Battlefield 1 on PS4 Pro packs higher frame rate for multiplayer advantage

[Scorpus]

Despite Sony claiming that the PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 4 Pro would offer the same multiplayer experience in games, recent Battlefield 1 performance testing has suggested the opposite.

Digital Foundry put Battlefield 1's multiplayer modes through a series of performance tests, discovering that the game runs 10-15 frames per second faster on the PlayStation 4 Pro than its slower sibling. The performance advantage to the PS4 Pro was 47 percent on average, resulting in minimum frame rates increasing from 32 to 47 FPS in some situations.

While the PS4 Pro didn't always achieve its 60 frames per second target, Digital Foundry said the game "offers more visual feedback and crisper response" on Sony's faster hardware. The difference was particularly noticeable in 64-player matches, where the weak hardware of the PlayStation 4 can struggle to keep up with the game.

A 10-15 FPS advantage may not seem like much, but when a game routinely runs below 60 FPS on a console, the extra frames provided by the PS4 Pro will deliver a smoother and more responsive experience. This could lead to a multiplayer advantage, as gamers using a PS4 Pro could find it easier to spot enemies and respond to threats.

The advantage won't be present for all gamers, particularly those who aren't very good at Battlefield 1 in the first place. But hardcore gamers might want to play on the PS4 Pro for the slight advantage its increased performance provides.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67063-battlefield-1-ps4-pro-packs-higher-frame-rate.html

 

[Jeff Schmidt]

Digital Foundry is extremely biased towards the ps4. Take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[Bigtruckseries]

I fail to see the difference or advantage being 10 - 15 FPS faster makes here.

And I'd assume it'd be obvious that the Pro should be slightly faster than the PS4.

Thing is, how many people are really going to buy one when everyone already went out and got a PS4 early on?

This is the time when people who bought a PS4 at launch go and buy and Xbox One S, and people who bought an XBOX One go and buy a PS4 Pro.

 

[davislane1]

Digital Foundry is extremely biased towards the ps4. Take what they say with a grain of salt.

Had to add salt when I read this:

A 10-15 FPS advantage may not seem like much, but when a game routinely runs below 60 FPS on a console, the extra frames provided by the PS4 Pro will deliver a smoother and more responsive experience. This could lead to a multiplayer advantage, as gamers using a PS4 Pro could find it easier to spot enemies and respond to threats.

15 FPS will give you an advantage in eye fatigue after 10hrs of non-stop play. Any perceived advantage before that, during gameplay, is a hallucination.

 

[Puiu]

Digital Foundry is extremely biased towards the ps4. Take what they say with a grain of salt.

that's not true. they have videos of games that run at lower fps too. and you don't need to be biased to understand that xbox failed this generation compared to the PS4.

 

[Trillionsin]

I fail to see the difference or advantage being 10 - 15 FPS faster makes here.

And I'd assume it'd be obvious that the Pro should be slightly faster than the PS4.

Thing is, how many people are really going to buy one when everyone already went out and got a PS4 early on?

This is the time when people who bought a PS4 at launch go and buy and Xbox One S, and people who bought an XBOX One go and buy a PS4 Pro.

Every little bit helps when it comes to competition. Would you be able to notice from looking at it? Maybe...

If its 30 FPS, and you are upped to 45 FPS, hell yea I'd notice. If you are already running 60 or more, probably not.

I ran some games at 120 - 140 for awhile, did I notice? No, not really... but I'd swear I played better and won more rounds. Who knows... maybe it's just a mental thing.

 

[Jeff Schmidt]

that's not true. they have videos of games that run at lower fps too. and you don't need to be biased to understand that xbox failed this generation compared to the PS4.

I didn't say anything about Xbox. I was comparing what they say about PC games. And since I have a ps4, xbox one, and top end pc. It's easy to see fanboyism.

So they aren't biased when they complain about games that run in native 4k not looking that great. But then they say that Ps4 4k "checkerboarding" is amazing and looks fantastic.

 

[Jeff Schmidt]

Every little bit helps when it comes to competition. Would you be able to notice from looking at it? Maybe...

If its 30 FPS, and you are upped to 45 FPS, hell yea I'd notice. If you are already running 60 or more, probably not.

I ran some games at 120 - 140 for awhile, did I notice? No, not really... but I'd swear I played better and won more rounds. Who knows... maybe it's just a mental thing.

Anything over 30fps looks smoother up to 60fps. Then the human eye can't really see/notice past that. But we all love our 100hz+ monitors.

