That's the point I'm trying to make, it's not that simple. These GPUs are largely the same, Ps4 has more execution units, but they have lots of the same hardware in it. And al of those run faster on xbone due the higher clock.
Of course there are. Plenty of reasons actually.
Like low performant SDKs with high cpu overhead, virtualization costs, etc... Do you not noticed a trend where as soon as Ms started improving their tools the performance started creeping closer to PS4? Ps4 will probably still outperform the xbone, but early titles were not showing the real baseline performance of the xbone hardware.
That's subjective as fuck.
I think games like FH2 and SO have nothing to be ashamed of when compared to Ps4 exclusives, in many ways they even outdo them. But it's a bit pointless arguing over that,.
I will try to simplify:
- The cutscenes are largely gpu bound. Ps4 drops frames as well, so it's not being capped or anything. Still, the performance delta is not a single time close to the 40% the extra flops on Ps4 would lead to believe? Why? It might be because there are parts of the rendering pipeline (like for example setting up the vertex data as fragments to the pixel shader) that runs faster on xbone, which can make up for the difference. It might also be that the shaders they are using rely on bandwidth or some other resource than flops. Either way, the 40% isn't showing here, while curiously a 10% overclock is netting fairly often more than 10% frames for xbone during gameplay.
- Using the smoke grenade causes framedrops on both platforms, but on Ps4 not only the drop is more severe it's also the lowest point for the console (18fps). Ps4 has twice the number of ROPs, why does this happen? Kinda right to pinpoint a culprit without any profile data, but looking at the architectures might give an answer: The esram on xbone provides on a theoretical max, more bandwidth than the entire GDDR5 on Ps4, but that bandwidth is only accessible when writing and reading from it at the same time, something that a huge curtain of smoke might very well do. The game uses deferred lighting, has tons of post processing which relies on screen space, and has some alpha effects, it's not out of the ordinary to say they are often bandwidth bound, so in a scenario like that, the esram might be an advantage for the xbone, despite having less ROPs.
See what I'm talking about? The Ps4 might be more powerful, but in one scenario it doesn't outperforms as well as it should, and on the other is being outperformed, despite theoretically having more hardware to deal with the issue.
Wow.
Why do people always blame Microsoft for EVERYTHING on this forum?.
I'm sick of seeing constant "Microsoft money hatting" this and "developers don't want to upset Microsoft" that. Its like is Sony some tiny penniless company that developers don't care about or something?, or a company that wouldn't do something about this themselves if there were any truth to this?.
Jesus some of you never give up.
My messages take so long to send I swear Yodel could courier them faster.
That's the point I'm trying to make, it's not that simple. These GPUs are largely the same, Ps4 has more execution units, but they have lots of the same hardware in it. And al of those run faster on xbone due the higher clock.
Of course there are. Plenty of reasons actually.
Like low performant SDKs with high cpu overhead, virtualization costs, etc... Do you not noticed a trend where as soon as Ms started improving their tools the performance started creeping closer to PS4? Ps4 will probably still outperform the xbone, but early titles were not showing the real baseline performance of the xbone hardware.
That's subjective as fuck.
I think games like FH2 and SO have nothing to be ashamed of when compared to Ps4 exclusives, in many ways they even outdo them. But it's a bit pointless arguing over that,.
I will try to simplify:
- The cutscenes are largely gpu bound. Ps4 drops frames as well, so it's not being capped or anything. Still, the performance delta is not a single time close to the 40% the extra flops on Ps4 would lead to believe? Why? It might be because there are parts of the rendering pipeline (like for example setting up the vertex data as fragments to the pixel shader) that runs faster on xbone, which can make up for the difference. It might also be that the shaders they are using rely on bandwidth or some other resource than flops. Either way, the 40% isn't showing here, while curiously a 10% overclock is netting fairly often more than 10% frames for xbone during gameplay.
- Using the smoke grenade causes framedrops on both platforms, but on Ps4 not only the drop is more severe it's also the lowest point for the console (18fps). Ps4 has twice the number of ROPs, why does this happen? Kinda right to pinpoint a culprit without any profile data, but looking at the architectures might give an answer: The esram on xbone provides on a theoretical max, more bandwidth than the entire GDDR5 on Ps4, but that bandwidth is only accessible when writing and reading from it at the same time, something that a huge curtain of smoke might very well do. The game uses deferred lighting, has tons of post processing which relies on screen space, and has some alpha effects, it's not out of the ordinary to say they are often bandwidth bound, so in a scenario like that, the esram might be an advantage for the xbone, despite having less ROPs.
