Tomb Raider on PS4 May Double Xbox One Framerate

Tomb Raider on PS4 May Double Xbox One Framerate

treidos

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition seems like it has no trouble reaching peak performance on the PlayStation 4, but Square Enix is suspiciously quiet about the Xbox One version.

Square Enix is just about ready to release Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, the next-gen touch-up of last year's Tomb Raider reboot. With only a week before the January 31 release date, some new information has arisen that may sway a few purchases: apparently, the PlayStation 4 version of the Definitive Edition has been running smoothly at 60 frames per second, while the latest reports of the Xbox One version haven't matched that level of performance. One unverified report claims that the Xbox version tends to sit at 30 frames per second, and a statement from Square avoids confirming or denying that gap.

Executive producer Scot Amos showed off Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition in a livestream last night, playing on a PS4. "Looking here, this is the PS4 version running at 60 FPS, again at 1080p," he remarked during the stream. "That's awesome for that to be able to showcase because when you get your hands on it you can feel it."

Amos didn't comment on whether or not the Xbox One version would match that speed, but this morning an unverified report stated that the Xbox version could only reach 45 frames per second under the simplest of conditions, and most gameplay averaged out to a mere 30 FPS. Square Enix responded to this statement with a shrug.

"Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience," said a Square Enix spokesperson in response. "Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30 FPS was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30 FPS for this version is gravy."

I expect there are quite a few performance enthusiasts who would debate that last point. Square confirms that any version of the Definitive Edition can hit 30 frames per second, but we know that the PlayStation can go further. Square Enix has not verified the original report on the Xbox version's limited performance.

Source: Video Gamer

Permalink

I wonder how many games it'll take before the Xbone's "white knights" just admit that their console's specs aren't as good as Sony's. Because this is hardly the first, nor will it be the last I would imagine. Yet people keep insisting that "the jury's still out" on which one has better hardware. No it isn't, the jury concluded this case before either console hit the market: the PS4 boasts superior specs, which is why games on both systems almost always run at higher frame rates and higher resolutions on the PS4.

If MS hadn't wasted so much money on Kinect 2.0 (reports suggest that the Kinect cost them nearly as much to make as the console itself), they'd have been able to buy much better specs for their system. Instead they're playing second fiddle to Sony and hoping that their smart TV with integrated TV/movies/games initiative pays off. And right now, with Sony in the lead, it's looking like that isn't the case.

Unless it turns out to have a truly abysmal frame rate, I can't be arsed to care. Not that I'm likely to buy it for either console (or buy either console), just...It doesn't seem that big a deal.

To anyone claiming that 30 FPS isn't that much worse than 60 FPS, it is. It's half-worse. It's a noticeable difference. Sure, you can enjoy an inferior version of a game on inferior hardware (otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have been so successful), it's not a deal-breaker if you have an Xbox One, but it's still a fact. That fluidity is awesome. Give me 60 FPS!

Like this:
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

image
(left is higher frame rate)

Trishbot:
To anyone claiming that 30 FPS isn't that much worse than 60 FPS, it is. It's half-worse. It's a noticeable difference. Sure, you can enjoy an inferior version of a game on inferior hardware (otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have been so successful), it's not a deal-breaker if you have an Xbox One, but it's still a fact. That fluidity is awesome. Give me 60 FPS!

Like this:
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

image
(left is higher frame rate)

I honestly can't see any difference between those two.

Trishbot:

(left is higher frame rate)

I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke. I really don't see any difference.

You know..five years ago people were bitching about devs seemingly only caring about graphics. Now people are bitching about graphics. It seem like the cycle will never end.

Zachary Amaranth:

Trishbot:

(left is higher frame rate)

I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke. I really don't see any difference.

I have to agree with you that the gif he used definitely doesn't help the whole 30 FPS vs 60 FPS argument. The main thing people should worry about I say isn't if a game can run at 60 FPS or 30 FPS, but that the framerate needs to remain constant and not drop and bounce around the place like some games tend to do. Console versions of Bethesda games have that problem, New Vegas especially, and you can definitely tell when frames are dropped. Now one of the main problems is maintaining a high FPS constantly, and in the grand scheme of things if you are uploading gameplay to say YouTube then rendering videos in 60 FPS is a stupid idea because YouTube caps off the framerate at 30 FPS max.

Neronium:

Zachary Amaranth:

Trishbot:

(left is higher frame rate)

I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke. I really don't see any difference.