 

[Puiu]

I didn't say anything about Xbox. I was comparing what they say about PC games. And since I have a ps4, xbox one, and top end pc. It's easy to see fanboyism.

So they aren't biased when they complain about games that run in native 4k not looking that great. But then they say that Ps4 4k "checkerboarding" is amazing and looks fantastic.

I'm with the PC "master race" so I don't care about which console is better and I don't even want to buy one (I gave my TV to my parents since I didn't use it).
And let's be clear here, the upscaling from 1800p with the checkerboard technique makes the games look amazing on 4K displays. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't seen it in action. There are very little artifacts and blur is kept at a minimum. The only problem games have is that devs are not using very high texture resolutions like you have on PCs, but asking that much from a 400$ console is not realistic.

those who want the best should buy the best. the end. (aka a 1k$ PC or better)

 

[Jeff Schmidt]

I'm with the PC "master race" so I don't care about which console is better and I don't even want to buy one (I gave my TV to my parents since I didn't use it).
And let's be clear here, the upscaling from 1800p with the checkerboard technique makes the games look amazing on 4K displays. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't seen it in action. There are very little artifacts and blur is kept at a minimum. The only problem games have is that devs are not using very high texture resolutions like you have on PCs, but asking that much from a 400$ console is not realistic.

those who want the best should buy the best. the end. (aka a 1k$ PC or better)

The point I was making was that Digital Foundry will say that native 4k on games (that actually do look amazing if you have the hardware to push it) looks good. But upscaled checkerboarding 4k is amazing on the ps4 pro.

I just think that is funny because those are the same people who complained about the xbox one playing games at 900p vs the 1080p for ps4. Which I thought was moronic anyway since most people sit 5 feet or more away from there tv's. It's pretty much impossible to see unless you have eyes of an eagle.

 

[Puiu]

The point I was making was that Digital Foundry will say that native 4k on games (that actually do look amazing if you have the hardware to push it) looks good. But upscaled checkerboarding 4k is amazing on the ps4 pro.

I just think that is funny because those are the same people who complained about the xbox one playing games at 900p vs the 1080p for ps4. Which I thought was moronic anyway since most people sit 5 feet or more away from there tv's. It's pretty much impossible to see unless you have eyes of an eagle.

That's simple, the games that are native on the PS4 don't have amazing graphics which is why they can't really praise it that much. Skyrim looks sharp and nice, but it's still an old game. Compare that to the 1800p checkerboarded Watch Dogs 2 and you'll understand why they say it's amazing.

And you also don't understand why people complained about the xbox one: it launched at 100$ more and it had much less powerful hardware. When Halo 5 reaches as low as sub 800p then you know something is wrong. Most dice games are 720p.
Right now, at the same HDD capacity, the PS4 Pro is just 50 euros/$ more than the xbox one.

 

[theBest11778]

Every little bit helps when it comes to competition. Would you be able to notice from looking at it? Maybe...

If its 30 FPS, and you are upped to 45 FPS, hell yea I'd notice. If you are already running 60 or more, probably not.

I ran some games at 120 - 140 for awhile, did I notice? No, not really... but I'd swear I played better and won more rounds. Who knows... maybe it's just a mental thing.

Anything over 30fps looks smoother up to 60fps. Then the human eye can't really see/notice past that. But we all love our 100hz+ monitors.

The average human eye can detect up to 300 individual frames per second. So beyond 300hz is unnecessary. Until then that should be the goal of all hardware manufacturers.

As for the article the frametimes at 30fps or 59 fps are the same 33.3ms. No advantage unless the game runs 60fps locked for longer durations and the response time drops to 16.6ms. So even 30fps is the same as 59fps due to stupid vsync. Consoles need to drop that. Screen tearing is better than 33.3ms response times.

Moderator note: Please edit your posts instead of posting multiple times.

 

[Evernessince]

Every little bit helps when it comes to competition. Would you be able to notice from looking at it? Maybe...

If its 30 FPS, and you are upped to 45 FPS, hell yea I'd notice. If you are already running 60 or more, probably not.

I ran some games at 120 - 140 for awhile, did I notice? No, not really... but I'd swear I played better and won more rounds. Who knows... maybe it's just a mental thing.

Anything over 30fps looks smoother up to 60fps. Then the human eye can't really see/notice past that. But we all love our 100hz+ monitors.

The average human eye can detect up to 300 individual frames per second. So beyond 300hz is unnecessary. Until then that should be the goal of all hardware manufacturers.

