Смотрите видео ниже, чтобы узнать, как установить наш сайт в качестве веб-приложения на домашнем экране.
Примечание: Эта возможность может быть недоступна в некоторых браузерах.
Let's kick off with some initial observations on image quality. Generally speaking, intricate texture detail and high-contrast edges aren't the most obvious elements of Watch Dogs' visual make-up, so the good news is that despite lacking a full 1080p framebuffer, the PS4 edition remains a very handsome-looking game compared to the PC release running at maximum settings. The surprise is how close the pared-down Xbox One game compares; after Titanfall's aliasing issues, we had concerns about Watch Dogs' visual presentation, but it manages to acquit itself rather well overall, as the shots below should demonstrate.
However, pure pixel count isn't the only adjustment Ubisoft Montreal has made. Ambient occlusion is also reduced, if not removed completely on Xbox One, which is a bit of a blow given that the effect is really needed in the harshly lit daytime scenes. On top of that, shadow quality also appears to move down a notch on the Microsoft console, although this is only noticeable when you view things up close.
One of the elements we like about the PS4 version is that performance is pretty strong for an open-world title. It feels solid, motion is fluid, and controller latency - while a little muggy - is at least consistent for most of the duration. First impressions on making our way through the first mission Xbox One are rather positive: the game seems to be a complete match for the PS4 version, locking at 30fps.
When render time runs over budget, an adaptive v-sync kicks in when the game can no longer sustain 30fps, resulting in the manifestation of screen-tear until overall engine load has stabilised. Therein lies the principal difference between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of the game - the Microsoft console runs over budget more often, especially in driving sections, meaning more tearing. Noticeable, but not especially annoying on PS4, the Xbox One version is somewhat more intrusive in this regard - with tearing even appearing in certain cut-scenes, which remain completely solid on the Sony console.
Perhaps more disappointing are the issues with PC performance. We noted a lot of comments online about stutter and can confirm that this is an issue, even with powerful gaming hardware. It appears that streaming of assets is the major culprit as adjusting texture quality has much more of an effect than dialling back graphical presets. We'll go into depth on PC performance in the full Face-Off, coming soon, but first impressions are that while the stutter issue remains in effect on Nvidia hardware (with v-sync active, we see occasional frame-time dips from 16ms to 33ms to 50ms), it is much more of an issue with the AMD cards. Even going nuclear and throwing a top-end 290X at the problem didn't produce a satisfactory experience.
Нашел чем пэкарезов удивить. Новые дрова и патчи это как отче наш.но оптимизация пока хромает, ждите патчей или дров типа.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-sniper-elite-3-face-off- PS4 almost matches PC IQ, running at ultra settings.
- XB1 has lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing
- Fluctuating framerate on both consoles
- PS4 closest to delivering 60 fps experience with a 5-10 fps lead over XB1
- XB1 has trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen
- XB1 suffers from tearing if Vsync is off
А кто-то из наших тут вроде хвалил игру?Сравнение Sniper Elite 3 (никто не играл ещё, где впечатления? вроде игра неплохая, отстрели яйца Гитлеру!)
Frame rates constantly fluctuate between 40 to 60 frames per second with the PS4 being least consistent in maintaining the said benchmark.
the X1 definitely has a cheerier and overall better look to it.
А чтобы не было тиринга, пользуйтесь V-sync-ом =)Other minor differences do crop up occasionally, such as the X1 faring better with motion blur and film grain
Ох щас аналитики налетят =)Oh and to the guys that look at the clock speeds on video cards and assume one will naturally outperform the other, you are right and wrong. The reason you are right is becaus, yes, the faster video card will always outperform a slower one. That's a given. What you aren't looking at is the fact that neither of these consoles have the processing power to max out their gpu's. A 1.75ghz cpu (using the Xb1 cpu because the ps4s is slower) is not enough to max out games. Sure it's an 8-core cpu, but nothing is optimized for even quad core cpus nowadays. The reason quad core and i7's are recommended for games is because having more cores frees up cpu time and can basically allow the 2 cores being used for the games to be used at 100% without any interference. This, and other reasons, are why hyperthreading and AMDs "bulldozer modules" have been becoming more and more relevant. Dev's are getting there, but it hasn't happened yet. So basically what you have is a 1.75ghz dual core cpu with a mid range gpu and you are expecting something amazing? I wish a nigga would give me an 8350, underclock it to 1.75ghz, lock 6 cores and leave me with a dual core cpu to play my games on.
Long story short, you have a half decent gpu in the ps4 that is bottlenecked by it's slow cpu. The ps4 isn't going to ever benefit from having that faster gpu, it's just going to get worse over time. The XB1 has a slower gpu, but it wouldn't effect it much at all when paired with the cpu in it. When you throw eSram on top of it, the xb1 is just overall better designed with the future in mind.
Вот еще смешная цитатка, от главразраба Wolfenstein TNO, Larry Mudd-а:
Ох щас аналитики налетят =)
Сравнение Sniper Elite 3 (никто не играл ещё, где впечатления? вроде игра неплохая, отстрели яйца Гитлеру!)
А кто-то из наших тут вроде хвалил игру?
Инфа из другого источника:
Ощущение такое что с дуболомами какими общаюсь =) Вы хоть читали сам текст, кроме "I wish a nigga would give me"? Процессора в приставках одинаковые (в Ване только частота немного выше), суть в том, что они не могут полностью нагрузить даже имеющиеся в приставках довольно слабенькие GPU. Даже немного более производительный проц в XB1 не может полностью утилизировать свой более слабый чем в PS4 GPU, не говоря уже о GPU PS4. eSRAM как дополнительный кэш может дать бенефиты в дальнейшей перспективе. Динамическое разрешение в Вульфе это особенности idTеch 5, в PS4 версии оно также прыгает в "тяжелых" сценах.Ага, то-то же разрещение в Вульфе четверть времени сидит в 720-900р (там динамическое разрешение) на боксе и никак вообще не просидает на PS4. Вообще цитата бред, он говорит про более слабый CPU, когда в реальности ЦПУ у обеих консолей близнецы 1 в 1. Но стоило еще остановиться на "I wish a nigga would give me", ни одна публичная персона не рискнула такую хуиту писать. Где ты это говно откапываешь? Я не удивлюсь что это тот же misterXmedia написал подписавшись разрабом.
Ну наконец-то. Первое подтверждение того, что ХB1 в 300 раз более продуманный чем PS4.When you throw eSram on top of it, the xb1 is just overall better designed with the future in mind.
Ох щас аналитики налетят =)
Убогие консольки.Динамическое разрешение
We'll cover like-for-like performance on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 in a forthcoming pre-launch update, but we're going into that testing with the expectation of very close results. Differences kick in at the resolution level: PS4 hits its 60fps target at full 1080p, while Xbox One currently stands at a curious 912p native resolution - that would be something in the region of 1620x912 (assuming square pixels). The original plan for Xbox One was to ship at 900p, but the June XDK update (returning the Kinect GPU resources to developers) has allowed for a tiny resolution boost - our guess here is that 4A opted to bank the additional resource to help lock down that all-important frame-rate rather than really push the pixel-count. If so, that's the right trade.