Image Quality - Xbox One vs. PlayStation 4

This is the big one. We’ve already established that the PS4 has more GPU performance under the hood, but how does that delta manifest in games? My guess is we’re going to see two different situations. The first being what we have here today. For the most part I haven’t noticed huge differences in frame rate between Xbox One and PS4 versions of the same game, but I have noticed appreciable differences in resolution/AA. This could very well be the One’s ROP limitations coming into play. Quality per pixel seems roughly equivalent across consoles, the PS4 just has an easier time delivering more of those pixels.

The second situation could be one where an eager developer puts the PS4’s hardware to use and creates a game that doesn’t scale (exclusively) in resolution, but also in other aspects of image quality as well. My guess is the types of titles to fall into this second category will end up being PS4 exclusives (e.g. Uncharted 4) rather than something that’s cross-platform. There’s little motivation for a cross-platform developer to spend a substantial amount of time in optimizing for one console.

Call of Duty: Ghosts

Let’s start out with Call of Duty: Ghosts. Here I’m going to focus on two scenes: what we’ve been calling internally Let the Dog Drive, and the aliasing test. Once again I wasn’t able to completely normalize black levels across both consoles in Ghosts for some reason.

In motion both consoles look pretty good. You really start to see the PS4’s resolution/AA advantages at the very end of the sequence though (PS4 image sample, Xbox One image sample). The difference between these two obviously isn’t as great as from the 360 to Xbox One, but there is a definite resolution advantage to the PS4. It’s even more obvious if you look at our aliasing test:

Image quality otherwise looks comparable between the two consoles.

NBA 2K14

NBA 2K14 is one cross platform title where I swear I could sense slight frame rate differences between the two consoles (during high quality replays) but it’s not something I managed to capture on video. Once again we find ourselves in a situation where there is a difference in resolution and/or AA levels between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of the game.

Both versions look great. I’m not sure how much of this is the next-gen consoles since the last time I played an NBA 2K game was back when I was in college, but man have console basketball games significantly improved in their realism over the past decade. On a side note, NBA 2K14 does seem to make good use of the impulse triggers on the Xbox One’s controller.



Battlefield 4

I grabbed a couple of scenes from early on in Battlefield 4. Once again the differences here are almost entirely limited to the amount of aliasing in the scene as far as I can tell. The Xbox One version is definitely more distracting. In practice I notice the difference in resolution, but it’s never enough to force me to pick one platform over another. I’m personally more comfortable with the Xbox One’s controller than the PS4’s, which makes for an interesting set of tradeoffs.

Image Quality - Xbox 360 vs. Xbox One Power Consumption
Comments Locked

286 Comments

View All Comments

  • tipoo - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    The PS4 clock was speculation though, not official. More cores would not change Javascript scores, which are single threaded mostly.
  • A5 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Pretty sure Webkit has a multi-threaded JS engine. And if the XBone restricts CPU time for apps along with core counts, that could explain some more of it.
  • andrewaggb - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    plus the xbox is running internet explorer which tends to lose all the javascript benchmarks. It's not likely important anyways, javascript benchmarks do not
  • tipoo - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    IE11 tends to win Sunspider a lot. Seems they don't have the most modern IE rendering engine in there.
  • Hubb1e - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    It may be that MS has just simply decided that two cores is enough CPU horsepower to run all OS functions and doesn't even bother letting the OS touch any more cores even when outside of a game. Two Jaguar cores at 1.75 ghz really isn't half bad so it could make sense.
  • ShapeGSX - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Microsoft has stated that there are two standby modes. One in which Kinect is listening for the command "Xbox On". And another where you turn that feature off. If you turn the "Xbox On" feature off, they have stated that standby power consumption drops to just 0.5W (although given that they said that it burns just 7W with the feature turned on makes me wonder).

    Could you test the power consumption with the "Xbox On" feature turned off?
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    How would that differ to the "Off" state Anand tested?
  • darkich - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Holy smoke.. my phone has more than 4X better java script browsing performance than Xbox One!

    That's just disgraceful on the console part, and inexcusable for Microsoft.
  • kyuu - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Considering the internet browser is not an important component of a console, whereas it's hugely important on a smartphone, it's pretty understandable, really.
  • Stuka87 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    *WHY* are the comparison videos uploaded at 360P!?!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now