Xbox One vs. PS4 Resolution: Microsoft Challenges You To Spot The Differences on TV Smaller Than 60"

[LOLPhilips]

Yarrrr,

 

A whole bunch a nope too ye microsoft.

I should really think about raiding ye coasts.

[AlwaysFSX]

The human eye has a set point at which finer detail cannot be perceived, this is measured in arc minutes.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc

 

I believe it is 600ppi at 10-12 inches for 20/20 vision.  Thus you just need to expand the ratio to determine the maximum visual acuity for a set distance.

And I've got eyes like a f*cking hawk. It's pretty sad that I can see the jaggies on a tv across from me at the other side of the room.

[mr moose]

And I've got eyes like a f*cking hawk. It's pretty sad that I can see the jaggies on a tv across from me at the other side of the room.

I have no idea what resolution or distance you look at it from, I'm just quoting the research.

[AlwaysFSX]

I have no idea what resolution or distance you look at it from, I'm just quoting the research.

1080p, give it about 15 feet?

[mr moose]

1080p, give it about 15 feet?

what size screen?

[SkilledRebuilds]

World Render Distance, is my train of thought.

 

The far away backgrounds, look MUCH sharper at 1080p than 720p (on pretty much all my screens) 55" TV, 27" LCD & my laptops 1366x768

 

Anisotropic filtering per say... that effect in distance lands, is the main difference I see when using 720p vs 1080p of that particular scene. (Sniper Elite 3 on Lappy vs Desktop)

I'm anal about IQ tho...

[AlwaysFSX]

what size screen?

55". I think. It was larger by a good chunk than my 32".

[mr moose]

55". I think. It was larger by a good chunk than my 32".

 

so you have a ppi  of 40 and the human can see to 60 at 10 feet so that would make sense.

 

 

EDIT:

 

for those who don't want to do the math,  assuming a distance of 10 feet the following resolutions will be undetectable to the 20/20 human eye:

 

1280x720 @ 24"

1980x1080 @ 37"

 

So for someone with 20/20 vision should be able to see no difference between the above two and start to see pixels as the screen size gets bigger.

Just remember poor anti-aliasing is not the same as low resolution, 1080p with no aa should look worse than 720 with decent aa.  

[LAwLz]

I am always in favor of blind testing,  do it in a controlled environment with unbiased scientists overseeing the test and I'll accept the results regardless.  Maybe ms, sony, ubisoft etc should get in contact with a third party tester like the royal society, csiro, stanford uni etc. 

 

The problem I have with a lot of these challenges and rebuttals is that the test conditions are nearly always compromised due to failure to remove influencing factors.

I think the info (at least what we got right now) is too vague to even take the test seriously.

He never said it would be 720p vs 1080p, or 30 fps vs 60 fps. I think they will make the test biased as fuck by cherry picking games that run almost the same on both consoles (like with watch_dogs where the difference is 792p vs 900p). The TV will probably be a pretty small one and stand far away as well, much further away than what most people would place their TVs at. In my friends apartment their 55" TV is about 5 meters from their couch. Sure that's closer than most people but it's still a realistic scenario in a small apartment.

I would like to see 720p 30 fps vs 1080p 60 fps test, because then they will be comparing what console gamers currently got against what they actually want.

 

 

There are a few things that I don't like about this.

1) Microsoft acknowledges that the Xbone is less powerful than the PS 4 which is good of them to do. They don't take into consideration that a lot of people think the PS 4 isn't that good either. It's like coming second place in the paralympics. Even if you're only slightly behind the leader you're still not that great compared to the rest. Sorry.

 

2) He acknowledges that he can see a difference. Sure he says that he struggles to see it, but he still can. So even if the PS4 vs Xbone comparison is overblown (in his opinion) they still do have the worse performing platform, and that's coming from their UK marketing executive.

 

3) You just know that they will advertise 1080p and 60 fps as amazing features once they actually manages to get games (like the new Halo collection) running at it. It's really hypocritical of them to say it doesn't matter when their competitor is leading, and then hype it up when they are leading.

[matin94]

i thought most people had 42 to 55 inch TVs

[mr moose]

I think the info (at least what we got right now) is too vague to even take the test seriously.

He never said it would be 720p vs 1080p, or 30 fps vs 60 fps. I think they will make the test biased as fuck by cherry picking games that run almost the same on both consoles (like with watch_dogs where the difference is 792p vs 900p). The TV will probably be a pretty small one and stand far away as well, much further away than what most people would place their TVs at. In my friends apartment their 55" TV is about 5 meters from their couch. Sure that's closer than most people but it's still a realistic scenario in a small apartment.

