• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***The DigitalFoundry Face Off Thread***

Rroff said:
Its fairly understandable why with the horrid VSync implementation forced by MS UWP - you only need one tiny miss when you are already down and you momentarily blip to 15 or 20fps or whichever the next multiplier down is with that implementation when you could have been at upto 44fps otherwise - its pretty much impossible to gauge the true performance differential - especially with the framerate cap further making things complicated.

The game is broken, MS is broken and nVidia drivers are broken lol.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's broken. Just saying Nvidia are no where near there usual performance level. They are missing the 30fps target around the same amount as Amd are missing the 45fps target. I have no doubt NV's performance will improve. Microsoft need to get with the times and stop gimping PC's as there is no need.
 
TheRealDeal said:
I agree that it's broken. Just saying Nvidia are no where near there usual performance level. They are missing the 30fps target around the same amount as Amd are missing the 45fps target. I have no doubt NV's performance will improve. Microsoft need to get with the times and stop gimping PC's as there is no need.
Click to expand...

Seriously ignore it :P we have no way of knowing if they are actually missing the 30fps target as the VSync implementation is doing some really nasty things - the frametime graph highlights it - I'm surprised from the quick skipping through of the video I did that the DF people didn't pickup on it more or maybe I missed it. The whole test is broken and nothing more than a highlight of how bad MS and the UWP have become for PC gaming (and that nVidia are dropping the ball on their drivers).

How they got past this point and didn't go..... wait a minute.... I dunno

wGL7hJs.jpg


Once you look at the actual data realising what is going on its so hilariously broken for any kind of indication of actual performance its silly.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
stuff..
Click to expand...

The 970 IS struggling here, you can see in the video that the FPS was anywhere from 25-38+fps on the 970, so it's not clamping a multiplier as you suggest..

They say it in the video that the 970 can't cope with the amount of volumentric lighting effects in the game, it makes the frame rate on the 970 tank hard. That, coupled with the double buffered v-sync is hurting the 970 a lot compared to the AMD 390!
 
hominid said:
The 970 IS struggling here, you can see in the video that the FPS was anywhere from 25-38+fps on the 970, so it's not clamping a multiplier as you suggest..

They say it in the video that the 970 can't cope with the amount of volumentric lighting effects in the game, it makes the frame rate on the 970 tank hard. That, coupled with the double buffered v-sync is hurting the 970 a lot compared to the AMD 390!
Click to expand...

It is clamping - look at the frametime graph - the problem is the framerate is averaged over a period of time which allows for variation in what FPS is being displayed - there are a lot of times where it would be hitting say ~40fps but due to the nasty VSync implementation being pulled down all the way to ~20fps momentarily which pulls the average framerate around.

EDIT: I'm not saying the 970 isn't struggling here and within the limitations of MS UWP you'd definitely have to avoid it here - and the 390 is certainly faster but with the nasty VSync implementation its impossible to accurately say if the 390 is 1% faster or 100s of percent faster.
 
Last edited:
Judging from the available dx12 games theres a pattern with NV cards...980ti hold its own well, 980 takes a beating as 390/x are catching leaving it....and 970 is fully beaten far-far behind.
 
The quantum break PC Vs XB just makes me sad. It is basically the same game with nothing prettier on PC. I was all set to get this but the more I read about MS, the more I refuse to buy. Such a shame they never learnt from GFWL.

 
Gregster said:
The quantum break PC Vs XB just makes me sad. It is basically the same game with nothing prettier on PC. I was all set to get this but the more I read about MS, the more I refuse to buy. Such a shame they never learnt from GFWL.

Click to expand...

The way things are going with triple "A" releases and there not being much if any difference between consoles and PC, I can't see myself investing much more into the PC platform.
 
Microsoft's secret plan of making games seem so bad on PC it forces people to buy the games on console? They seem like the white knight with free upgrades to windows 10 and DX12 but their real plan is make games seem bad on PC and amazing on consoles. OR i need to stop smoking this stuff right now cos i'm talking loads of crap.
 
JediFragger said:
Wouldn't be a bad plan if the 'console' wasn't a 720p/30fps special ;) :D
Click to expand...

Every game I have on Ps4 runs at 1080p whether it's 30fps/60FPS or variable. My PC is still better but 720p was last gen. The rumoured new ps4.5/4k is said to have twice the graphics power of the current version which makes it around 290 power. Add to this a fixed platform it's going to be pretty good even compared to what we have now. Developers just don't see what we see in the PC platform.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Every game I have on Ps4 runs at 1080p whether it's 30fps/60FPS or variable. My PC is still better but 720p was last gen. The rumoured new ps4.5/4k is said to have twice the graphics power of the current version which makes it around 290 power. Add to this a fixed platform it's going to be pretty good even compared to what we have now. Developers just don't see what we see in the PC platform.
Click to expand...
Quantum Break is 720p on the Xbone. Most third party titles are at 900p on it and 1080p on the PS4, although this sometimes leads to the PS4 version having a rougher framerate.

Also, I can't see the new PS4 having anything like twice the power, personally. There may be people saying it will, but nobody knows. Even if it does arrive, what would it mean for current PS4 owners? Would developers target the new hardware, or the spec with an install base of 50m or however many it'll have sold be then? Nintendo tried the same thing with the New 3DS and it's had almost zero software support.
 
Aretak said:
Quantum Break is 720p on the Xbone. Most third party titles are at 900p on it and 1080p on the PS4, although this sometimes leads to the PS4 version having a rougher framerate.

Also, I can't see the new PS4 having anything like twice the power, personally. There may be people saying it will, but nobody knows. Even if it does arrive, what would it mean for current PS4 owners? Would developers target the new hardware, or the spec with an install base of 50m or however many it'll have sold be then? Nintendo tried the same thing with the New 3DS and it's had almost zero software support.
Click to expand...

If they use something along the lines of Zen/Polaris it should not be hard. Could be expensive though. The rumours are saying the new console is aimed at providing more power for VR and games will have superior graphics but nothing is to change for the current PS4. Similar tech so should be a case of cutting back on the settings. Probably not quit as easy if they do use Zen/Polaris but it will still be Amd tech.

As for frame rate the Ps4 with 1080p usually stand up better here than Xbox one even with higher resolution. There is the odd game where this is not the case. 720p in quantum break is very poor and shows that hardware wise the xbone is to underpowered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom