I was hoping for "more stable than the console that it outclasses by 40%", but I guess I didn't know better.
DigitalFoundry: Fallout 4 Xbox One X vs PS4 Pro Graphics Comparison + Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter digitalrelic
- Start date
I was hoping for "more stable than the console that it outclasses by 40%", but I guess I didn't know better.
There's still a chance of a patch (to patch the patch) that would iron out some of the framerate issue, like it happened for some other games. But this is Bethesda, so it would never be locked anyway.
It sounds like you should read the article, I did.
As you and I both know, the Xbox One X version of Fallout 4 sacrificed stability for improvements in resolution and image quality. As I said early on in the thread, I was hoping they would have prioritized a stable framerate, but they didn't.
Heh, you too?
So then what does the 40% better hardware have to do with
Can you at least remain consistent in your argument if you're going to be snarky
I absolutely read it, I just think a post like yours doesn't account for that.
I'd prefer the resolution scaler drop the X version down lower to maintain the 30fps lock. My 4K OLED will be just fine with that.
I think the real question to ask is a very subjective one.
Are you OK with the graphical upgrades if the results are an inconsistent performance, generally running at 28~27 FPS through the normal traversal and dropping to 25 and below during combat across the length of the game ?
If people are OK with more graphical bling at the cost of performance, that's completely perfect. I would be a liar if I said that there aren't a bunch of games where I don't mind frame rate drops in favor of visuals.
But we should also account for the people who are more leaning towards performance. When the Pro patch first came out, there were an equal number of people deleting the game and playing it without updating purely off of Boost mode because to them a stricter 30 FPS was more important.
I think X and Pro both need a feature to disable enhancements and run in "base" mode if the user chooses, specifically for cases like this
Because this is a misleading information. For you it may not seem important, but for me is., I'm a technology technician and that kind of information needs to be accurate to consumers. I live in Brazil and here is a land without law. Companies sell TVs here saying 'FULL HD', '4K', 'Best picture', when in fact, nothing of this is actually true. You already see the DF Project Cars 2 video tech? So, Dark1x sayed the DF guys will remake the video for showing the missing points.
I've noticed a narrative of exaggerating the truth from a few that want to proclaim that the X Is performing worse than it is. Nowhere do they say the frame drops are across the length of the game. These are specific sections chosen for their known historical performance.
Absolutely agree with this, although this has more nuance than a lot of what's in this thread.
I also think there's a much bigger delta in what the X does better than the Pro in these instances than there is the opposite. But that's me (and math, depending on circumstances).
People hate being wrong and hate when their purchases are shit upon. It sucks, but it's why a lot of this stuff occurs.
Just stating what's in the article and shown in the video, for example:
Also, in the video from 8:00 onward when they're showing general world traversal, the lowest both consoles reach is 24 FPS but the XBX version is generally lower than the Pro for longer stretches. Asset streaming hitches like this will happen through out the open world. In-fact, it seems to stick to 30 FPS for less in that game play segment and mostly stays to 28~29 with lower drops every few seconds.
The Corvega factory bit they showed is a known stress point so it makes sense they chose that as well, but the streaming related hitches and drops would happen on the open world pretty often.
If they say that it is native 4k most of the time, and has a dynamic resolution, that's not misleading in any way. If you misunderstand it that's not their fault.
Yep it's in every single one of these faceoff threads. The most obvious example was Battlefront 2 where a literal 1 frame per second drop that occured like 3 times in the 10 minute video was used as "evidence" that the Pro version is better despite the X version running at twice the resolution with better everything.
What's with the quotes? I didn't find that line in the article, am I missing something or are you concern trolling?
Resolution fixed 100% of time = Native.
Resolution keep changing = Dynamic.
Don't mix 'fact' with 'term'. Can reach 4K? Right. Its Native? No if the resolution drops. Easy.
Its not about 'if you misunderstand', its about send the true information. Again if you like misleading information thats ok, but don't think people have to accept this. And yes, is their fault. Both SONY and MICROSOFT.
Someone should tweet this at Gies and watch him squirm. He's been beating this drum whenever he saw the opportunity with the PS4.
If a 60fps game drops down to 50 frames at some point(s) in its campaign is it no longer considered a 60fps game?