See what I'm talking about? The Ps4 might be more powerful, but in one scenario it doesn't outperforms as well as it should, and on the other is being outperformed, despite theoretically having more hardware to deal with the issue.
Oh, the gap is closing. Good.
Why do people always blame Microsoft for EVERYTHING on this forum?.
I'm sick of seeing constant "Microsoft money hatting" this and "developers don't want to upset Microsoft" that. Its like is Sony some tiny penniless company that developers don't care about or something?, or a company that wouldn't do something about this themselves if there were any truth to this?.
Jesus some of you never give up.
Well yeah you could certainly see it that way.
Alternatively, that the game runs like shit no matter the platform, and has ridiculous glitches left and right, which might just suggest that it might not have had the amount of polishing it should have.
So I guess it's a pariturd.
So can we have a Worst AAA game of the year on GAF? Can this game win it?
The marketing and PR blitz for this game is one of the most shameful things I've ever seen.
The game is shown running at a perfect and smooth framerate in every big tradeshow because they are using some $3000 rig, then they set the review embargo to day of release at 12 PM so that consumers don't actually know the game runs at sub 20 FPS and is littered with technical problems until they have it in their home.
On top of that the game is littered with anti consumer practices, micro transactions and pleas to use an intrusive companion app.
Fuck you Ubisoft, I really mean that. I'm not buying your games ever again, hope it was worth it.
they learned their lesson well.If any of these theories were true then why on earth would Microsoft allow COD Ghosts to be 720p on X1 and 1080p on PS4 at the launch of their console, these theories are utter rubbish.
Nice meltdown, would read again. Poor Microsoft.
In the thread about the Ubi CPU presentation he weighed in after a few of us speculated that the SDK updates have allowed for more wiggle room for MS and said something to the effect of "people have figured out what it is"Last Matt's post about power difference was AFTER June SDK :
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121958788&postcount=203
I took some more screenshots from the comparison tool:
So fucking glad I cancelled preorder for this on the PS4 and got this on the Xbox One now.
Just started the game now and the framerate is an issue but bloody hell at the PS4 version being even worse than this, definitely couldn't live with that.
That looks identical to me. Can't tell a difference here.I took some more screenshots from the comparison tool:
So...
Why did we buy 'next gen' consoles again? This performance is worse than last gen.
Sheesh.
If any of these theories were true then why on earth would Microsoft allow COD Ghosts to be 720p on X1 and 1080p on PS4 at the launch of their console, these theories are utter rubbish.
Better microtransaction infrastructure, better support for 15GB+ day one patches, easier integration with useless companion apps and more nobody-asked-for-this transmedia offerings.So...
Why did we buy 'next gen' consoles again? This performance is worse than last gen.
Sheesh.
Why do people always blame Microsoft for EVERYTHING on this forum?.
I'm sick of seeing constant "Microsoft money hatting" this and "developers don't want to upset Microsoft" that. Its like is Sony some tiny penniless company that developers don't care about or something?, or a company that wouldn't do something about this themselves if there were any truth to this?.
Jesus some of you never give up.
That's basically where I'm at with Ubisoft right now. They have been so disgusting for so long now that I don't even want anything to do with them. I've purchased every AC game from them in the past, so I was part of the problem leading to this shit. I encouraged them by accepting their past garbage and now I'm swallowing the crap that they think we're OK with.
No friggin' more. Yes, we're just talking about videogames and it's not like saving the environment, but I can save my money for more important things. Like videogames that aren't released in half finished states with microtransactions pouring out the ass and treasure chests that won't open unless you utilize the goddamn companion app.
Like companies that don't treat us like fucking morons pretending 30fps feels more cinematic. Like companies who don't insult entire fucking groups of gamers because of their pathetic laziness. Like companies which don't fucking spout PR vomit to appease their fucking marketing partners. Like companies which don't think gamers are so fucking pathetic that they'll believe any spewing ass diarrhea coming our way so we can play their shitty, buggy, barely functional repetitious grindwheel open world titles. Like companies that don't utilize grotesque DRM until the outcry forces them to change only to replace it with more DRM trash meant to squeeze more bucks out of consumers. Like companies who don't think they can fucking buy the media's silence with their threats or try to force unseemly day 1 embargoes so that consumers don't know what the hell they're getting. Where they now bathe in endless microtransaction nickle-and-diming in every fucking game they make.
