Support NeoGAF

[Whiteshirt]

The "1600x900 is good enough, there's no point for 1920x1080" is the strangest excuse in the world.

If 1600x900 was good enough, what is the point of even aiming for 1920x1080 when its like 40% more pixels? Why is Turn 10 aiming for 1920x1080 and not investing the saved powered into better lighting for example?

I cannot understand the reasoning behind it at all. People bring up dynamic resolution but that exists to ensure frame rate is maintained at a stable level, which is especially important in fast paced games like Metal Gear Rising.

Yea even I am skeptical on that and how quick their tune change is even more crazy if true.

EDGE is made up of more than one writer. They are also likely talking about launch lineups, which doesn't seem too difficult to justify. Its not really changing tune and it doesn't change the fact that the Xbox One is probably weaker than the PS4. Its just that this writer thinks the Xbox One has better launch titles, which is a perfectly fine stance to hold.

But the issue I might have with that article is the justification. From the small snippet posted, its a strange conclusion to make that Killzone is no Halo or Dead Rising looks like better at third world mayhem then Infamous (?????). Its kind of...console warrior-y so to speak.

Unless you're like senjutsusage and honestly believe EDGE is the devil that is paid off by Sony, the article doesn't highlight that EDGE jumped to the other side or anything. No, they're not paid off by anyone. Nothing has convinced me of this, considering how they review games.

 

[seventynine]

The "1600x900 is good enough, there's no point for 1920x1080" is the strangest excuse in the world.

If 1600x900 was good enough, what is the point of even aiming for 1920x1080 when its like 40% more pixels? Why is Turn 10 aiming for 1920x1080 and not investing the saved powered into better lighting for example?

I cannot understand the reasoning behind it at all. People bring up dynamic resolution but that exists to ensure frame rate is maintained at a stable level, which is especially important in fast paced games like Metal Gear Rising.

Even more foolhardy stating that in a tech thread.

I see DF is dragging this circus on...

 

[Radec]

Transistors
Cloud
Diminishing returns
Lowest common denominator
900p = 1080p
Balance
secret sauce
SHAPE
Elegance > Brute force. LMAO
and now

16ROPs > 32ROPs


I admire such persistence. very entertaining stuff

 

[gofreak]

I'd like DF to ask MS how well 'balanced' bandwidth on XB1 is and to put the notion that eSRAM 'is a nightmare to work with' to MS and ask MS what those devs might be talking about.

I'd like them to also ask if 'balance' ought not to mean most shapes of game software perform well as is on XB1 - i.e. that the hardware is well resourced to deal with bottlenecks wherever they might typically be in game code without massive optimisation efforts. Ask whether the feedback from devs they've gotten is positive about 'time to acceptable performance' vs other platforms.

 

[Bundy]

You forgot "Microsoft wont let Sony...."

What about "Bitch, please.... we made DirectX!"

 

[keuja]

Transistors
Cloud
Diminishing returns
Lowest common denominator
900p = 1080p
Balance
secret sauce
SHAPE
Elegance > Brute force. LMAO
16ROPs > 32ROPs

I admire such persistence. very entertaining stuff

PS4 off-the-shelves parts
ESRAM low latency

 

[BruiserBear]

I'd like DF to ask MS how well 'balanced' bandwidth on XB1 is and to put the notion that eSRAM 'is a nightmare to work with' to MS and ask MS what those devs might be talking about.

I'd like them to also ask if 'balance' ought not to mean most shapes of game software perform well as is on XB1 - i.e. that the hardware is well resourced to deal with bottlenecks wherever they might typically be in game code without massive optimisation efforts. Ask whether the feedback from devs they've gotten is positive about 'time to acceptable performance' vs other platforms.

Microsoft's "technical fellows" are not going to sit down with him to be grille and embarrassed. They probably knew going in they weren't going to be questioned in a serious manner.

 

[Nozem]

It's impossible for Microsoft to admit their console is weaker. Imagine the headlines.

 

[IN&OUT]

The moment MS said " 5 Billion Transistors" in their E3, I realized that X1 is no where close to PS4 power wise. Their next statement was " we didn't target the highest end specs". following statements were pure PR like "infinite power of the cloud", "Balance" and bandwidth funny math.

Any rational guy would have inferred that X1 is not as capable as PS4 right after E3, no need for months and months of debate and defence. Key members in the industry already talked about this;

AMD (Makers of the APU's in BOTH X1 and PS4) said that PS4 APU is the most powerful they ever created for anyone.

Multiple Devs saying that PS4 has a clear advantage power wise.

Sony is confidentally saying that PS4 is the most powerful console ever created.

MS is touting PARITY with PS4. (Notice the difference between MS and Sony messages)


and we still have people questioning those facts?

 

[CoG]

It's impossible for Microsoft to admit their console is weaker. Imagine the headlines.

Didn't they already admit at E3 that they didn't seek to make the most powerful hardware?

The clock boosts just prove the hardware is slower than the PS4. Why risk more heat for a minor bump in GPU and CPU if the performance was not way behind?

 

[Raist]

SHAPE is the new HANA. You always need that one mysterious secret chip that supposedly is super powerful but turns out to be just a whole lot of rubbish.

 

[iceatcs]

The moment MS said " 5 Billion Transistors" in their E3, I realized that X1 is no where close to PS4 power wise. Their next statement was " we didn't target the highest end specs". following statement are pure PR like "infinite power of the cloud", "Balance" and bandwidth funny math.

Any rational guy would have inferred that X1 is not as capable as PS4 right after E3, no need for months and months of debate and defence. Key members in the industry already talked about this;

AMD (Makers of the APU's in BOTH X1 and PS4) said that PS4 APU is the most powerful they ever created for anyone.

Multiple Devs saying that PS4 has a clear advantage power wise.

Sony is confidentally saying that PS4 is the most powerful console ever created.

MS is touting PARITY with PS4. (Notice the difference between MS and Sony messages)


and we still have people questioning those facts?

But but -- there is still hope.

 

[Nozem]

Didn't they already admit at E3 that they didn't seek to make the most powerful hardware?

The clock boosts just prove the hardware is slower than the PS4. Why risk more heat for a minor bump in GPU and CPU if the performance was not way behind?

It's obvious the console is less powerful, and everybody knows it. But they still can't say it.

 

[Bundy]

Didn't they already admit at E3 that they didn't seek to make the most powerful hardware?

The clock boosts just prove the hardware is slower than the PS4. Why risk more heat for a minor bump in GPU and CPU if the performance was not way behind?

Because the XBone has been designed as an always-online (ALWAYS) / KINECT-always-connected console. Used games DRM, etc.
The current XBone is a bastard child of their original version/idea.
Now it's directly competing with the PS4 (you know what I mean) and all of a sudden "we didn't target the highest end specs" bites them in the ass now. And I mean their statement and the fact, that they clearly have the weaker hardware.
So damage controll (see Penello, PR, etc.) started.

 

[IN&OUT]

I think the problem stem way back during Durango/Orbis specs rumors, Xbox fans were so confident that MS would blow Sony out of the water specs wise due to Sony's financial difficulties and MS mountains of cash. funny how that ended up.

Dual APU's, 7970 GPU, SoC and other funny rumors. It was really entertaining period really

Now, waithing for first DF face off, it would be great.

 

[cyberheater]

The "1600x900 is good enough, there's no point for 1920x1080" is the strangest excuse in the world.

It's not so much as a excuse as a necessity for some Xbox One games. That might improve in the future.

The good news is that 900p with decent AA at a normal seating distance from a TV screen looks pretty close in quality to 1080p.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

What is your definition of "normal seating distance" and "pretty close in quality"? 1080p is 44% more pixels than 900p, how can that be "pretty close in quality"?

 

[KidBeta]

It's not so much as a excuse as a necessity for some Xbox One games. That might improve in the future.

The good news is that 900p with decent AA at a normal seating distance from a TV screen looks pretty close in quality to 1080p.

So im guessing we can just return all those 1080P tv's and start churning out 900P ones? it'd certainly be cheaper..

 

[Derpcrawler]

Another article by Richard Leadbetter, why I am not surprised it's downplaying PS4 and praising Xbox One...

 

[cyberheater]

What is your definition of "normal seating distance" and "pretty close in quality"? 1080p is 44% more pixels than 900p, how can that be "pretty close in quality"?

I've just physically measured it. My living room isn't massive but I'm sitting 9ft away from a 40 inch tv. I think that sort of distance is typical giving the average living room size in the UK, and the fact where most people would put their couch and TV.
Certainly. All of my friends have a similar set up.

 

[Sky78]

I've just physically measured it. My living room isn't massive but I'm sitting 9ft away from a 40 inch tv. I think that sort of distance is typical giving the average living room size in the UK, and the fact where most people would put their couch and TV.
Certainly. All of my friends have a similar set up.

I made this point earlier in the thread and got dismissed. 180cm from a 42 inch screen and it looked identical to me.

1080p vs 900p is an important distinction if you are gaming on a large monitor inches from your face, but in living room conditions it will be indiscernible in the average set up.

People will want to claim they have super human eye sight and can definitely tell the difference, but there is a point at which the bullshit siren starts ringing for me.