The game runs at its max resolution, 4K native...not CB, not upscaled, not 1440p...but 4K, majority of the time. It's a native 4k game that drops the rez sometimes the same way 60 (and 30)fps games drop frames sometimes.
The game runs at its max resolution, 4K native...not CB, not upscaled, not 1440p...but 4K, majority of the time. It's a native 4k game that drops the rez sometimes the same way 60 (and 30)fps games drop frames sometimes.
Last edited:
I was ~15 hours in since day 1 of release (10/2015),
I put yesterday just to test patch, started from scratch, now am 15 hours in :)
mind you, performance-wise its still a bethesda game, its no forza, but it will suck you in.
It's a shame they didn't seem to test the areas that are much worse than anything they showed here. Head to the right after leaving the vault into the woodlands where there's lots of foliage and the framerate tanks and stays like that. It's not the small 2-4 FPS dips you see in the video. Though I assumed the entire game was that bad so after seeing how the rest of the game isn't too bad I feel better about the patch. Still a shame Digital Foundry didn't catch some of the worse performing areas.
I honestly don't see the big deal of saying a can can reach a native resolution. Native means a 1 to 1 pixel match to the display it's running on, it doesn't have to mean that it reaches those resolutions all the time when given the correct context. The sudden obsession with semantics is getting a bit silly.
"Native 4K" means 3840 X 2160 or whatever resolution it is these days when talking about 4k in terms of games. It doesn't matter if it drops to a different resolution sometimes. When it is outputting at that native 4k resolution it is as described - native 4k.
You are the only one trying to spread misleading information.
I'm gonna have to disagree there, what you're describing is "Dynamic 4K". Native would imply it's full 2160p and it stays there.
I think it's important to clarify of the resolution is dynamic or not. I don't think that should be left out when describing a resolution.
It's an interesting conversation because by your definition, 4K CBR games can be called native =p
With the wide range of rendering techniques, I think context and details are key. That much I hope we can all agree on.
If a game is sticking to "4K" via CBR, I usually call it as such, a game rendering native 4K using CBR (eg Horizon). We've seen CB games use dynamic resolution scaling too so it's not like CBR is a sure fire way to reach and stick to a resolution either.
I use the word "native" to describe a game which is natively sticking to a resolution, for example Watch Dogs 2 is native 1800p via checker board rendering. Because it sticks to that resolution, it's not dynamically lowering it. My exact usage of the word might be off a bit.
To be honest, I don't think your usage is off because you apply proper context. I can see the points made about games with dynamic resolutions but at the same time I don't see a big deal between someone saying a game can scale up to a full 2160p, a game can scale up to a native 2160p, or a game can scale up to a native 2160p using CBR. In the end the reader should be able to understand the rendering technology, the upper limit of the output resolution, and that scaling involved. Of course, I'm the one who could be entirely wrong here but I don't think obsessing over it is constructive to a conversation as long as the results are easily understood.
I would call it native 4k with dynamic resolution scaling. The target resolution is native 4k, and more often than not it will stay at 4k.
See I wouldn't call a game that use checker boarding to hit 4k "native 4k" because it's basically upscaling (yes I know how it works and how it differs). I would call it native 1440p checker boarded to 1800p for example.
Last edited:
This is the truth. They should drop the enhanced draw distance a touch, or the resolution. WHatever the game needs to get a more stable performance. Hopefully more patches will fix it.
It is no longer considered a "locked 60fps" game, which is the framerate equivalent of "native 4K". It can still be called a 60fps game, just like a dynamic game can still be called 4K. But it's simply wrong to call variable framerates "locked", and it's wrong to call variable resolution "native".
Actually, there is absolutely no guarantee a dynamic 4K game hits full 3840x2160 more often than not. It may run almost constantly below that target, just like it can run almost constantly below a 60fps target. This is exactly why it's important to differentiate between native and dynamic resolutions (and ideally, provide further data about the dynamism's parameters).
It is not "basically upscaling". That you think this distinction doesn't matter is very strong evidence that you actually don't know how CBR works.
And this is proof that you don't know how it works. It is literally impossible to checkerboard 1440p to 1800p. I'd definitely suggest that you go read on the subject so that you can actually understand what's being talked about. Or I'd be happy to take a shot at an explanation myself and answer any questions you have, if you'd prefer that.
Maybe the xbox devs are all riding the freesync train? Frame drops? We don't care about no stinkin frame drops!!
Anyway yes, this is a 20fps game. Forget 30.
8k tvs won't be a thing(isn't even necessary when its only a 2x bump over 4k), and probably won't even be noticeable to humans. Right now we're getting adaptive or native4k resolution games at xbone-ps4 fidelity. It's better they aim for 4k native or at least adaptive 4k, while increasing graphical fidelity and performance(rock solidstable framerate.. be it 30fps or 60fps).
That can't happen without a CPU upgrade. They're pushing for the highest resolution possible because there is enough GPU headroom to do so.
I need to watch the video properly, but it looks more like locked 30 with drops to 25 in intense areas? is that not the case?
Since when is the CPU excuse valid for 30fps as well? If you're telling me these this 500$ console doesn't have a fast enough CPU to run essentially Xbox One S games properly at 30fps then something is really fucked.
I'd wish devs would focus more on lower resolutions and stable framerates.
Why not focus on 1620p/1800p with better framerates and/or better graphical tweaks? 1620p looks like a sweet spot to me, pushing more than twice the amount of pixels than 1080p, and go for 1800p or 4k if there's enough power left, but sacrifing framerate should never be an option.
Why not focus on 1620p/1800p with better framerates and/or better graphical tweaks? 1620p looks like a sweet spot to me, pushing more than twice the amount of pixels than 1080p, and go for 1800p or 4k if there's enough power left, but sacrifing framerate should never be an option.
In all likely hood they are CPU bound or other areas in many of the dips in this game. If so the GPU boost is not a factor on the performance.
Bolded for truth
Hey, if that's what you are counting and judging here, better not forget that it does outclass the 40% inferior machine by 100% number of pixels and added details.
I mean, will all convos be like this?
Last edited:
That is indeed what I'm saying. As far as I know none of Bethesda's Gamebryo-based games have ever achieved a stable 30 fps on any console platform. The engine is very demanding, maybe not that well optimized either, while both the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X share the same underpowered Jaguar-based CPU that was already pretty weak when the PS4 and Xbox One launched with it.
As a rule of thumb (and quite simplistically) and until you push a specific subsystem beyond its capabilities, CPU power determines framerate and GPU power determines resolution but pairing unbalanced hardware will create exceptions to that rule. If you pair a strong CPU with a weak GPU then you'll be able to achieve 60 fps or higher framerates but at low resolutions. If you raise the resolution above the threshold that the GPU can handle then you'll have GPU-related framerate drops.
If you pair a weak CPU with a strong GPU, as is the case for the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, and unless you design your game specifically around a 60 fps target framerate, the CPU will bottleneck the GPU and the game won't be able to achieve high framerates regardless of resolution. You can see this on PC with games such as Assassin's Creed Origins, where the CPU is at 100% load and the GPU is sitting at 50% or 60% because the CPU simply can't keep up.
In such a case you have two options: you can let that power go to waste by leaving the settings and resolution intact or you can use the spare GPU power to increase the resolution and thus the GPU load until you hit the point of a GPU bottleneck. Fallout 4 needs a lot of CPU power which means that even if the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were running at 1080p they probably still wouldn't be able to hit 60 fps or even a locked 30 fps. So the developers did the sensible thing of cranking up the resolution to take advantage of the available GPU power as best they could.
If Fallout 4 on PS4 Pro and Xbox One X is running worse compared to the original consoles then that probably means that the developers pushed the GPU a bit too hard and reached the GPU bottleneck stage. A patch could introduce more aggresive resolution scaling and sort out these drops, unless of course the developers feel that the increased clarity is preferable to smoothing out the framerate.
The argument that it's 'native 4k with drops in resolution' makes me want to cry.
That's a 4K dynamic resolution even if it manages to output at 4k for most of the time. Saying it's native 4K with drops in resolution is misusing the terms for PR reasons.
Like advertising 'True 4K' when not all the games on the system do that.
That's a 4K dynamic resolution even if it manages to output at 4k for most of the time. Saying it's native 4K with drops in resolution is misusing the terms for PR reasons.
Like advertising 'True 4K' when not all the games on the system do that.
Both companies use "4K" incredibly loosely. I have sympathy as how else are they meant to communicate to the mass market?