Hardware Can Xbox One actually handle 1080p games?

[Obveron]

Good graphics and a good game don't go hand in hand. Yes I'd prefer a good game, to good graphics. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer both. All these people criticizing others as "graphics kiddies" need to get a life. Yes, we want good games. That's a GIVEN. but why should we be criticized for also being interested in good graphics.

I am very interested in good graphics. I am personally dissapointed that the PS4 and XB1 are lacking in a generational improvement in graphics as other console generations. It was the longest wait for new consoles ever, and the improvement has been the smallest yet.

As for resolution, I've never considered resolution to be the most significant factor in good graphics. Polygon count, lighting quality, texture detail, model detail, physics complexity, AI complexity and frame rate all trump resolution for me. All of those things require more computing power.
Either way you stack it, the PS4 and XB1 are unimpressive to me.

 

[stinkoman]

Playing Skyward Sword on the Wii was a really shitty experience. The aesthetics were nice, but were prevented from being enjoyed at a blurred, stretched, pixelated resolution. I can fire up Dolphin and enjoy the game far more at a higher internal resolution, both alleviating the low display problem native to the Wii, and actually improving the aesthetics.

On PC, I'm looking at 1080p Dark Souls, and then I give it a go at 4K. Laggy as fuck, but goddamn I would enjoy the game more at this level of detail, and that's a game just being allowed to more room for its native detail--it's not actively taking advantage of the higher resolution. And here's a basic example with the Nintendo DS:

http://6bit.net/shonumi/2013/02/25/true-internal-resolution-in-nintendo-ds-emulators/

Aesthetics mean fuck-all if the systems hold it back behind a gate of upscaling and low native resolutions. Most console gamers wouldn't know the difference, sadly.

I tried playing Demons's Souls and The Last of Us, and I couldn't enjoy either game to the fullest thanks to the 720p.

You literally can't enjoy a game because it's in 720p? Seriously? Buy a smaller TV if you're that worried about upscaling, because that's probably the only solution possible in your case. If you want to play games at 4k, 1080p, whatever, play them on a damn PC. There is a reason that game consoles aren't custom tailored to meet your high standards, and that's money. There's no reason to cater to your audience, because, guess what, PCs exist. The niche is filled. 99% of people won't even notice if it's at 720p, like 99% of people won't notice the difference between regular and audiophile headphones. What you're doing, to keep with the audiophile example, is buying $50 headphones and complaining that they're not $200 headphones. And then buying several different brand of shitty headphones to make sure they're all shit.

And you can enjoy games with nice graphics. Most graphically impressive games are pretty fucking good, because they're not spending several hundred million dollars to make the newest GTA title have a retarded writing team. These games cost some money. Last of Us and GTAV weren't cheap to make. When a company's shelling out that much cash for graphics, they're probably going all out everywhere. Nintendo is the exception to the rule when it comes to aesthetics being possible without modern hardware as well. Nintendo's whole deal is games that look good on hardware that's not the greatest. They really work hard on that. Calling someone a "graphics kiddy" is like saying that someone's enjoying a movie wrong. It's ridiculous. What else am I not allowed to enjoy now? Am I not supposed to like modern music because synthesizers and sampling didn't exist when they were making classical? Am I not supposed to like movies with CGI and greenscreen because movies were still good without them? I like games with mind-blowingly incredible graphics, and I like games with simple graphics. Graphics are a huge part of the game. I probably wouldn't like Hotline Miami or Portal if the graphics were complete shit. Presentation is a big deal. I wouldn't want to go back to PS1 graphics with modern gameplay, would you? The fact is that something with shitty graphics that is otherwise fun is clearly made better by graphical improvements.

 

[Foxi4]

Alas, if someone has a television equal to or smaller than 32", they most likely will never even notice the difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances. This is due to the nature of the human eyes.


As for the resolution, Microsoft may have a worse sdk than Sony. That could easily explain why a company makes worse pixeled games for one console compared to the other.

The XBox One's problems with 1080p do not spring from its SDK but its factually poorer GPU and memory. Developers are complaining that despite the embedded ESRAM they're unable to stream data fast enough and on top of that, the XBox One has 12 CU's/16 ROP's while the PS4 has 20 CU's (2 disabled or reserved, so effectively 18 functional ones) and 32 ROP's. This roughly translates to the PS4's GPU being 50% more powerful than the XBox One's, and this is a problem. Tied with the memory bottleneck, high resolution and high level of detail at the same time in contemporary engines is and will continue to be difficult on the system until developers find ways to effectively use ESRAM to combat the DDR3 bottleneck.

Good graphics and a good game don't go hand in hand. Yes I'd prefer a good game, to good graphics. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer both. All these people criticizing others as "graphics kiddies" need to get a life. Yes, we want good games. That's a GIVEN. but why should we be criticized for also being interested in good graphics.

I am very interested in good graphics. I am personally dissapointed that the PS4 and XB1 are lacking in a generational improvement in graphics as other console generations. It was the longest wait for new consoles ever, and the improvement has been the smallest yet.

As for resolution, I've never considered resolution to be the most significant factor in good graphics. Polygon count, lighting quality, texture detail, model detail, physics complexity, AI complexity and frame rate all trump resolution for me. All of those things require more computing power.
Either way you stack it, the PS4 and XB1 are unimpressive to me.

You are correct in saying that resolution isn't the be-all-end-all aspect of graphics - effects and sheer complexity are far more important as the difference between 900p and 1080p is visually negligable, however it signifies that the XBox One does have graphics-related problems even immediately after its launch, and these problems will not be limited to resolution alone later down the line.

I disagree with the assumption that good graphics and good games don't go together - graphics are an essential part of the game. They're a tool through which the game shows its aesthetics and graphical prowess can make or break the artistic vision of the developers, therefore it should be sufficient within a given generation. People often say how "games on the NES/SNES/Master System/PS1/Insert Favorite System" were fantastic "without good graphics", but they neglect to say that those games had fantastic graphics at the time of their release. A frame of reference is key here - people complained about poor graphics back then and they complain about poor graphics now.

In my opinion a "good game" balances its elements - it has to have good gameplay mechanics, good sound, good aesthetic vision and, whether people are willing to agree or not, good graphics, and by good I mean graphics that are capable of representing what the game is supposed to look like. It's not all about the fireworks - people often treat "good graphics" and "ultra-realistic aesthetics" as synonyms when they're really not.

 

[anhminh]

Nah, that how developer play. They will try make the first game as cheap as possible and if it success they will make a remake with higher quality for more money.
If you notice, all the game sequent is just a same game with better graphic and different story.

 

[slingblade1170]

The differences in PS4 & X1 are going to be very very little if any at all. The X1 downfall right now is the price of the system and kinect when kinect hasn't proven itself to hardcore and casual gamers. Games between the two will NOT look any different from each other.

 

[Foxi4]

The differences in PS4 & X1 are going to be very very little if any at all. (...) Games between the two will NOT look any different from each other.

They literally already are different resolution-wise. Not by a huge margin, no, but that's not a good prospect for the future. If ESRAM will turn out to be ineffective in closing the gap between DDR3 and GDDR5 and the GPU will not be sufficient in the long run, the XBox One will get inferior multiplatform titles. This is not a PS3 versus XBox 360 situation where architecture complexity often prevented PS3 ports from spreading their wings - the PS4 and the XBox One are very similar system, it's just that one has more juice than the other, at least specs-wise.

 

[slingblade1170]

They literally already are different resolution-wise. Not by a huge margin, no, but that's not a good prospect for the future. If ESRAM will turn out to be ineffective in closing the gap between DDR3 and GDDR5 and the GPU will not be sufficient in the long run, the XBox One will get inferior multiplatform titles.

I knew you would be the one to reply to that one Foxi. Anyways, the X1 will probably receive the inferior titles but the differences will be unnoticeable. Either way it doesn't matter both the PS4 and X1 will be irrelevant in hardware within 2-3 years and Sony & MS plan on taking them on a 10 year manufacturing cycle.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

I'm beginning to notice that it's always the same group of people making these "Pissing Contest" threads.

 

[slingblade1170]

I'm beginning to notice that it's always the same group of people making these "Pissing Contest" threads.

Its about time someone said it. lol

 

[Foxi4]

I knew you would be the one to reply to that one Foxi. Anyways, the X1 will probably receive the inferior titles but the differences will be unnoticeable. Either way it doesn't matter both the PS4 and X1 will be irrelevant in hardware within 2-3 years and Sony & MS plan on taking them on a 10 year manufacturing cycle.

The XBox 360 and the PS3 with their 512 MB Shared RAM/256 MB RAM and 256 VRAM became irrelevant hardware within a couple of years, but that didn't stop anyone from making games for them. In fact, it doesn't stop anyone from making games for them even today. Each and every generation went through the same process, this one will not be any different.