A series of blind tests on stuff like this would make a fascinating article.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Give it time. We're still at the denial and isolation stage.

Why does it feel like we've been at that stage for months.

We have 2 threads trying to preach the gospel and we've had at least 501- locked because of someone either finding some potentially "bad" PS4 thing or someone trying to play up Xbone.

My head is hurting (from the spin and repetitive talk) and I mean that literally sometimes.

 

[Dzidza1978]

It's not so much as a excuse as a necessity for some Xbox One games. That might improve in the future.

The good news is that 900p with decent AA at a normal seating distance from a TV screen looks pretty close in quality to 1080p.

It doesn't look pretty close. 1080p provides much clearer picture.

Maybe Microsoft should put label/disclamer on Xbox One "Best viewed from 10m of your TV or use normal distance view for HDTV on very small TV screen"

 

[Chobel]

I've just physically measured it. My living room isn't massive but I'm sitting 9ft away from a 40 inch tv. I think that sort of distance is typical giving the average living room size in the UK, and the fact where most people would put their couch and TV.
Certainly. All of my friends have a similar set up.

If that is how you feel, then why you're getting PS4? You said you want PS4 because of better multipat, yet here you're saying that you can't see any difference from TV average distance.

 

[boredandlazy]

Quick question. Has there ever been any specs released confirming is only has 16 ROPS? Or is it an assumption based one what we assume the GPU is closest to?

 

[Unknown One]

A blown up picture would have one noticeable flaw. It makes the gamer more blurry. I pretty much have to run things at native resolution for PC games running anything under or over the resolution would make the game's image quality blurry to me. GTA4 on the PS3 was more noticeably more blurry compared to the 360 version.

Of course it depends on the tv as well.

 

[mangochutney]

I made this point earlier in the thread and got dismissed. 180cm from a 42 inch screen and it looked identical to me.

1080p vs 900p is an important distinction if you are gaming on a large monitor inches from your face, but in living room conditions it will be indiscernible in the average set up.

People will want to claim they have super human eye sight and can definitely tell the difference, but there is a point at which the bullshit siren starts ringing for me.

A series of blind tests on stuff like this would make a fascinating article.

It is noticeable for me. But that's the thing, everyone has different eyes, and some people don't know what to look for to discern a difference. A bit like how some people can't tell an obvious Photoshop image, because they don't know what the tell tale signs of one are, or their eyes and brain are not seeing the inaccuracies.

Let's assume everyone has your eyesight though, and that at average distance no one can tell the difference. Note the caveat you add to your statement. 'Unless you game inches from your face'.

So there you have a reason why 1080p is preferred. Some game close to the screen. It is another if, but or maybe against the Xbox for those people.

 

[omonimo]

I made this point earlier in the thread and got dismissed. 180cm from a 42 inch screen and it looked identical to me.

1080p vs 900p is an important distinction if you are gaming on a large monitor inches from your face, but in living room conditions it will be indiscernible in the average set up.

People will want to claim they have super human eye sight and can definitely tell the difference, but there is a point at which the bullshit siren starts ringing for me.

A series of blind tests on stuff like this would make a fascinating article.

It's a huge bullshit. 1080p vs 900p is very visible even more than 640p vs 720p, people needs to play some pc games to see it.

 

[Rolf NB]

We already have a product for people with uncorrected vision impairments. It's called the XBox One.

 

[goonergaz]

If that is how you feel, then why you're getting PS4? You said you want PS4 because of better multipat, yet here you're saying that you can't see any difference from TV average distance.

because he's a gfx 'ore and want's the best, even if it's not 100% noticeable it's nice to know it's there

 

[SaucyJack]

I made this point earlier in the thread and got dismissed. 180cm from a 42 inch screen and it looked identical to me.

1080p vs 900p is an important distinction if you are gaming on a large monitor inches from your face, but in living room conditions it will be indiscernible in the average set up.

People will want to claim they have super human eye sight and can definitely tell the difference, but there is a point at which the bullshit siren starts ringing for me.

A series of blind tests on stuff like this would make a fascinating article.

You've got eyesight on the poorer side of average then

With a 42" set the average person should be able to tell the difference at 84" and less. 1.8m is approx 71"

 

[GorillaJu]

Wii graphics look just as good as X360's, you just have to sit far away from a SD CRT TV and you can barely tell the difference.

 

[Guymelef]

PNGd that for people

Dat insider ekim.

 

[JaggedSac]

Looks like there is another article in the works. Can't wait for the subsequent thread, should keep me entertained.

 

[Guymelef]

Looks like there is another PR article in the works. Can't wait for the subsequent thread, should keep me entertained.

fixed.

