The Xbox One - Mini Review & Comparison to Xbox 360/PS4
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 20, 2013 8:00 AM ESTImage Quality - Xbox 360 vs. Xbox One
Before I get to the PS4 comparison, I wanted to start with some videos showcasing the improvement you can expect from launch day titles that are available on both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. I turned to Call of Duty: Ghosts for this comparison as it’s broadly available on all platforms I’m comparing today.
Note that cross platform launch titles, particularly those available on previous generation consoles, end up being the worst examples of what’s possible on a next-generation platform. For the most part they’re optimized for the platform with the larger installed base (i.e. prior-gen hardware), and the visual uplift on new hardware isn’t as much as it could be. I’d say my subjective experience in playing a lot of the launch titles on Xbox One and PS4 mirrors this sentiment. Basic things like not having accurate/realistic cloth physics in games like CoD: Ghosts just screams port and not something that was designed specifically for these next gen systems. Just as we’ve seen in prior generations, it’s likely going to be a good 12 - 24 months before we see great examples of games on this new generation of hardware.
Now that I’ve adequately explained why this is a bad comparison, let’s get to the comparison. I’ve captured HDMI output on both consoles. They were both set to full range (0-255), however I had issues with the Xbox One respecting this setting for some reason. That combined with differences across Ghosts on both platforms left me with black levels that don’t seem equalized between the platforms. If you can ignore that, we can get to the comparison at hand.
All of these videos are encoded at 4K, with two 1080p captures placed side by side. Be sure to select the highest quality playback option YouTube offers.
The first scene is the intro to Ghosts. Here you can see clear differences in lighting, details in the characters, as well as some basic resolution/AA differences as well (Xbox 360 image sample, Xbox One image sample).
The second scene is best described as Call of Duty meets Gravity. Here the scene is going by pretty quickly so you’re going to have to pause the video to get a good feel for any differences in the platforms. What’s most apparent here though is the fact that many present day users can likely get by sticking with older hardware due to the lack of titles that are truly optimized for the Xbox One/PS4.
Now getting to scenes more representative of actual gameplay, we have Riley riding around wanting badly to drive the military vehicle. Here the differences are huge. The Xbox One features more realistic lighting, you can see texture in Riley’s fur, shadows are more detailed and there seems to be a resolution/AA advantage as well. What’s funny is that although the Xbox One appears to have a resolution advantage, the 360 appears to have less aliasing as everything is just so blurry.
Speaking of aliasing, we have our final IQ test which is really the perfect test case for high resolution/AA. Once again we see a completely different scene comparing the Xbox One to Xbox 360. Completely different lighting, much more detail in the environments as well as objects on the ground. The 360 version of Ghosts is just significantly more blurry than what you get on the One, which unfortunately makes aliasing stand out even more on the One.
Even though it’ll be a little while before we get truly optimzed next-gen titles, there’s an appreciable improvement on those games we have today for anyone upgrading from an older console. The difference may be more subtle than in previous generations, but it’s there.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
286 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
"I have to say that I prefer Sony’s stance on this one." -> Seeing how I don't really follow the console market apart from superficial reading of some news, what is Sony's stand here? :)Mugur - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
You can easily replace the hdd in PS4, just like on the PS3.peterfares - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Glad to hear it works fine without Kinect. I won't be plugging mine in.epyclytus - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
hi,i've read the ars review as well as others and have gathered some interesting info. from what i've gathered, everything is "rosy..." without quibbling on aesthetics and personal/subjective choices, such as, design of console/controller and video game comparison side-by-sides, which are hard to decipher anyway on youtube--i am really against the grain... firmly against the grain of sony and/or microsoft adapting such measly hardware inside these consoles. i can forgo a big/fat controller and box (XBO) if the hardware, i feel, has some muscle in it. or hide the more elegant PS4 under a shelf and behind some stuff to make it quieter and/or add a fan to keep it cool and from bricking, if the inside of it had some oomph! i mean, come one, the jaguar cpu is a tablet cpu and the gpu's are like cheap $100 gpu's. not only cheap, but these gpu's aren't even the new recently released gpu's from AMD that is found in the R9-290x.
the pc people seem to be praising this shift of inferior/cheap hardware solutions, as if, it is a "good thing" for the industry just because the architecture is the same as their $3000 lc's. give me a break.
please explain to me why this is good for games, for the gamers and for the industry, if the tech is not moving forward but semi backwards?
in 2006, ppl complained that the PS3 cost too much. well, the tech in the PS3 at that time didn't exist! $600 wasn't too much and add in blu-ray which at that time was an infant!!! and infant! now, the PS4 is a more agreeable price point but the inside of the machine are parts from a year ago. why is this good?
developers are saying they can squeeze out the consoles more than their pc counterparts, as if to say, "Yes! these consoles doesn't have the oomph of higher end pc's, but games will run better in them anyway because we can optimize the games better in consoles... yada-yada-yada."
the most upsetting part about all of this is that the games, visually and innovatively-speaking will suffer. and yes, the graphics are better and the new consoles are more powerful than their predecessors, but, it's not that more powerful. GTA V for ps4 will look better. yes. BF4 looks almost like a high end PC--yes. but this is probably where it will end, graphically speaking. i mean, the graphical wall will be squeezed out a lot quicker for this gen than last gen, i think. so, by next year, the best graphical masterpiece for either console will be possible. correct me if i'm wrong. and if developers can't squeeze out every metal of these consoles by next year, then something is wrong with the developers or these consoles or whatever since developers should already known how to develop for an x86 console since it is the same architecture as PC's which have been around since 1980 or whatever. i just don't see any games in the future that will be mind blowing is my greatest fear.
but, really, i'm just a little upset that... 1) they went with x86. 2) the x86 they went with isn't that powerful
good review though.
djboxbaba - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
What would you say would have been a better alternative to x86? I personally find the change to x86 fine, but the gimping of the hardware... well i definitely agree with you there.epyclytus - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
well, glad you ask. if i were to build my dream console, i would build it to require and exceed the fastest intel/amd cpu out there in terms of raw performance for gaming/graphics applications. at least, 8-cores, of course. and a full RISC cpu like the cell processor in the ps3 but, it's successor, or if doesn't exist, i'd make them make cpu from the ground up like what apple is doing with arm cpu's. in this case, if it can't beat the fastest mainstream cpu from intel/amd, in terms of, raw performance, then i'd add more cores to it. so maybe a 16-core sony/arm risk cpu that is 64-bit. i know risk cpu's are more scalable. so, adding more cores will give it that edge in terms of raw performance. and then, i would add 8GB of XDR3 RAM which i think is in development and will be faster than GDDR5 (i think). this is for bandwidth and future-proofing this system to meet its 6-10 year life cycle. the GPU would have to be discrete and will probably ask nvidia, instead of AMD to make one specifically for this dream console since Nvidia has better power/efficiency cards. this dream nvidia gpu will be like the upcoming maxwell gpu that is not even out yet. this is how advance my dream console is. and even though it's not an x86 machine and is risc-based, developing for this dream console will be the same as developing for anything else. the 8GB of XDR3 ram is shared btwn cpu and gpu, btw. what else am i missing? yeah, maybe, the console will be bigger than the ps4 but will be as sleek and have a higher price point. but, you can't argue that the inside of this dream console is anything but slapped together.Oh, the sound chip is also discrete. Adds cost. But whatever.
Bluray standard.
The i/o of the machine is standard. So sata3 or whatever.
Wifi is a/c standard.
Maybe the prce will be $899. But that is XDR3 ram, 16-core RISC sony/arm cpu, nvidia Maxwell gpu, dedicated soundcard, wifi a/c, and 1TB of 7200rpm HDD.
flyingpants1 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Great, congrats. And it would be utterly pointless because noone would buy it.epyclytus - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
well, the price is a little steep but the tech inside are state of the art, emerging, nonexistant technology as of right now. maybe, the console wouldn't have made launch this year. but, maybe next fall with all of the specs i mentioned. considering how fast apple updates their iphone hardware and the buzz around Arm and MIPS getting back into the RISC cpu race, then i don't think it's inconceivable to think that an electronic giant like sony in partnership with Arm, or MIPS could have co-developed a fast, multi-core RISC cpu that can compete with a desktop intel i7 or future AMD steamroller cpu. or maybe even samsung and sony since samsung also makes cpu's and they have a fab lab. i don't know. i am sort of pulling this out of my butt. but, it's a dream console, afterall. and my knowledge of the cpu market place are non existent. so, i got nothing to go by except for google searches about these things.someone also mentioned that a cpu is fundementally different than a gpu and they're right. a cpu isn't as fast as a gpu and a gpu isn't as fast as a cpu on certain task. but what bridges those gaps closer is a RISC cpu built from the ground up, sort of like the cell processor, but more powerful obviously that can do cpu task well and gpu task well. my proposition for a maxwell gpu in this dream console is also important since nividia is also incorporating an ARM chip in their upcoming 800 series of gpu to do what gpu's can't do. so, the maxwell version of this dream console will forgo that arm chip because there are already 16 of these chips (or cores) in the proposed RISC cpu of my dream console. my dream console is basically a video/graphic powerhouse where the cpu and the gpu are like synchronously or asynchronous talking to each other, but aren't dependant on each other. and the XDR3 memory controller to feed it is also part of this to give it massive bandwidth. Also, since the cpu and gpu are all co-developed and built with this application in mind, the entire console will only pull around 200 watts at load. Maybe less.
i know i'm dreaming. and it will never happen. well, it will eventually happen. But, I was hoping to happen sooner and in a console. why? Consoles are great platforms for diverging/emerging tech. Or should be. Sort of like what apple is doing with iphone and ipad hardware, but obviously, much more powerful. Much, much, much more powerful since consoles don't have to be that small like an iphone or ipad.....
/end babble
/end dream
epyclytus - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
just wanted to add that what my proposition is is a CPU and GPU that are both CPU and GPU, if that makes sense. so, theoretically, the cpu can be a gpu and the gpu can be a cpu so it's like having a dual gpu setup such as found in pc's. and/or a dual cpu's or possibly more.i know. advance stuff....
Hubb1e - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Haha. You want to build a RISC CPU from the ground up to be more powerful than an Intel i7, use ram that isn't even available yet, and use a graphics core that hasn't been finished yet? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it would be more expensive than the whole Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bomb.x86 chips are already available, Relatively fast, Jaguar chips are easily scalable to new processes, and DDR3 and GDDR5 ram are already in full volume production. Graphics are just a situation of adding more blocks and the minor differences in relative power consumption of AMD vs Nvidia is a moot point as Nvidia is incapable of creating an APU with a decent CPU in it.
I love the idea of an APU in these boxes because it makes so much sense but my ideal box would have been 7870 type graphics performance coupled with a 6 core CPU based on AMD's new streamroller core running at above 3ghz.
For RAM I would have taken the old approach they used to do with the 780G chipset and used 1GB of GDDR5 for the GPU coupled with 8GB of DDR3 accessible by either the GPU or the CPU.
Power consumption would have been similar to the XB360 on initial launch but they should have been able to build that within the size of this XBone.