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
melgross - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Because nobody used Media Center.Da W - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link
Because nobody made an off the shelf, plug and play, HTPC. Since MS is making hardware now, i don't know why they didn't try to rebaggage Media Center as a Windows 8 app and make another try. The whole world is fighting for your TV, Microsoft was here since 2005 and somehow they call it quit (for the PC) and put all their eggs in Xbox basket.How expensive would it be to offer two options instead of one? I know a good deal of enthusiasts that will kill for a 2k$ HTPC with full XBone capabilities. Would cut the grass under steambox feets too.
taikamya - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
So wait.. that IGN review where they stated that the PS4 has a 2.75Ghz clock is false?'Cause this can explain the faster response times and more power usage, since the GPU's are not THAT different. I don't think that all that power difference of 20W-30W is GPU only.
Okay, "max frequency of 2.75Ghz".. either way, that could explain a lot.(including the overheating problems some people are having now)
http://goo.gl/Fd6xJY
taikamya - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Excuse me, I'm new here so.... I'm sorry if we're not supposed to post links or anything for that matter. The IGN review is called "Playstation 4 Operating Temperature Revealed".I would be glad if someone could clear this up for me. Since this Anand review states that the PS4 runs at 1.6Ghz.
althaz - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
It runs at 1.6 Ghz, IGN are incorrect.A5 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Don't go to IGN for technical information. Or anything, really. They're just plain wrong on this.cupholder - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
Yeah, double the ROPs = not THAT different.Each of my 770s are totally the same as a Titan... Totally.
bill5 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
14 CU's, yes, it does have 14 for redundancy.The worst part is as I tweeted you, as recently as weeks from launch MS was strongly considering enabling the two redundant CU's, but choose not too. Both my own reliable sources told me this, as well it was somewhat referenced by MS engineers in a digital foundry article.
Anyways I strongly wish they had, 1.5 teraflops just would have felt so much better, even if no paper a small increase.
MS was so dumb to not beef up the hardware more, charging 499 for essentially a HD7770 GPU in nearly 2014 I find sad.
Hell my ancient 2009, factory overclocked to 950, HD 4890 has more flops in practice, even if the 7770/XO GPU is probably faster due to being more advanced.
Think about that, the 4890 is a 5 year old GPU. The XO is a brand new console expected to last 7+ years. So sad I dont even wanna think about it.
Ahh well, the sad thing is by the looks of your comparison vids MS will very likely get away with it. even the 720P vs 1080P Ghosts comparison there is not much difference (and I imagine over time the XO will close the resolution gap to something more like 900P vs 1080P)
One of the most interesting parts of your article though was the speculation XO is ROP limited. Not something I hadn't heard before, but still interesting. Shortsighted on MS part if so.
Overall it feels like as usual MS is misguided. Focus on Live TV when it's probably slowly fading away (if not for that pesky sports problem...), and other things that seem cute and cool but half assed (voice recognition, Snap, Skype, etc etc etc).
Yet for all that I can still see them doing well, mostly because Sony is even more incompetent. If they were up against Samsung or Apple they would be already dead in consoles, but fortunately for them they are not, they are up against Sony, who loses pretty much every market they are in.
I think if XO struggles it would be a nice rebrand as a kinect-less, games focused, machine at 299. For that it'd arguably be a nice buy, and cheap DDR3 base should enable it. But if it sells OK at 499 with Kinect, and it probably will, we'll probably never get a chance to find out.
djboxbaba - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
It really is sad.. Good post.augiem - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
I agree for the most part, but 14, or even 18 CUs isn't going to be enough to really makea big difference. I think the sad part technology-wise is how not one of the 3 major console gaming companies this time around focused on pushing the horsepower or even doing anything very innovative. Don't get me wrong, I for one don't think graphics is primarily what makes a good game, but since the days of Atari -> NES, this really feels like the smallest technological bump (was gonna say "leap", but that just doesn't seem to appy) from gen to gen. What makes it worse is the last gen lasted longer than any before it. You know the rise of the dirt cheap phone/tablet/FB/freemium game had something to do with it...