As for the article the frametimes at 30fps or 59 fps are the same 33.3ms. No advantage unless the game runs 60fps locked for longer durations and the response time drops to 16.6ms. So even 30fps is the same as 59fps due to stupid vsync. Consoles need to drop that. Screen tearing is better than 33.3ms response times.

Moderator note: Please edit your posts instead of posting multiple times.

If you follow the linked video, they are not at all locked to 30 and 60 FPS.

 

[treetops]

Every little bit helps when it comes to competition. Would you be able to notice from looking at it? Maybe...

If its 30 FPS, and you are upped to 45 FPS, hell yea I'd notice. If you are already running 60 or more, probably not.

I ran some games at 120 - 140 for awhile, did I notice? No, not really... but I'd swear I played better and won more rounds. Who knows... maybe it's just a mental thing.

Anything over 30fps looks smoother up to 60fps. Then the human eye can't really see/notice past that. But we all love our 100hz+ monitors.

Not true, take an old nes game like punch out, it was designed for a old crt tv. Which has like unlimitted fps. Take that same game and try to play it on a 60 fps lcd. It is terrrrrible. You can barely beat some of the opponents. HUUUUUUGE difference.

Now then I took that same game and played it on 144 hz, no its not the same as crt but a def upgrade in fps. Playable, not perfect but you notice a difference instantly.

The same is true for modern twitch shooters, but not as noticeably because you dont have a 300+ fps opponent punching you in the face. 120 fps compared to 60 fps gives you twice the time to react at the very least.

What I used to compare
Wii U LCD 60 fps lcd tv unplayable
PC emulator 60 fps lcd unplayable
PC emulator 144 hz monitor playable

Want to see for yourself get an emulator at vimms lair.

P.S. Still haven't beat tyson

p.s.s. just beat tyson

 

[ghostf1re]

I fail to see the difference or advantage being 10 - 15 FPS faster makes here.

And I'd assume it'd be obvious that the Pro should be slightly faster than the PS4.

Thing is, how many people are really going to buy one when everyone already went out and got a PS4 early on?

This is the time when people who bought a PS4 at launch go and buy and Xbox One S, and people who bought an XBOX One go and buy a PS4 Pro.

10-15 fps is a significant advantage depending on how much fps has in the first place. One example would be playing Arma 3 wasteland. depending on where you are or what you're doing or even what the server is running, you can get anywhere from 10-80fps. That's a huge difference. I tend to average around 30fps in most cases in cities in that game. an extra 10-15 fps would be a massive difference. There would be less jitter and less observable lag while moving around or tracking enemies during a gunfight. Now after 60 fps, it would make next to no difference because at that point the game is already smooth. So it's all situational. I understand I'm making a comparison using a PC game, but a console would work the same way.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Framerates matter.
High refresh rate monitors matter.

Every PC gamer knows this. That is all.

 

[theBest11778]

If you follow the linked video, they are not at all locked to 30 and 60 FPS.

Look at the frametime graph in the video. 33ms or 16ms. No in between

 

[theBest11778]

10-15 fps is a significant advantage depending on how much fps has in the first place. One example would be playing Arma 3 wasteland. depending on where you are or what you're doing or even what the server is running, you can get anywhere from 10-80fps. That's a huge difference. I tend to average around 30fps in most cases in cities in that game. an extra 10-15 fps would be a massive difference. There would be less jitter and less observable lag while moving around or tracking enemies during a gunfight. Now after 60 fps, it would make next to no difference because at that point the game is already smooth. So it's all situational. I understand I'm making a comparison using a PC game, but a console would work the same way.

Like I said above due to vsync being enabled there's no benefit to any framerate under 60fps. Unlike pc where you can disable vsync or put on an adaptive sync solution console users don't get that choice. 33.3ms response times popping up constantly on both the pro and regular ps4 would be hard to constantly adjust to either version. However console gamers are used to unresponsive controls and can adapt quicker than pc players I suppose as 99.9% of games do not meet framerate targets 100% of the time (good job titanfall 2 for stepping up )

 

[0192837465]

Hardcore gamer don't do consoles.

 

[alabama man]

that's not true. they have videos of games that run at lower fps too. and you don't need to be biased to understand that xbox failed this generation compared to the PS4.

I didn't say anything about Xbox. I was comparing what they say about PC games. And since I have a ps4, xbox one, and top end pc. It's easy to see fanboyism.

So they aren't biased when they complain about games that run in native 4k not looking that great. But then they say that Ps4 4k "checkerboarding" is amazing and looks fantastic.

It's what you compare it to, the checer board is amazing copared to 900p scaling resolution.