Yeah it's very odd. I'm actually going to opt my console into an even faster ring so see if there is any difference in newer builds.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry: Metro Exodus: PS4/Pro/Xbox One/X Graphics Comparison - 4A Games' Tech Returns On Console
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
Yeah it's very odd. I'm actually going to opt my console into an even faster ring so see if there is any difference in newer builds.
I think it's one of the best out there, but wait for evilboris.
It's good!
Just working on a video for it, I got a review copy but it turned up so close to the wire I couldn't make time to do it alongside Crackdown 3 and my full time life
yes manually select 1080p resolution and disable SS...sometimes that has been proven a true gamechanger for performances, and i guess DF should start to add this on any comparison
Oh interesting, I've had mine set to 10 bit since getting the X900E, so I've been playing at 4:2:0 forever?? QQ
Yeah all exclusives. Where AAA UE4 which can run in 4k native on the X are a rarety and 1440p the most common res used. Now if we want to discuss about the ethic about promote a machine as true 4k capable MS has been less honest compared to Sony in this camp, so feels outraging because they claim play gaming in 4k seems really a stretch to me. I don't understand what it's shocking if the cheaper and older counterpart can't produce the same result of the other. Should be always the case but sometimes it's not so complaining about it or celebrate it to the other side, it's kinda of ridiculous.
Last edited:
Yep, some of the early HDR sets (Sony for example) couldn't do 422 and the reduced bandwidth of 420, probably eases the support that MS would need to try and provide for poor setups, incompatible receivers, cheap HDMi cables etc.
They patched in 422 is an option fairly early on, but it was optional.
Both Pro and X are advertised as 4K capable machines. The X hits that target or close to it in a huge number of games compared to the Pro.
Yet you think MS are the less honest ones about their machine being 4K capable?
At least Sony this time never pretended to say Pro as a 4k native hardware compared MS.
They have been dishonest for a while with the Xbox One S. They claimed it was 4K but were pretty sneaker with the way it was advertised and many of their advertisements were video games and "4K capable".
Ehhhh. Yes they both advertise as 4k "capable", capable being the operative work as they both CAN do 4k. But Sony made a really big deal about checkerboarding, so far as to make it a central part of reveal. So it was 4k and checkerboarding when not possible. As opposed to Xbox which was lol 4k!! 4k!!!! DID WE MENTION 4K!?!? Xbox is all or nothing so it makes more.....interesting let's say when games don't hit 4k as opposed to Sony which is basically we do 4k when we can and when we can't we do checkerboarding and this is why it's actually quite impressive
You might want a word with the developers, not MS.
RDR2 is arguably the most technically impressive game this gen. On X it runs at native 4K, on Pro it is known for its disappointing visual quality.
The X is certainly a 4K capable machine.
To me it is Sony that should refrain from putting 4K on the box, particularly for games like RDR2.
Developers do what they can. If most of AAA can't be 4k just means the X had not the brute force there. Straight and simple. Sony is less honest because said gaming in 4k when they specifically claimed Pro can't, many and many times? I don't remind MS admit 4k is not always possible, in their conferences. But I mean, if you don't care of such attitude because you have the more powerful hardware, it's fine.
Last edited:
The Pro has not delivered a single game in full 4K that anyone would call graphically impressive.
[QUOTE="Fastidioso, post: 17980250, member: 30511] Sony is less honest because said gaming in 4k when they specifically claimed Pro can't many and many times? I don't remind MS admit 4k is not always possible in their conferences.[/QUOTE]
Sony advertised RDR2 as 4K. The reaching here is incredible.
Sony advertised RDR2 as 4K. The reaching here is incredible.
They reached the incredible because RDR2 is promote to play in a vague 4k but it's fine if a company talk of true 4k and most of games are not? I don't get it.
Last edited:
So you dont have a problem with Sony doing that but you do find MS calling the X a 4K machine problematic?
You have an interesting standpoint and I think I will leave you to it.
ANY game can be 4k native...ANY...When will people realise this. RDR2 being 4k native on X is a technical marvel...The compromises to natively hit this figure are incredibly well hidden. If developers want to make their game as visually demanding as possible then sure, 4k native might be a stretch BUT, the same game with less visually demanding visuals?
Just to say. I have both version. Performance and IQ are undoubtedly superior on the X. But lighting at lower buffer it's really more apparent compared the Pro as the dithering in the vegetation. And in game DOF is omitted or subtle compared the Pro too. Though it's a salvation considered how annoying is on the Pro.
Let's try this. We have technically impressive third party games hovering around 4K on X, sometimes even achieving 4K, over on Pro these same games aren't getting anywhere close to native. Moving to first party, there are a bunch of native 4K games from MS, over on Pro I don't think there is a single one.
Only one of these machines has any right to call itself 4K capable, and it ain't the Pro.