I have to agree with you that the gif he used definitely doesn't help the whole 30 FPS vs 60 FPS argument. The main thing people should worry about I say isn't if a game can run at 60 FPS or 30 FPS, but that the framerate needs to remain constant and not drop and bounce around the place like some games tend to do. Console versions of Bethesda games have that problem, New Vegas especially, and you can definitely tell when frames are dropped. Now one of the main problems is maintaining a high FPS constantly, and in the grand scheme of things if you are uploading gameplay to say YouTube then rendering videos in 60 FPS is a stupid idea because YouTube caps off the framerate at 30 FPS max.

I can totally see the difference, not sure why everyone else has issues. Maybe their browser doesn't play gifs at their maximum frame rates.

Trishbot:
To anyone claiming that 30 FPS isn't that much worse than 60 FPS, it is. It's half-worse. It's a noticeable difference. Sure, you can enjoy an inferior version of a game on inferior hardware (otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have been so successful), it's not a deal-breaker if you have an Xbox One, but it's still a fact. That fluidity is awesome. Give me 60 FPS!

Like this:
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

image
(left is higher frame rate)

Perhaps me, like many others, who has not so great eyes can not see any difference between the two. I can't see the difference.

dragongit:

I can totally see the difference, not sure why everyone else has issues. Maybe their browser doesn't play gifs at their maximum frame rates.

I've tested the gif in Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari and can say that unless all those browsers are not playing gifs at the max, then there is no difference at all.
Especially in the case of console gamers, which many are used to 30 FPS and can't easily tell the difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS. I honestly can't see the difference in those gifs at all, and so can't many others in the thread.

Like I said though, 60 FPS and 30 FPS are nice and all, but unless it's constant without jumps then it's really pointless in the end. Dropping a frame to 2 frames isn't bad, but anything more and you'll definitely notice, and if it's a Bethesda game you'll see it jump from something like 30 FPS to 15, sometimes even 5 *glares at PS3 New Vegas copy*, a lot of the time.

kiri2tsubasa:

Trishbot:
To anyone claiming that 30 FPS isn't that much worse than 60 FPS, it is. It's half-worse. It's a noticeable difference. Sure, you can enjoy an inferior version of a game on inferior hardware (otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have been so successful), it's not a deal-breaker if you have an Xbox One, but it's still a fact. That fluidity is awesome. Give me 60 FPS!

Like this:
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

image
(left is higher frame rate)

Perhaps me, like many others, who has not so great eyes can not see any difference between the two. I can't see the difference.

Ya'll should try having shitty internet. I get to watch the gif load very slowly, frame-by-frame, and the left has a lot more frames to load. Twice as many, would be my expert mathematical guess.

Even without having to watch it load frame-by-frame, I can see the difference. The right one is a bit choppier than the left, which has more fluidity. And while I do like how smooth 60FPS feels while playing, but it's not a dealbreaker. At all. Both are fine. As in regards to this, and "resolutiongate" being the big "thing" in games at the moment... it makes me laugh. It's the industry everyone created. For decades developers have sold us on graphics, publications have raved about graphics, and as a result people demand amazing graphics to the point of absurdity.

You reap what you sow.

EDIT: Also, this is a much better framerate comparison/tester thingy. I believe it's purpose is for films, but it applies here as well.

I can barely notice a difference in the posted gif, but that's not what's important about this whole thing.
If you consider that it's been pretty common for games on a console to improve performance wise as the console ages and developers gain a better understanding of the hardware involved. Well, at least with the previous generations this was a given. With this latest gen the hardware might be so PC like that developers won't have to struggle too much to get maximum performance from any game.
But either way this game is showing a definite delta between performance on the two consoles. I would suggest that as developers start to push the hardware they'll reach a ceiling where they'll have to ditch features to maintain performance levels. So barring any major cock ups on this XBone port to give it such dismal frame rates it suggests something about the games to come. The XBone will reach it's ceiling before the PS4 plain and simple. Now will this mean that eventually games on the PS4 will be over all better? On that I can't say because it's up to the developer and it might be simpler to develop for the lower spec only. I guess we'll see as more multi-platform games get released.

CriticKitten:
I wonder how many games it'll take before the Xbone's "white knights" just admit that their console's specs aren't as good as Sony's. Because this is hardly the first, nor will it be the last I would imagine. Yet people keep insisting that "the jury's still out" on which one has better hardware.

The Xbones hardware is less powerful but I am beginning to have my doubts about whether that is the cause of performance gaps like this, the difference between the machines is not that big. Certainly not enough to be halving the framerate, anyone with gaming PC experience knows that to double a games frame rate at the same resolution takes a serious upgrade.

The APU in the PS4 is only slightly more powerful than the Xbones and they are essentially the same model with the PS4 having a slight increase in the amount of Compute Units on die with a slightly higher clock speed, the RAM doesn't make as much difference as you would think either as the increase in speed comes with an increase in latency. The Xbone can access chunks of data more quickly whilst the PS4 can stream data at higher sustained rate, both approaches are valid and different game engines will leverage one or the other to a greater degree.

There is almost certainly something else going here, it could be the Xbones OS or the way the software is interacting with the metal and its compounding the performance gap of the hardware. Whatever it is its not just the APU and RAM.

The Xbone has a problematic bottleneck like the PS3 did, once its well documented it should not be an issue unless textures will suffer from it like on the PS3.

Zachary Amaranth:

Trishbot:

(left is higher frame rate)

I'm honestly not sure if this is a joke. I really don't see any difference.

That gif doesn't look like much except that the animation is not in sync. But there is most certainly a difference when playing a game. I remember when first playing Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus and being rather shocked it ran at 30fps when all previous games always ran at a smooth 60fps. After a while a didn't notice it much anymore, but whenever I replay it it's still fairly jarring.

When it's just the one character it's hardly noticeable, but as soon as you start running and moving the camera around you'll definately note the difference.

The real issue isn't so much whether it'll impact your enjoyment, since I doubt it, but why a more expensive system can't run at the same quality. Especially since both systems are more or less the same. I mean, the PS3 had the excuse that ran on the weird Cell architechture. What's the Xbone's excuse?

Zachary Amaranth:
Unless it turns out to have a truly abysmal frame rate, I can't be arsed to care. Not that I'm likely to buy it for either console (or buy either console), just...It doesn't seem that big a deal.

since 30 fps is abysmal, then yes, very likely it is going to be abysmal frame rate for Xbox.

Trishbot:
<large gif>

Wow you had to pick the worst example to show. i could swear it was the left one with less frames before i read the text after it.

Here is a couple better ones
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

or better yet, THIS large sized gif

J Tyran:

There is almost certainly something else going here, it could be the Xbones OS or the way the software is interacting with the metal and its compounding the performance gap of the hardware. Whatever it is its not just the APU and RAM.

Xbone OS suppsoedly hogs over 100 GB of hard drive space, half of it "Reserved for future updates" no less. It also does not actually multitask, but run a new instance of OS for every task (want to watch a video on the side, its actually another OS running it) so i can see how the OS stacking can slow it down.

Strazdas:

J Tyran:

There is almost certainly something else going here, it could be the Xbones OS or the way the software is interacting with the metal and its compounding the performance gap of the hardware. Whatever it is its not just the APU and RAM.

Xbone OS suppsoedly hogs over 100 GB of hard drive space, half of it "Reserved for future updates" no less. It also does not actually multitask, but run a new instance of OS for every task (want to watch a video on the side, its actually another OS running it) so i can see how the OS stacking can slow it down.

Admittedly software isn't my thing, I know it uses a lot more memory at any given time compared to the OS on the PS4 as well.

J Tyran:

Strazdas:

J Tyran:

There is almost certainly something else going here, it could be the Xbones OS or the way the software is interacting with the metal and its compounding the performance gap of the hardware. Whatever it is its not just the APU and RAM.

Xbone OS suppsoedly hogs over 100 GB of hard drive space, half of it "Reserved for future updates" no less. It also does not actually multitask, but run a new instance of OS for every task (want to watch a video on the side, its actually another OS running it) so i can see how the OS stacking can slow it down.

Admittedly software isn't my thing, I know it uses a lot more memory at any given time compared to the OS on the PS4 as well.

yeah when it was coming out everyone expected that it would be just a copy of win8 in there since they made that specifically multiplatform. when some tech guys actually investigated what it was doing i was horrified. the OS isnt even capable of actual multitasking, only the "Active window" is actually working. it looks like something from the beginning of the 90s was take and given a facelift.

