News - Call of Duty: Ghosts runs native at 720p on Xbox One, 1080p on PS4

[HEXUS]

Also Battlefield 4 runs at 1280x720 on the Xbox One but at 1600x900 pixels on the PS4.

Read more.

[KrisWragg]

I'm sure as the consoles progress most games will be hitting 1080p 60hz on the PS4, but the Xbox One really is a bit gimped and I think most games will end up staying at 720p.

The good thing is hopefully they will be able to learn more tricks for x86-64 and AMD graphics that will translate over to better games for the PC.

[Otherhand]

@KrisWragg - But does this not also mean the PS4 is gimped? I'm shocked at both of them. You would think that the next gen's consoles would at least be capable of running, say, Crysis 3 at 1080p on Ultra settings at 60fps if they're going to survive the coming years. Of course there will be massive refinements to coding efficiency and technique over the next few years, but nonetheless I would have thought the design goal would have set a benchmark such as that.

And yet here we are with PS4 supporters crowing at the XO mob because their box does 60fps CoD at a lowly 900p. This is not good news for any of us. As a PC player, I want the console customers to have superb hardware so that PC games can finally break out of the shackles they've been in for several years.

PS @Hexus - why does this headline say the PS4 runs the game at 1080p when it does not?

[ChinesePate]

since when 1600x900 is 1080p?
more like 900p to me

[semitope]

@KrisWragg - But does this not also mean the PS4 is gimped? I'm shocked at both of them. You would think that the next gen's consoles would at least be capable of running, say, Crysis 3 at 1080p on Ultra settings at 60fps if they're going to survive the coming years. Of course there will be massive refinements to coding efficiency and technique over the next few years, but nonetheless I would have thought the design goal would have set a benchmark such as that.

And yet here we are with PS4 supporters crowing at the XO mob because their box does 60fps CoD at a lowly 900p. This is not good news for any of us. As a PC player, I want the console customers to have superb hardware so that PC games can finally break out of the shackles they've been in for several years.

PS @Hexus - why does this headline say the PS4 runs the game at 1080p when it does not?

you are mixing things up. CoD is 1080p on the ps4. What is 1600x900 is battlefield 4, a much better looking game. Sure its a lower res than 1080p but it seems to come close to the PC version in quality and at 60fps...

Also, the resolution is enough for PCs to break the shackles. What matters more is the level of detail and effects the consoles can manage and these are much improved. The 8GB of RAM is sure to give us better textures for example. We will be free of directx 9 games finally and games will start to be 64bit as well.

[crossy]

@KrisWragg - But does this not also mean the PS4 is gimped? I'm shocked at both of them. You would think that the next gen's consoles would at least be capable of running, say, Crysis 3 at 1080p on Ultra settings at 60fps if they're going to survive the coming years.

And you think that Crysis3 @ 1080p with maxed settings at a sustained 60fps is going to be remotely achievable on a console that costs £400 in total? From the benches I've seen you'd probably have to spend that £400 on a graphics card alone that's able to handle that. Put it this way, I'd be pleasantly surprised if you can get a whole PC system that can deliver on your requirement for less than double the cost of a PS4.

And yet here we are with PS4 supporters crowing at the XO mob because their box does 60fps CoD at a lowly 900p.

Erm, no. I suggest you take a minute and actually read the article. It says: (I've underlined the relevant bits)

Developer Infinity Ward has confirmed rumours that the Microsoft Xbox One version of Call of Duty: Ghosts runs at a lower native resolution than upon the Sony PlayStation 4. Infinity Ward producer, Mark Rubin, confirmed the fact via Twitter, informing us that Xbox One imagery is upscaled from 720p to 1080p yet is "native 1080p on PS4".

and

Earlier this week EuroGamer compared the newly released Battlefield 4 on Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and a gaming PC. This article revealed that the internal resolution the consoles render the game graphics at were; 1280x720 pixels for the Xbox One and 1600x900 pixels for the PS4.

In other words - CoD is 1080p and BF4 is 900p.

PS @Hexus - why does this headline say the PS4 runs the game at 1080p when it does not?

See that first quote above, Mark Rubin (CoD's producer) says "native 1080p on PS4" which is why the Hexus headline repeats that. Now if the headline said "BF4 runs native at 720p on XBox One, 1080p on PS4" then you'd have grounds to complain. But it doesn't, and you don't.

[KrisWragg]

I think going from games on the PS3 / Xbox 360 struggling to run at 720p 30hz ... to now hopefully most games being 1080p 60hz is actually a massive jump for consoles. As 4k won't be common place for a lot of years I think the PS4 is going to be pretty good for a console for the next few years and I think now they are both pretty similar to a desktop PC (x86-64 and ATI graphics) then it's possible that the next generation won't be as difficult to switch to, i.e a few more generations down the line of AMD's APU.

[crossy]

Maybe it's something to do with the capture but the XBO footage, on average, shows more detail than the PS4. The PS4 wins in a few places but overall edge and feature detail is shaper on the XBO.

Must admit that in the Eurogamer side-by-sides I prefer the XBone images - as EG says - they "pop" more. The PS4 ones seem more "hazy" which is fine if that's a deliberate (dust?) effect, not so good otherwise. Then again I'm presuming that the post-processing is an item that Sony can perhaps change with a software update.

Interesting, but not surprising, to see the PC version of BF4 regarded as the "definitive" one. I bought BF3 on both XBox and PC, but this time I'm only buying BF4 on PC. Just hope my poor ole PhenomII is going to be man enough to do it justice.

Quick question to the BF techperts - is there any advantage in having a PC with 16GB rather than 8GB of RAM? Been thinking of boosting my memory, but looking for a good excuse to do it. Oh and running out to buy a second 7970 to Crossfire of course!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not even a Geforce Titan with a massively overclocked Core i7 3970X could run Crysis 3:Lost Island on ultra settings at 1920X1080 - it can just about do it at very high settings.



An HD7870 gets around 50FPS in the game at 1920X1080 using medium settings with a Core i7 3960X.

The GPU in the PS4 is in-between an HD7850 and HD7870,going by the hardware specifications.

I just get impression people want an excuse to bitch and moan about the consoles.

Edit!!

Some BF4 benchmarks.



At ultra quality you get between 40FPS to 50FPS at 1920X1080 with an HD7850 or HD7870.



So,on the lower high quality setting you get between 46FPS to 55FPS.

In both cases expensive six core Core i7 CPUs are used.

Hence,if the PS4 is running the game at constant 60FPS,using a mixture of medium and high settings it seems to be not doing too bad at all IMHO.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

And you think that Crysis3 @ 1080p with maxed settings at a sustained 60fps is going to be remotely achievable on a console that costs £400 in total? From the benches I've seen you'd probably have to spend that £400 on a graphics card alone that's able to handle that. Put it this way, I'd be pleasantly surprised if you can get a whole PC system that can deliver on your requirement for less than double the cost of a PS4.

Erm, no. I suggest you take a minute and actually read the article. It says: (I've underlined the relevant bits)

and

In other words - CoD is 1080p and BF4 is 900p.

See that first quote above, Mark Rubin (CoD's producer) says "native 1080p on PS4" which is why the Hexus headline repeats that. Now if the headline said "BF4 runs native at 720p on XBox One, 1080p on PS4" then you'd have grounds to complain. But it doesn't, and you don't.

lol pretty much put that person in place! harsh

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Hence,if the PS4 is running the game at constant 60FPS,using a mixture of medium and high settings it seems to be not doing too bad at all IMHO.

The pc version of bf4 needs to be played on a billion different combination of components whilst a console is one specific hardware.

You cant compare to be fair.i bet u a million quid if BF4 or crysis was made just for a core i7 920 and only a 480gtx, it would be able to play it in ulra settings 60fps+ easily

[Otherhand]

...

Alright, wind your neck in Crossy! I think you misjudged my tone somewhat: asking a question, not making a complaint. Living up to your username though

Admittedly I did not spot the switch in mentions of Generic Shooter A and Generic Shooter B. I play them both occasionally when I go and see my nephew because he loves those things, but to me they're two bland things which are easy for me to conflate, and I did. My apologies.

It doesn't actually make sense to challenge me to build a PC that can do the same for £400-500, because that's not what the consoles do. For one thing, the task of coding the games for a closed system is massively streamlined and the use of resources is way more efficient (none of the wrangling of PC architectures and OSs), and secondly those consoles are not £500 machines. As with the last two gens, Sony and MS are going to make a large loss per unit for a good few years until their costs come down, and they're never really going to make serious profit from the hardware. With that in mind, the strongest of the two consoles ought to be capable of getting Battlefield 4 running well at 1080p, and apparently it is not.

[herulach]

Alright, wind your neck in Crossy! I think you misjudged my tone somewhat: asking a question, not making a complaint. Living up to your username though

Admittedly I did not spot the switch in mentions of Generic Shooter A and Generic Shooter B. I play them both occasionally when I go and see my nephew because he loves those things, but to me they're two bland things which are easy for me to conflate, and I did. My apologies.

It doesn't actually make sense to challenge me to build a PC that can do the same for £400-500, because that's not what the consoles do. For one thing, the task of coding the games for a closed system is massively streamlined and the use of resources is way more efficient (none of the wrangling of PC architectures and OSs), and secondly those consoles are not £500 machines. As with the last two gens, Sony and MS are going to make a large loss per unit for a good few years until their costs come down, and they're never really going to make serious profit from the hardware. With that in mind, the strongest of the two consoles ought to be capable of getting Battlefield 4 running well at 1080p, and apparently it is not.