Did Sony ever said Pro can render natively 4k? If in their promotion say gaming in 4k, they meaning it's 4k or maybe is referred to the TV setup? Now if MS label their machines as a true 4k machine how is it considered as the same of Sony promotion? It's really a stretch from my perspective.
Last edited:
Well in this particular thread, and all other DF articles its all about how the games run and ultimately which version comes out on top.
Literally. It's a fucking disaster. What shock me it seems to me they care more to deliver a more stable performance on the base xbox one than the other platforms, especially the sony platform. Why didn't use CBR on Pro or balanced more the other graphic setting to reach better fps on both ps4 sku? They just switch off the vsync and nothing more. What a disappointment.
I dont think black crush (contrast/gamma boosting ) was ever fixed at the system level. I remember asking if the X fixed it around its launch never got an answer, but I guess I do now
The issue the was fixed in the early XBone days was the sharpening filter
Last edited:
So if YUV is fine, then that would mean HDR is fine too right? Because it uses YUV I think.
Yes exactly, which all kind of aligns with the HDR being ok.
The only issue is if you run at 1080p, where the console will always output RGB, as there is enough bandwidth to do so, even if you go to 10/12bit.
I think I would have spotted such a drastic change in all the other HDR games I play if it was suddenly affecting that too.
Black crush is losing details that you would otherwise see in dark spots.
You liking it is how other people love "Dat Pop". Nothing wrong with people "preferring" it in my opinion but Black Crush and Dat Pop distorts what the natural or intended visuals should be
I have no real problem with the way Pro is advertised, nor the X. Honestly, I don't see how else they could do it without making things tricky for themselves.
My issue was with Fastidioso's implication that MS' supposedly dishonest marketing of the X is more egregious than Sony's with the Pro.
Anyone buying a machine because they want 4K gaming has a clear choice. Two machines with a price difference which reflects their respective 4K capabilities.
man, RT looks great. it really transforms the environments - making them look much less artificial and gamey. really hope the rumors are true about at least MS really looking to incorporate RT next gen
A moot point when neither platform plays most games in native 4k.
It's not a moot point in the context of the conversation I was having with the poster I responded to.
They were the same way at launch with the XB1. At least Greenberg was. People understand more now than they did six years ago and with them pushing the X so hard, I doubt this would be in their best interest going forward.
You should probably go back and watch each respective reveal of the mid gen console. The Pro certainly was never pushed as a native 4K machine. The X was absolutely. And yes it performs much better in almost every game, no sane person would disagree with that statement. But misleading marketing around the Xbox One S is still shitty regardless of the performance of its sister console.
Feels like the game could definitely use patches on all consoles. Aside from the gamma issues, I wonder why 4A did not opt for proper (overall) dynamic resolution solution instead of adaptive v-sync on Pro which, given where it manifests, looks very distracting. On the X, aside from the lack of screen tear, dynamic resolution would definitely cut down on number of frame drops.
I know these devs have been pushing hard and end of generation means performance shortfalls on more ambitious titles are given but these are occurring on mid-gen upgrades, albeit with upgraded visual feature set, is disappointing.
If the trend of re-releasing games continues with next gen then presumably a 60fps version of Exodus might await players on XB2/PS5. If not, then at the least, BC will ensure that these games can be played at a virtually locked framerate.
I know these devs have been pushing hard and end of generation means performance shortfalls on more ambitious titles are given but these are occurring on mid-gen upgrades, albeit with upgraded visual feature set, is disappointing.
If the trend of re-releasing games continues with next gen then presumably a 60fps version of Exodus might await players on XB2/PS5. If not, then at the least, BC will ensure that these games can be played at a virtually locked framerate.
The X was promoted as a machine would run everything in 4K native?
And why are we talking about the One S?
This game is waaay too dark on my 1x. Where are the hdr settings??? All I found was a gamma slider which i cranked all the way up, but only the right most logo is barely visible...
Anyone else having this problem?
Anyone else having this problem?
People should take a step back and note that none of the 4K movies they are watching are actually 4K.
People get too hung up on this stuff, ultimately
Unless the game intends it to look that way, there are a number of really common fashionable tone mappers that produce a very contrasty "poppy" image.
Developers are just as prone to building in "pop" as gamers are with poorly calibrated displays.
People get too hung up on this stuff, ultimately
Unless the game intends it to look that way, there are a number of really common fashionable tone mappers that produce a very contrasty "poppy" image.
Developers are just as prone to building in "pop" as gamers are with poorly calibrated displays.
User warned: Off-topic, system warring posts
To be blunt, 4k or not. Forza horizon is the only first party game that looks better than a first party Sony game of recent years. God of war and horizon do much more for the pro than anything first party Xbox has put out
Great to see developers actually make use of the XBX.
What a weird thing to include 'first party' in that.
What a weird thing to include 'first party' in that.
I'd really like to know what fps X1X could hit at 1080p. Seems like it could do mid 50s since its hitting native 4k almost always. Maybe even reduce shadow quality slightly.
