels, Infamous’ particle system, The Order’s soft body, cloth, and object destruction physics, and MGS’s simulated weather. To port those to Xbox devs will need to reserve already limited CUs for compute or remove those features entirely.

      Digital Foundry proves that PS4 multiplat games consistently run at higher res, framerate, and/or visual quality.

      PS4 version of Watch Dogs has higher shadow quality, higher resolution, less screen tearing, higher framerate, better depth of field, and far better ambient occlusion over Xbox.

      PS4 version of Wolfenstein has higher average resolution and higher shadow quality over Xbox. The Xbox version lowers resolution down to 960×1080 to maintain 60 fps. The Xbox version of wolfenstein is 1080p if you’re staring at a wall or empty room. Otherwise it’s lower during actual gameplay.

      PS4 version of Thief has higher res, framerate, and mostly higher visual effects. It’s superior in almost every way aside from trilinear filtering being traded off for parallax occlusion mapping over Xbox.

      PS4 version of Trials Fusion has higher resolution and framerate over Xbox. Texture data is identical with texture streaming times dependent on hard drive speed.

      PS4 version of BF4 has higher resolution, higher average framerate, and better effects over Xbox.

      Some use cherry picked screenshots from where a streamed texture was 0.01 seconds from fully loading and try to use it as false proof PS4 has worse textures. This is wrong and deceptive. Hard drive speed is the main issue in texture streaming load times. Installing a SSD in PS4 decreases texture streaming times dramatically. The texture data on most multiplats is identical.

      Texture data is identical between console versions. Sometimes texture streaming issues crop up in one or the other version, or even on PC. That’s generally dependent on hard drive speed. If you run a game off an SSD texture streaming issues are much less.

      Texture streaming issues can also happen if you start a game before it’s fully installed to the hard drive, or if you load from a save file and some textures haven’t been loaded from the drive into RAM yet.

      “Sharper colors” is just the crushed blacks bug on the Xbox that can be replicated by adjusting the contrast or sharpness on your display. Oversharpening and crushed blacks are a bad thing for visual quality.

      Xbox One AAA multiplats (Watch Dogs, Witcher 3, CoD: Advanced Warfare) will run 720-900p for the lifetime of the system.

      PS4 could run Ryse, Forza, Dead Rising 3, or any Xbox exclusive at higher res/framerate/effects, as it has more powerful hardware.

      Infamous is technically superior to Ryse in every way. 1080p, 35 fps average (according to DF), open world, next gen visual effects, cutscenes are mostly realtime, etc. Almost all of Ryse’s cutscenes are pre-rendered movies.

      The Order, Uncharted 4, and pretty much any Naughty Dog game will easily trump Ryse’s visuals while running at a higher resolution and framerate. Driveclub at E3 2014 was widely called the best looking console racing game.

      Ryse is a 900p, 25 fps average, QTE corridor brawler with copypasted barbarian enemies and CG movie cutscenes in comparison.c