P.S. capcha wants me to know poetry lines now. seriuosly?

smithy_2045:

Trishbot:
Sniprate

I honestly can't see any difference between those two.

I'm surprised so many people can't see it. Rather than watching them both at once try watching just the one on the right, then just the one on the left. The one on the right is slow enough you can see the individual sword positions in each frame as it swings around.

Again, like resolution-gate, this is the type of thing that doesn't really matter much to the average person, but since better graphics are basically all these consoles can boast, it inevitably becomes a scandal when One is even a tiny bit inferior. I mean, you can argue that the difference is negligible, but you still wouldn't choose 30 FPS over 60FPS all things being the same.

This is why Nintendo tries to be different from the other consoles, they know they can't compete head to head power wise so that's not where they focus their attention.

Olas:

smithy_2045:

Trishbot:
Sniprate

I honestly can't see any difference between those two.

I'm surprised so many people can't see it. Rather than watching them both at once try watching just the one on the right, then just the one on the left. The one on the right is slow enough you can see the individual sword positions in each frame as it swings around.

Again, like resolution-gate, this is the type of thing that doesn't really matter much to the average person, but since better graphics are basically all these consoles can boast, it inevitably becomes a scandal when One is even a tiny bit inferior. I mean, you can argue that the difference is negligible, but you still wouldn't choose 30 FPS over 60FPS all things being the same.

This is why Nintendo tries to be different from the other consoles, they know they can't compete head to head power wise so that's not where they focus their attention.

That's the thing though. It's not something that's noticeable unless you're actively looking for it.

Now, there are exceptions where the higher FPS is a necessity. An example that I know well is in Counter Strike Source, where you need at least as many FPS as the tick rate of the server for an ideal experience. Otherwise your bullets are less reliable, or you're slightly too slow to get back into cover, and it costs you. But, it's very much a precision, tactical game unlike most console games. I haven't played Tomb Raider on 360 or PS3, but I would doubt that the slight loss of precision would be a significant difference.

Trishbot:
To anyone claiming that 30 FPS isn't that much worse than 60 FPS, it is. It's half-worse. It's a noticeable difference. Sure, you can enjoy an inferior version of a game on inferior hardware (otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have been so successful), it's not a deal-breaker if you have an Xbox One, but it's still a fact. That fluidity is awesome. Give me 60 FPS!

Like this:
(left is higher frame rate)

Poor example. Much better would be a large cube rotating at a constant speed around an axis that lines up with the horizon. Most people will recognize that one, even for the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps on a CRT.

What you want is for this demonstration is a moving object where the human mind can attempt to extrapolate the movement out of the frames. The movement ideally needs to be simple and easy to follow, while still moving fast enough across a big part of the screen.

I played it on the PC in the early days before nvidia drivers where fixed ( not there fault) and turning tresfx on dropped me down to 30fps or so and i can tell you the drop was very noticeable.

Those who don't notice the difference in that gif probably have played more games on their console than 60fps games on PC to notice the difference. It may look the same, but in the real game the jump from 30 to 60 is considerable. Fluidity is very important at least for me.

I personally can notice when frames drop under 60 even to 45-50 and it bothers me, because I feel the game is lagging out. I cannot even fathom how some people play their games in 30.

I'm sorry to say this to all who own an X1, but if that console can't handle the games that are from last gen in 60fps, I don't see a bright future ahead unfortunately.

Neronium:

I have to agree with you that the gif he used definitely doesn't help the whole 30 FPS vs 60 FPS argument. The main thing people should worry about I say isn't if a game can run at 60 FPS or 30 FPS, but that the framerate needs to remain constant and not drop and bounce around the place like some games tend to do. Console versions of Bethesda games have that problem, New Vegas especially, and you can definitely tell when frames are dropped. Now one of the main problems is maintaining a high FPS constantly, and in the grand scheme of things if you are uploading gameplay to say YouTube then rendering videos in 60 FPS is a stupid idea because YouTube caps off the framerate at 30 FPS max.

Oh yes, I am quite familiar with the issue of frame rate drops. Also, YouTube is funny because you still get people claiming they can tell the difference between 30 and 60 on there when it is capped.

Casual Shinji:
What's the Xbone's excuse?

Doesn't it have some weird tacked-on second processor setup?

Strazdas:

since 30 fps is abysmal, then yes, very likely it is going to be abysmal frame rate for Xbox.

Since I reject your premise, I have to reject your conclusion.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here