I would like to see 720p 30 fps vs 1080p 60 fps test, because then they will be comparing what console gamers currently got against what they actually want.

 

 

There are a few things that I don't like about this.

1) Microsoft acknowledges that the Xbone is less powerful than the PS 4 which is good of them to do. They don't take into consideration that a lot of people think the PS 4 isn't that good either. It's like coming second place in the paralympics. Even if you're only slightly behind the leader you're still not that great compared to the rest. Sorry.

 

2) He acknowledges that he can see a difference. Sure he says that he struggles to see it, but he still can. So even if the PS4 vs Xbone comparison is overblown (in his opinion) they still do have the worse performing platform, and that's coming from their UK marketing executive.

 

3) You just know that they will advertise 1080p and 60 fps as amazing features once they actually manages to get games (like the new Halo collection) running at it. It's really hypocritical of them to say it doesn't matter when their competitor is leading, and then hype it up when they are leading.

 

yep, and that's why I would like to see some real tests done,  Where gamers come in of the street, have no idea whether its a pc, xbox or ps4, don't know the resolution or frame rate and play for a bit then give their estimation.  In my mind a few thousand test subjects should put the debate to bed once and for all.

[Trik'Stari]

Easy,

[mikeeginger]

O dear 

[Linus_torvalds]

FUCK CONSOLES!!!

[matin94]

Funny how they found 1 fucking scenario that the xbox one and PS4 look the same.

[Trik'Stari]

"30 fps looks fine! it's an artistic choice!"

[Syntaxvgm]

Interesting, because I have a slightly better GPU (1.4Tflops) and an I5 3550 and I on many occasions drop under 60fps when playing at 1080.  In fact much of my gaming occurs at 40-50fps depending on how far I push things like AA etc.  So I can't help but wonder how they propose to make the console stable at 60 with similar graphics settings.

That's the thing. You are playing PC games. PC games are not made to run on anything on particular, but rather to look the best they can, and while they have adjustable settings it's up to you to have good enough hardware. A console game that's developed right it made to work specifically on that hardware. 

I have weaker hardware too in one of my computers, and I can 1080p game expect for the newest titles.  Those I'd have to run on low settings. 

What they are doing is making games, then adjusting render settings to make them work like the consoles are PCs. They are not. Of course part of this has to do with some of these games developments starting so early, so there is hope it'll change. But with BS being spewed like this on the PR side, I'm worried. 

[mr moose]

That's the thing. You are playing PC games. PC games are not made to run on anything on particular, but rather to look the best they can, and while they have adjustable settings it's up to you to have good enough hardware. A console game that's developed right it made to work specifically on that hardware. 

I have weaker hardware too in one of my computers, and I can 1080p game expect for the newest titles.  Those I'd have to run on low settings. 

What they are doing is making games, then adjusting render settings to make them work like the consoles are PCs. They are not. Of course part of this has to do with some of these games developments starting so early, so there is hope it'll change. But with BS being spewed like this on the PR side, I'm worried. 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, you have said consoles can do 1080 @ 60fps but they choose not to, but this sounds like you are now saying they can't.

 

And either way your opinion goes I fail to see any evidence.  The only thing I can see is that console hardware is unable to keep up and game devs doing their darnedest to excuse it.  

[Nineshadow]

This is getting closer and closer to a penis size contest...

[deathjester]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, you have said consoles can do 1080 @ 60fps but they choose not to, but this sounds like you are now saying they can't.

 

And either way your opinion goes I fail to see any evidence.  The only thing I can see is that console hardware is unable to keep up and game devs doing their darnedest to excuse it.  

 

As someone else posted awhile ago AMD has already been approached for next next gen by all 3 console vendors. MS is already hiring hardware people for the next next gen. The PS4 is 1.84 tflops to the XB1 1.31, but it can't do 1080p/60 fps with decent AA either. Neither system can. Sony is probably doing the same thing. I imagine the next next gen will come out a year or two after DX 12/OpenGL x.xx (whatever it is named that has same effects) releases. Devs will need a year or two to make titles on the next GPU hardware.

 

http://www.thebitbag.com/xbox-two-microsoft-hiring-super-creator-to-develop-the-next-xbox-console/84429

 

These consoles game out a bit too early imo. You  want a console release when new hardware is released so that it is a good value compared to a PC. These consoles are like 2008 and 2010 PC's and the only advantage the XB1 has over a 2008 PC is it can run DX 11 effects. 

[mr moose]

As someone else posted awhile ago AMD has already been approached for next next gen by all 3 console vendors. MS is already hiring hardware people for the next next gen. The PS4 is 1.84 tflops to the XB1 1.31, but it can't do 1080p/60 fps with decent AA either. Neither system can. Sony is probably doing the same thing. I imagine the next next gen will come out a year or two after DX 12/OpenGL x.xx (whatever it is named that has same effects) releases. Devs will need a year or two to make titles on the next GPU hardware.