I AM DONE WITH UBISOFT.
No, enough is ENOUGH Ubisoft. You're a piece of shit publisher with no value in the community. You have taken advantage of consumers you know enjoy AAA values by misleading them, forcing them to not have complete pictures of products they buy, trying to buy off silence or threaten people into complacency. You fucks don't get another dime from me EVER AGAIN.
Ghost got a 1080p patch on PS4.
Thank God you showed up! Microsoft needs defending!
Actually, I think this thread is about the Playstation 4 getting a terrible version of Assassin's Creed: Unity, so I think you can safely return to your fortress of solitude.
That's basically where I'm at with Ubisoft right now. They have been so disgusting for so long now that I don't even want anything to do with them. I've purchased every AC game from them in the past, so I was part of the problem leading to this shit. I encouraged them by accepting their past garbage and now I'm swallowing the crap that they think we're OK with.
No friggin' more. Yes, we're just talking about videogames and it's not like saving the environment, but I can save my money for more important things. Like videogames that aren't released in half finished states with microtransactions pouring out the ass and treasure chests that won't open unless you utilize the goddamn companion app.
Like companies that don't treat us like fucking morons pretending 30fps feels more cinematic. Like companies who don't insult entire fucking groups of gamers because of their pathetic laziness. Like companies which don't fucking spout PR vomit to appease their fucking marketing partners. Like companies which don't think gamers are so fucking pathetic that they'll believe any spewing ass diarrhea coming our way so we can play their shitty, buggy, barely functional repetitious grindwheel open world titles. Like companies that don't utilize grotesque DRM until the outcry forces them to change only to replace it with more DRM trash meant to squeeze more bucks out of consumers. Like companies who don't think they can fucking buy the media's silence with their threats or try to force unseemly day 1 embargoes so that consumers don't know what the hell they're getting. Where they now bathe in endless microtransaction nickle-and-diming in every fucking game they make.
I AM DONE WITH UBISOFT.
No, enough is ENOUGH Ubisoft. You're a piece of shit publisher with no value in the community. You have taken advantage of consumers you know enjoy AAA values by misleading them, forcing them to not have complete pictures of products they buy, trying to buy off silence or threaten people into complacency. You fucks don't get another dime from me EVER AGAIN.
I took some more screenshots from the comparison tool:
Apparently "every ounce of power" = "We didn't bother optimizing anything."
I can see the necessity of the crowd if they had a purpose beyond just fucking being there.
Who is this Matt that everyone keeps quoting? Does he work for Ubisoft?
oh crap.. that game that everyone is saying sucks runs worse on the better system...
While I appreciate the sentiment, I would not group an entire set of hardworking people that have honest intentions which can be drowned by one person sucking up to upper management. You'll be amazed how often one bad decision can result with what we are seeing right here.
Their management needs to change and given the nature of the industry, it may just very well. Never say never. Be hopeful that someday the good work of many people who commit their time and talent there will be known and rewarded someday
AC4 - 1080p, rock solid 30fps
ACU - built from the ground up to take advantage of next-gen hardware - 900p, variable 20-30fps, full of pop-up and glitches
So... this game has been a disaster. Ubisoft will probably acknowledge as much but only when it's time to hype up AC 2015.
Clearly the game could have done with at least another 6 months in the oven. I wish Ubisoft had the balls to delay an AC game.
I actually don't follow so please explain it like I'm 5. If the clock speed of a single core is increased 9% it seems reasonable that a parallel task across all available cores each get a 9% increase. In the case of a 6 core processor the total potential gain is 54% for any given parallel task?
So for example, if I have 120 tasks that can be performed in parallel (ignoring overhead of managing those tasks, memory contention and so on) each core/thread would get 20 tasks. It seems reasonable to me that if I click up the clock rate on each core by 9% the entire batch of 120 tasks would complete 54% faster. Why is that thinking wrong just because another system has the same number of cores?
Ghost got a 1080p patch on PS4.
The actual graphics are a lot better than Black Flag though.
I don't know why that comparison keeps getting used, Black Flag was a last gen game with a better resolution and more stable framerate over last gen.
AC4 - 1080p, rock solid 30fps
ACU - built from the ground up to take advantage of next-gen hardware - 900p, variable 20-30fps, full of pop-up and glitches
So... this game has been a disaster. Ubisoft will probably acknowledge as much but only when it's time to hype up AC 2015.
Clearly the game could have done with at least another 6 months in the oven. I wish Ubisoft had the balls to delay an AC game.