But, BF4 is a cross platform product, I'd be very surprised if they're using different models/textures etc for the different systems and ultimately they're coding for (a very slow) X86 & a desktop GPU (albeit one specific version) rather than something completely different like they were with Cell for example. Its also a game thats been in development for far longer (or maybe more or less exactly as long) as dev kits for the new consoles have been available, you wouldn't expect it to be heavily optimised.

You've also got to remember that these chips are hugely crippled by the form factor. Being overtly critical of AMDs thermal design and say its twice the TDP of an A6 5200 (the nearest part I can find specs for) and thats a 50W TDP. Never mind price, do BF4 at 1080p/ultra while using 50W of juice. Most desktop PCs would struggle to idle at that.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The pc version of bf4 needs to be played on a billion different combination of components whilst a console is one specific hardware.

You cant compare to be fair.i bet u a million quid if BF4 or crysis was made just for a core i7 920 and only a 480gtx, it would be able to play it in ulra settings 60fps+ easily

Something like a PS4 is already doing better than a PC with similar specs - most gaming PCs won't be able to run games like BF4 at a constant 60FPS at 1920X1080 or 1600X900 at decent settings.That means minimums are 60FPS too. What you are not realising is that the charts I listed are using IB-E six core Core i7 CPUs which use bigger dies than the whole PS4 SOC.

Then if you consider the power consumption of the entire console,then they consume far less power. They need to be as they are designed to fit into relatively small,maintenance free boxes which sit under a TV which cannot be too noisy either.

BF4 is massively CPU bottlenecked,so I am amazed they can get it running at a constant 60FPS at 1600X900 using a low power CPU and low power GPU. This is before even the PS4 is released,so there is probably plenty of time for optimisation to get even more performance in later games.

I don't think I could achieve that with my Xeon E3 1220 and a GTX660 using a low power consumption mini-ITX motherboard,unless I drop the settings TBH. That consumes nearly 200W at the wall and the Xeon E3 CPUs are binned for lower power consumption when compared to the equivalent Core i5 CPUs.

All my main PCs have been SFF ones for years,and they are harder to cool quietly,and cost more in hardware for similar performance when compared to larger ATX based builds.

[crossy]

Alright, wind your neck in Crossy! I think you misjudged my tone somewhat: asking a question, not making a complaint. Living up to your username though

No - statements like "And yet here we are with PS4 supporters crowing at the XO mob because their box does 60fps CoD at a lowly 900p" look like complaints to me. And personally I thought I was being firm but still polite - not wishing to have Saracen's ban hammer descend like Mjolnir from the starry heavens!

Admittedly I did not spot the switch in mentions of Generic Shooter A and Generic Shooter B. I play them both occasionally when I go and see my nephew because he loves those things, but to me they're two bland things which are easy for me to conflate, and I did. My apologies.

Fair enough. To be honest I DO play these a lot and even I find that they tend to blur a bit - especially the CoD's. If your nephew's old enough then Saints Row III or IV get my recommendation and I'm currently playing through Sleeping Dogs. By the way Steam had BF3 on some pretty sizable discount if he's not already got that - it's sublime on a PC, but only passable on an XBox.

It doesn't actually make sense to challenge me to build a PC that can do the same for £400-500, because that's not what the consoles do. For one thing, the task of coding the games for a closed system is massively streamlined and the use of resources is way more efficient (none of the wrangling of PC architectures and OSs), and secondly those consoles are not £500 machines. As with the last two gens, Sony and MS are going to make a large loss per unit for a good few years until their costs come down, and they're never really going to make serious profit from the hardware. With that in mind, the strongest of the two consoles ought to be capable of getting Battlefield 4 running well at 1080p, and apparently it is not.

Remember that these consoles - unlike their predecessors ARE based on good ole PC internals (or close analogs thereof) and there's even rumours that XBone's OS is actually some kind of Windows8 mutant. Sure the consoles are sold at zero profit, but the point I was trying to make was that given the low cost nature of them you can't reasonably expect them to match a proper "gaming PC". So while they don't compare to the PC's that you and I probably have, for a £400-500 box they probably are "good enough". Remember that it's early days and hence there's a lot of tweaking that can be done.

Please also don't mistake me for one of the PS4 fan boys - I'm not. In fact the games consoles in this house are all Xboxes but there's no plans to replace with XBone. And actually I've been quietly impressed with the quality of the titles on the PS4.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to shut down this Linux PC, fire up the Windows one and get a couple of minutes of the afore-mentioned Sleeping Dogs played! (Good game, not nearly as mental as Saints Row IV).

[Hicks12]

Yeah its a shame they havent got a solid 1080p output for BF4, maybe they should have waited till next year for AMDs next lot of APUs? I have been enjoying battlefield 4 on ultra with 2xAA and SSAO filter, single player but it hasnt felt laggy at all on a 1080p screen, no idea on the actual FPS but I assume I will play on high for multiplayer as that will be a solid performer for me .

Cat just wait for Mantle support in December for BF4, it will be interesting to see what difference it really makes for the 7000 series benchmark results .