 

[Bananajama]

I've just physically measured it. My living room isn't massive but I'm sitting 9ft away from a 40 inch tv. I think that sort of distance is typical giving the average living room size in the UK, and the fact where most people would put their couch and TV.
Certainly. All of my friends have a similar set up.

9 Foot away from the TV?

Normal set up in UK?

Not a chance.
Seen all the new builds/first time properties.

Apartments up for rent?

 

[shinra-bansho]

If you have a 40 inch 1080p TV and you're sitting 9 ft away you basically wasted your money.

SHAPE is the new HANA. You always need that one mysterious secret chip that supposedly is super powerful but turns out to be just a whole lot of rubbish.

We've moved onto special ROPs now.

 

[NBtoaster]

It's a huge bullshit. 1080p vs 900p is very visible even more than 640p vs 720p, people needs to play some pc games to see it.

It's an almost unnoticable difference with good AA.

http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/1080p_000.png
http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/900p_000.png

The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

 

[artist]

The "1600x900 is good enough, there's no point for 1920x1080" is the strangest excuse in the world.

What is even more funny is that it is coming from so called "PC Gamers".

Dat insider ekim.

Haha, I didnt even notice that.

For hilarity, we've seen a few pages upstream that you can have an abundance of ROP power without the compute grunt to match it and there is no tangible increase in overall game performance.

 

[onanie]

It's an almost unnoticable difference with good AA.

http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/1080p_000.png
http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/900p_000.png

The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

How much "good AA" did Leadbetter put into this one?

 

[Chobel]

It's an almost unnoticable difference with good AA.

http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/1080p_000.png
http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/900p_000.png

The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

720p is 26% more than 640p
1080p is 44% more than 900p
So there's now way in hell The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

Also what do you mean by good AA?

 

[Skeff]

It's an almost unnoticable difference with good AA.

http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/1080p_000.png
http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/900p_000.png

The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

If a game is running at 900p because it can't handle 1080, exactly why do you think there will be sufficient resources for good AA?

 

[RoboPlato]

Dat insider ekim.

LOL wow

Bish has been an excellent judge of insiders so far so ekim and SenjutsuSage getting the axe is pretty telling.

I just wish people would just give up on trying to make XBO have some way of magically closing the gap. Third party devs have made some pretty definitive statements on the subject and they are the most reliable sources we have on this. Don't listen to MS technical fellows claims, don't listen to Cerny's claims, listen to what devs who are working on both consoles are saying. The best thing any of them have said about XBO is that there won't be much of a difference compared to PS4, meaning there will still be a difference. If you want to justify your purchase with games and features, do that. Don't try to pull the secret sauce cards any more.

 

[iceatcs]

It's an almost unnoticable difference with good AA.

http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/1080p_000.png
http://cfa.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/7/8/6/0/900p_000.png

The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

I don't think we will see something more like that, because it rarely to have different resolution and same good AA. We might see same resolution but different filter.

Or different resolution with lack of filters.

 

[phosphor112]

720p is 26% more than 640p
1080p is 44% more than 900p
So there's now way in hell The difference between them is tiny compared to 640p vs 720p.

Also what do you mean by good AA?

QXAA? =P

 

[LeBoef]

i dont get the transistors joke...
i remember when the first geforce and radeon successors were released, they also talked about how many transistor they now have.

i didnt care much about that talk back then...
did most people missed that before or what is the difference today?

i expect every company to throw BS talk at me.

/edit
yes and i know what transistor count is good for...

 

[artist]

i dont get the transistors joke...
i remember when the first geforce and radeon successors were released, they also talked about how many transistor they now have.

i didnt care much about that talk back then...
did most people missed that before or what is the difference today?

i expect every company to throw BS talk at me.

Transistor is a meaningless metric from a performance pov. A vendor could have spent majority of their transistor budget on non-gaming purposes, doesnt make that ASIC "powerful" when it comes to gaming.

It's good to give out the transistor count ALONG with other relevant specs.

 

[LeBoef]

Transistor is a meaningless metric from a performance pov. A vendor could have spent majority of their transistor budget on non-gaming purposes, doesnt make that ASIC "powerful" when it comes to gaming.

It's good to give out the transistor count ALONG with other relevant specs.

yeah i know, but why is it today funnier than ever before? doesnt make sense to me

edit
feel almost like kanye with fish sticks

 

[CoG]

Can't wait to see Leadbetter's Face-Off articles this coming gen. As if his credibility was not already ruined.

 

[artist]

yeah i know, but why is it today funnier than ever before? doesnt make sense to me

edit
feel almost like kanye with fish sticks

It's funnier because MS didnt give out the other relevant specs.

Sort of like announcing a new Prius hyrbid with a tank capacity of 40L but without any MPG figures.