Call of Duty: Ghosts

[Synthesthesia]

I really don't understand how it's only running at 720p. My GTX 580 (which isn't as powerful as the XBO's GPU from what I've read by about 50%, and obviously the XBO is in a closed environment so can be more optimised so should be even more powerful than raw spec suggests) runs pretty much any game I throw at it in at least 1080p at 60fps, especially any COD game, I used to get 100+fps on some of the CoD games... So how can the XBO not? It just seems like the developer has been really lazy to me, since COD looks pretty crap in terms of graphics, it's nowhere near say Forza and that's running at 1080p/60.

Strange.

[Uli]

it's just that PC has been next gen for the past 3-4 years already.

right Matt, that's basically the whole point. next gen in audio-visual terms already exists on PC with titles like Crysis 3.

[Golgo]

I think it's a bit phoney to keep inserting PCs into the 'next gen' debate as a comparison. PCs experience a slow, steady and continuous curve of incremental improvements. They don't undergo the very significant upgrades at very long intervals that you get with consoles.

[Digfox]

I really don't understand how it's only running at 720p. My GTX 580 (which isn't as powerful as the XBO's GPU from what I've read by about 50%, and obviously the XBO is in a closed environment so can be more optimised so should be even more powerful than raw spec suggests) runs pretty much any game I throw at it in at least 1080p at 60fps, especially any COD game, I used to get 100+fps on some of the CoD games... So how can the XBO not? It just seems like the developer has been really lazy to me, since COD looks pretty crap in terms of graphics, it's nowhere near say Forza and that's running at 1080p/60.

Strange.

Just out of interest - everything I've read about XBO/PS4 points towards your GPU being more powerful than the XBO GPU.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...mpete-with-ps4

Even if you compare it to the 7850 (arguably more powerful than the XBO GPU) it generally provides more FPS.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/778?vs=767

So even with the better optimisation the tight deadlines, it's new hardware, the DDR3 and challenges of this eSRAM, I get why the developers struggled with the XBO version.

[Synthesthesia]

Hm, I guess. 720p though? Gears of War runs at that, and I wouldn't say CoD looks better than Gears Does...even Ghosts. I could have understood 900p, but 720p seems too low for what it's offering in terms of graphics. I can understand why BF4 is, 64 players and it actually looks good, but this...

[EvilBoris]

So even with the better optimisation the tight deadlines, it's new hardware, the DDR3 and challenges of this eSRAM, I get why the developers struggled with the XBO version.

I don't get it, the 360 had basically the same thing and it never caused a problem.

[Brad]

I really don't understand how it's only running at 720p. My GTX 580 (which isn't as powerful as the XBO's GPU from what I've read by about 50%, and obviously the XBO is in a closed environment so can be more optimised so should be even more powerful than raw spec suggests) runs pretty much any game I throw at it in at least 1080p at 60fps, especially any COD game, I used to get 100+fps on some of the CoD games... So how can the XBO not? It just seems like the developer has been really lazy to me, since COD looks pretty crap in terms of graphics, it's nowhere near say Forza and that's running at 1080p/60.

Strange.

Your GTX 580 is massively more powerful than the Xbox One GPU. Even if the Xbox used GDDR5 it still isn't as good as a 580.

Driving games tend to support hi res/fps very early on. Must be something yo do with the nature of driving games e.g RR7 (I know that's arcadey) and GT5 and the last forza. 60fps is normal for those games so it's not fair to compare an FPS to a driving game really.

[saturn-gamer]

Forza is a linear racing game with a preset amount of cars and pre baked lighting. Its not hard to get that at 60fps. Drive Club is a different matter with its real time lighting etc.

CoD runs at 60fps, and at 720p on X1 which is an improvement over the sub-HD 360 versions. It probably looks prettier too. Ofcourse IW is lazy, DICE can output BF4 at the same reso and fps on the same console.

Plus, these are rushed launch products.

Plus, the next-gen systems are actually very weak but since the 7 year old Ps3 is probably still the most powerful console out there, the Ps4 and X1 are improvements regardless. But the gap with the PC will increase even quicker (as PC can be already far more powerful) and if PC is going to be the lead for, say, Battlefield 5, I wonder how the console ports are going to stack.

tl;dr: don't buy consoles if you're into graphics and specs.

[Digfox]

I don't get it, the 360 had basically the same thing and it never caused a problem.

It's not the same. The 360/PS3 machines were similar in their specifications with the PS3 having a different RAM setup and lesser-GPU, which over time developers got to grips with. Everything I've read about the next-gen sounds to me that the difference is now more significant in the specifications.

It's seems to be as clear as day that for the launch window this MS approach of slow DDR3 plus a small amount of embedded RAM has caused issues for developers. Add on the more powerful PS4 GPU and none of this is a surprise. I'm guessing that simply lower the native resolution of the game was far quicker and easier than having to efficiently use that eSRAM setup. Although the recent EG article 'hints' towards a longer-term issue that the eSRAM might always struggle because there's not enough of it. Once the dust has settled and developers get to spend more time with the XBO, then I'm sure we'll see less of a difference but I am personally convinced that for this round the PS4 is always going to get the better versions of multi-platform games.

And for me one of the reasons for buying the PS4 (aside from having far less time these days). In the age of multi-platform games I suspected back in June when I pre-ordered PS4 that it's going to get the best versions of games.

However my main reason for replying is that either machine doesn't have powerful high-end GPU's, so actually it's surprising but that 3 year old top-end GPU is more powerful than the GPU in these consoles - although I appreciate it's very difficult to do like-for-like comparisons.

[Synthesthesia]

Your GTX 580 is massively more powerful than the Xbox One GPU. Even if the Xbox used GDDR5 it still isn't as good as a 580.

Driving games tend to support hi res/fps very early on. Must be something yo do with the nature of driving games e.g RR7 (I know that's arcadey) and GT5 and the last forza. 60fps is normal for those games so it's not fair to compare an FPS to a driving game really.

I guess I read wrong then, I'm sure I read somewhere it had around 50% more Tflops.

I just really didn't think there'd be that much of a disparity where the XBO could only run a game at half the resolution as the PS4, I mean like I've said you have current gen games running at that with much weaker hardware, and this game looks barely any better than past CoD games.

I'm primarily a 360 player, but after seeing all this I'm starting to think I may be PS4 centric this gen.

[EvilBoris]

It's not the same.

It is.

360 has unified DDR ram and fast embedded ram in the CPU

Xbox One has unified DDR Ram and fast embedded RAM in the CPU

With the exception of the 360 being PowerPC and XBO being x86 the systems are very similar, so I don't understand why people are saying it must be the ESRAM that they don't have experience with, when they have 8 years of experience.

[sj33]

Apparently Edge posted this resolution comparison.

http://i.imgur.com/qWs3tuQ.png

[Digfox]

It is.

360 has unified DDR ram and fast embedded ram in the CPU

Xbox One has unified DDR Ram and fast embedded RAM in the CPU

With the exception of the 360 being PowerPC and XBO being x86 the systems are very similar, so I don't understand why people are saying it must be the ESRAM that they don't have experience with, when they have 8 years of experience.

Its not the same, as we're comparing two very different machines and there are a number of factors involved. A number of consoles over the years have used embedded RAM. Yes both these Xboxes used embedded RAM but they are much more dependant on using this eSRAM to bring out the best of XBO.

It seems fairly logical to me as to why developers bringing a game to PC and PS4 with lots of fast DDR5 for their GPU then struggle with the XBO version with this eSRAM 'workaround'. Particularly when trying to hit very high resolutions like 1080p and to make it worse the PS4 has a more powerful GPU.

[Digfox]

I guess I read wrong then, I'm sure I read somewhere it had around 50% more Tflops.

I just really didn't think there'd be that much of a disparity where the XBO could only run a game at half the resolution as the PS4, I mean like I've said you have current gen games running at that with much weaker hardware, and this game looks barely any better than past CoD games.

I'm primarily a 360 player, but after seeing all this I'm starting to think I may be PS4 centric this gen.

Same as me - I spent most of my time on 360 this gen and at times barely touched the PS3 (played the odd exclusive). But I've watched in horror at some of the mistakes MS has made and the difference in the specifications really concerned me day one. For a while I wasn't going to bother with either machine at launch and I don't have huge amounts of spare time so want to avoid owning both (my backlog this gen has got silly). Although I might get an XBO one day, right now I'm comfortable my WiiU - PC - PS4 setup is the right choice.

[Brad]

The problem is people comparing the new consoles to pc. mid range pcs are massively more powerful than the new consoles. the gfx cards in modern pcs wouldn't even fit inside the cases of ps4 or xbone. consoles are a compromise. accept that and enjoy