Before we get into hardware and the "but they're just PC's" chit-chat, they're not and that's just uneducated drivel popularized by people who think that the architecture used is the defining factor. Console and PC development are two very different spheres - you'll always squeeze more juice out of the hardware on a console. Even if they are outclassed by PC hardware, which they obviously are, they'll still stay afloat simply because they're standardized. Optimization is key on consoles and since each and every console is the same, developers are able to get that extra bit of "kick", extending the lifespan substantially.

I don't quite know why you'd nominate me as "the one who would answer" to your post, seeing that I'm impartial in this, I just look at the evidence and judge.

 

[slingblade1170]

The XBox 360 and the PS3 with their 512 MB Shared RAM/256 MB RAM and 256 VRAM became irrelevant hardware within a couple of years, but that didn't stop anyone from making games for them. In fact, it doesn't stop anyone from making games for them even today.

Console and PC development are two very different spheres - you'll always squeeze more out of a console. Before we get into "but they're just PC's" chit-chat, they're not and that's just uneducated drivel popularized by people who think the architecture used is the defining factor. Optimization is key on consoles and since each and every console is the same, developers are able to squeeze out that extra bit of "kick", extending the lifespan substantially.

True again, but everyone's debate is the most powerful, when in reality both have outdated hardware within 1-2 years. I am not a PC gamer but I do believe the PC gets screwed on the amazing games that it could have. Anyways, by that logic the Wii U could be the most successful this generation, but I'm just sick of seeing these posts of "which one has better hardware" when never in history it has NOT mattered.

 

[Foxi4]

True again, but everyone's debate is the most powerful, when in reality both have outdated hardware within 1-2 years. I am not a PC gamer but I do believe the PC gets screwed on the amazing games that it could have. Anyways, by that logic the Wii U could be the most successful this generation, but I'm just sick of seeing these posts of "which one has better hardware" when never in history it has NOT mattered.

The hardware doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be sufficient - this much is true. Thing is, when two systems are this similar to each other, it's sensible to assume that the one with better specs will have the technological edge. Naturally both systems will get the same multiplatform games, I'm not saying that they won't, I'm merely "nominating" the one that's likely to get their "arguably better" versions.

As far as "PC could have better games if not for consoles" is concerned, sure, it could - I fully agree. Consoles do tend to cause multiplatform titles on PC to show telltale signs of being underdeveloped simply because the engines had to work "on PC *and* consoles", but that doesn't stop PC exclusives from going full-blast now, does it?

 

[slingblade1170]

The hardware doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be sufficient - this much is true. Thing is, when two systems are this similar to each other, it's sensible to assume that the one with better specs will have the technological edge. Naturally both systems will get the same multiplatform games, I'm not saying that they won't, I'm merely "nominating" the one that's likely to get their "arguably better" versions.

As far as "PC could have better games if not for consoles" is concerned, sure, it could - I fully agree. Consoles do tend to cause multiplatform titles on PC to show tell-tale signs of being underdeveloped simply because the engines had to work "on PC *and* consoles", but that doesn't stop PC exclusives from going full-blast now, does it?

We seem to agree 100% but I see you post specific specs of a console as if it superior i ever way. Foxi I do respect you more than other reporters on GBAtemp (Guild Mccommunistic cough) but officials of GBAtemp do seem to contradict themselves from one thread to another.

 

[Foxi4]

We seem to agree 100% but I see you post specific specs of a console as if it superior i ever way. Foxi I do respect you more than other reporters on GBAtemp (Guild Mccommunistic cough) but officials of GBAtemp do seem to contradict themselves from one thread to another.

In this particular case the GPU and Memory do turn out to be superior, and as far as I know so is the CPU - it's not something I'm making up, it's just the bare hardware that's better, regardless of whether or not it will become obsolete within a couple years. I'm merely stating a fact here, I'm not looking into a crystal ball whenever I post to predict if my posts could be misconstrued as fanboyism. I'm just expressing my concern for the XBox One's future hardware performance as it does seem to be lagging behind a bit. As far as Guild is concerned, he can be abrasive, but he's a great reporter and a genuinely good feller once you get to know him, much like myself.

 

[Celice]

True again, but everyone's debate is the most powerful, when in reality both have outdated hardware within 1-2 years. I am not a PC gamer but I do believe the PC gets screwed on the amazing games that it could have. Anyways, by that logic the Wii U could be the most successful this generation, but I'm just sick of seeing these posts of "which one has better hardware" when never in history it has NOT mattered.

Last generation saw some of the worst cross-console port saturation ever, where a majority of every major game title was spread across, at the very least, 360, PS3, and PC. Apart from Nintendo, both Sony and Microsoft had pitiful exclusive numbers compared to the games available all over the damn place.

 

[apachehavok]

Coming from someone who worked in major AAA games for 6 years (now in feature film) I would rather a game run with 20x going on, on screen at 720p then have 20x less cool crap but at 1080p. That is just my personal opinion. Allow me to put all this ps4 vs xbone crap to rest.

Even though the Ps4 has superior hardware, you are forgetting one very important thing. Every single piece of SDK software from ps2-ps4 runs on windows. A MS product unless you forgot. The SDK and software MS provides for the xbone is FAR superior then anything sony can come up with. This is mainly due to MS being a better software company then Sony. The fact that you can hit any dev unit on the network and integrate DX calls in real time through 3d software (because both windows and xbone use directX) makes shader creation go about 2x faster then it does on the PS4 where it needs to be converted. On the flip side, the ps4 during run time can indeed do more due to faster hardware. So 2x faster hardware or 2x faster content creation time? Would you rather have a game run at 1080p or 720p with a greater variety in visuals? This is just a single rudimentary example.

YOU PICK YOUR BATTLES. Look at Ryse for example. Killzone has a much better lighting model but the animation in Killzone looks like complete last gen ass compared to the animation in Ryse. After both systems mature, the advantages of the 2 are going to start to shine.

Point being this, the PS4 has faster hardware but the xbone has better dev software. The Ps4's shit tools are going to be made up for by faster hardware while the xbones lesser hardware is going to be made up for by its better dev software. I can tell you this right now. In about 3 years, both the PS4 and xbox one exclusive titles (REAL EXCLUSIVES so also being on PC is NOT an exclusive) are going to look pretty much exactly the same except for whoever can make better art.

(and for the love of god STOP comparing console spec numbers to pc spec numbers. No its not the same because of the way consoles work. A perfect example would be GTA 4. You get me a computer with 256mb of ram and a 256mb video card that can run GTA4 EVEN IF IT WAS OPTIMIZED PROPERLY. It ain't going to happen. Those low to mid range cards in these consoles are not very low to mid range when run in a closed environment so stop all the "my computer has 44 million gigs of ram" shit because it will NEVER EVER match the graphics efficiency of a console)

 

[Obveron]

Many people claimed the PS3 was more powerful than 360 and yet the vast majority multiplatform games looked marginally better and smoother on the 360. The truth about that is, yes, the PS3 had more GFLOP potential on the CPU but it was difficult for crossplatform developers to make use of that potential. Meanwhile the 360 GPU was at least on par with the PS3, if not marginally faster. but the reall meat and potatoes came from the SDK for developers. Devleopers had an easier time running their creations on 360 due to the ease of the SDK and the PS3 was always a challenge to optimize their code. PS3 only really showed it potential with exlusive titles.
Now the XB1 comes out with a noticable defecit in memory subsytem and GPU performance. On top of that, MS desires to reserve a portion of that for the Kinect. This is a noticable disadvantage for cross platform developers when compared to PS4. Also the PS4 doesn't have it's difficulties for optimization as the PS3.

It's hard to see how XB1 will keep up with the PS4. Only with a vastly superior SDK can MS close the gap.

 

[apachehavok]

And im here to tell you that after working with both SDK for years, the MS one runs circles around Sony's. All game dev studios are based on windows and guess what....the xbone gets along MUCH better with windows then the Orbis does. Not to say the Ps4 tools aren't GREATLY improved from PS3, its just that MS was a sofware company for much longer then the ps3 was.

Again I say this. In about 3 years, system exclusives are going to trade blows. Ports will go back a forth, mostly favoring the ps4, but exclusives will look amazing on each and the xbone exclusives will be able to match/best/trade blows with the ps4 exclusives.

 

[Selim873]

I would have to say Yes on this one. The Xbox One is DirectX 12 compatible for when that comes out, which is gonna a pretty low level API compared to DirectX 11, so games that will come out that are developed under that API, they'll be able to perform much better. It could probably match up to the PS4, even on slightly weaker hardware, though I think developers might be able to take advantage of Mantle for PS4. I'm not sure. Also, it depends on how well optimized a game is!

This is running on a GTX 480, the HD7870 is slightly better than that card, the PS4 was built to match the HD7870, the Xbox One a little less. So get the hint. lol Developers haven't started using raytracing yet, I don't think, but they need to! Plus, if you've seen the 15 minute demo for Uncharted 4, the end cutscene with that much attention to detail. That was on an Alpha build as well!! The generation is just starting, we'll see much better games, don't worry! Enhanced past generation games are almost dead!

 

[DarkFlare69]

If the Wii U can handle 1080p, of course the Xbox One can handle them.