 

http://www.thebitbag.com/xbox-two-microsoft-hiring-super-creator-to-develop-the-next-xbox-console/84429

 

These consoles game out a bit too early imo. You  want a console release when new hardware is released so that it is a good value compared to a PC. These consoles are like 2008 and 2010 PC's and the only advantage the XB1 has over a 2008 PC is it can run DX 11 effects. 

 

That's basically what I was saying.  the consoles can't do it. it's not because the devs aren't optimizing their code enough but that just don't have the horse power to pull it off.

[Victorious Secret]

Easy,

 

What if I told you that PC gamers are largely no different? 

 

Please, enjoy the average BF4 text chat (god help you if there is voice). People are hardly any better. 

 

PC gamers have the same level of asshattery, snobbery, and desire to tell me that they fucked my mother twice in the past 10 minutes as any console player. 

[deathjester]

That's basically what I was saying.  the consoles can't do it. it's not because the devs aren't optimizing their code enough but that just don't have the horse power to pull it off.

 

Yup. A 7870 has 2.56 TFLOPS and those have been as cheap as 110 dollars lately with a rebate that I saw on slickdeals. That is STOCK speeds. The PS4 is 1.84 and they act like the thing has a r9 290 in it lol. 

 

I expect these next next gen consoles as early as holiday 2016/2017. Why? Cus they will be fully backwards compatible with "next gen". GCN architecture, and a faster AMD 8 core. They will already have an established game library and they might even be able to work out upressing the games or adding AA with patches or unlocking the FPS on some titles.

 

Add to that they don't want to have SFF PC's steam machines sitting there with a few years of adoption. I think this will be a very short console cycle compared to last gen.

[mr moose]

Yup. A 7870 has 2.56 TFLOPS and those have been as cheap as 110 dollars lately with a rebate that I saw on slickdeals. That is STOCK speeds. The PS4 is 1.84 and they act like the thing has a r9 290 in it lol. 

 

I expect these next next gen consoles as early as holiday 2016/2017. Why? Cus they will be fully backwards compatible with "next gen". GCN architecture, and a faster AMD 8 core. They will already have an established game library and they might even be able to work out upressing the games or adding AA with patches or unlocking the FPS on some titles.

 

Add to that they don't want to have SFF PC's steam machines sitting there with a few years of adoption. I think this will be a very short console cycle compared to last gen.

 

I can agree with that.

[Syntaxvgm]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, you have said consoles can do 1080 @ 60fps but they choose not to, but this sounds like you are now saying they can't.

 

And either way your opinion goes I fail to see any evidence.  The only thing I can see is that console hardware is unable to keep up and game devs doing their darnedest to excuse it.  

They CAN do it, but they CAN'T do it while pushing the graphics of the most current games. They CAN do 1080p at 60fps of last gen games, even towards the end with games like tomb raider, which IMO looks better, even without AA. What I'm saying is these games are not made with the consoles in mind, they are too intensive for this generation. In fact, any console from this gen or last can do 1080p if the game is made specifically for it. look at the wii u. 

Look at Nuaghty dog. They are making last of us 180p and 60FPS. Now I know you are thinking "that was a last gen game" but even on the PS3 it looks as good if not better than games right now for the new consoles. That's because naughty dog games are extremely well optimized. Look at uncharted 2 or 3. Simply amazing what they can do when they build it ground up with target hardware in mind. Or my favorite: Jak 2 for the Ps2. it ran 60fps and manages to be open world with a lot of geometry, no loading screens, and even does so with higher res component connections. Naughty dog pulled every trick out of their asses to make those games run right. On the ps2, they even used the ps1 processor on the system for a bit of extra power. Not many companies do what they do. I know their ps3 games didn't run at 60fps, but Uncharted and Last of us pushed the limits of what the ps3 could do and got amazing results and performance. While they  did run at 30 fps and 720p, they never made excuses for it, and made it the most stable they could and used amazing post processing to make 720p actually look really good. I would aruge that those games almost look better than current gen games, though that' not a fair comparison since not much is available yet. And I would bet this time around like the last of us remake their new games wills tep it up to 1080p and 60fps, while looking as good if not better than competition. and it's because they do it right. 

There are more examples of studios like them, but unfortunately not way to many. 

You get what I'm saying? It's about setting your performance standard first, then optimizing the games to look the best while keeping that standard. Most game companies anymore don't even bother taking all textures off of non visible planes, or do other things that will only really help consoles. Instead they just slap the game on the crank down the settings until they work.