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
Sabresiberian - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Sorry about the emotion in the last paragraph, but it irritates me that some console players have to make up excuses for their decision. If you decide to buy a console, that's all good, but don't cut your nose off to spite yourself by purchasing one for reasons that simply aren't true.Sabresiberian - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
"yourself" is a typo, should be "your face". :)PliotronX - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
That's very true, but then they've always lagged PC gaming. The closed proprietary system is a double edged sword. SDKs designed for a specific system can eek every last drop out of said system but then it's basically set in stone. I honestly don't think most peoples eyes are attune to the blur without GSync but they will notice true 1080p gaming. They all (PC, PS4, Xbone) all still serve their roles. Xbone just happens to veer off into Netflix territory a little too hard.ydeer - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
I agree, I’m not as excited about consoles as I used to be. What I am really excited about is SteamOS.Most reasonably priced gaming PCs have the potential to compete with this generation of consoles if Valve (somehow, magically) manages to bring down the overhead using Linux.
Plus you get the community. And a controller that at least has the potential to work better than anything we have used so far (see Civ5 on Steam Controller demo). And holiday sales. Upgradable hardware.
Heck, I can even see myself dual booting SteamOS on a MBP with the Steam Controller to play the latest and greatest games at almost equal quality than "next-gen" consoles, but completely mobile.
Please Valve, don't mess this up.
Wall Street - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
First off, 1440p, G-Sync and 120 Hz are all technologies that cost $250+ for the monitor alone and really demand another $300 on the GPU, so they are not comparable to the PS4 or XBox.Secondly, how can you build a gaming rig for $500? $100 is the Windows license. Another $100 gets a PSU, a case and a Blu-ray drive (but a really cheap case and PSU). Another $100 needs to be spent for a HDD and RAM. Now we are at $300 and don'y have a Mobo, CPU or RAM. A good CPU and CPU cooler costs $150, even for a cheaper CPU (with a stock cooler, the console would be much quieter than the desktop). At least $50 needs to be spent on a Mobo. This leaves you with only $50 on your $500 budget for a GPU. As you can see, this leaves you with a system that underperforms the consoles. I would also argue that a $500 system needs to cheap out on components leaving you with worse build quality than a console which is more similar to a premium SFF PC (which cost a premium to full sized). Also, this cost analysis doesn't have a monitor or peripherals, so if you don't have a PC or have a laptop, that is at least another $150 (many more people have TVs, and fewer people have monitors sitting around now that laptops have been a majority of PC sales over the past five years).
Hixbot - Sunday, November 24, 2013 - link
PC gaming is superior, but as long as developers leave out the local multiplayer elements of their console counterpart, a console will always have a spot in my home. You know, gaming in the living room with actual friends. I'd hook up my gaming PC to my TV and get some controllers, but there are basically no PC games that offer any decent local multiplayer options.mikato - Monday, November 25, 2013 - link
They do but you need to have all the computers in the same room. Pain in the butt, but we do it a couple times a year.Lonesloane - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
What about the noise of both new consoles? Anand is not commenting on that in the article, but after my experience with a Xenon 360 this is really important to me.Could you add that information?
JimmiG - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
It's funny how PC hardware reviews obsess over tiny differences in memory bandwidth, shader throughput and clock speeds, yet the PS4 having 40% greater shader throughput and 160% more memory bandwidth just doesn't seem to matter...blzd - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
Did you read the article? It was pretty clear and even pointed out to make real world differences. Maybe you thought theyd outright denounce the xb1 for it?