Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition will run at 60 frames per second on PS4, according to the game’s producer Scot Amos. During a GamesRadar livestream, at the 50:30 mark, he confirmed that the game would run at 60fps and naturally 1080p.
Looking here, this is the PS4 version running at 60fps. Again, at 1080P. That’s awesome for us to be able to showcase it, because when you get your hands on it… you feel it for sure.
This goes against previous mentions of the game running at 30fps, with Amos confirming that this was simply a miscommunication, and they were actually aiming for a minimum of that, with a target of 60fps, which they’ve managed to achieve. On the PS4 version at least.
You see, Amos doesn’t confirm or deny where the Xbox One version sits, though Rocket Chainsaw are reporting that this version runs at just 30fps, half of the PS4 version, although it may reach 45fps in quieter areas. There’s no official confirmation, and instead this comes from sources close to Rocket Chainsaw.
The game releases next Friday, the 31st of January, in the UK.
Source: GamesRadar, via DualShockers
SamBeThyName
Then maybe the PS3 version will show up on PS+…?
Hobbes130
Like with COD:Ghosts, does it really make that much difference to the finished product?
We all know that the PS4 has more horse power than the XBone but rather than framerate advantages, I think if there’s going to be any real bragging rights, it’s when someone like Naughty Dog comes along and releases something that just simply couldn’t be done on the XBone…
Cron_13
Not overly no, its just bragging rights really. Most people won’t noticed “that” much difference. You can downgrade the PS4 to 720p from the video options and I did notice it wasn’t quite as sharp, though that could just be my TV.
Cron_13
Oh wait, the XBOX one version is still reported to be 1080p? I misread :)
BullyBurton
YES! But only if you have been privy to actually seeing both systems run it.
I have, and I can say that after tinkering with both system settings to get gamma levels, saturation etc as identical as possible – the end result simply swings PS4’s way.
My set up is a 22″ 1080p IPS LG monitor from which I sit about 3 feet away. I have played BF4, CoD Ghosts, Assassins Creed and FIFA 14 on both systems. Each one of them shines more so on PS4, though FIFA is a very close call with only minor slowdown at times but more hampered by loading times than anything else. Ghosts looks the worst by a long shot on my XB1, dirty textures, jaggy edges and barely above last-gen quality. Yet on my PS4 it looks much better, though still resembles last-gen but with much more shine and is smooth as butter.
Having said that, RYSE and Forza look great! So whether this is down to the RAM set-up in the XB1 being more complicated (eSRAM boosting a lack of bandwidth) and/or an inferior GPU vs just plain lazy development is up in the air really. But, sadly for XB1, the PS4 is simply more powerful out of the box and most importantly – easier to develop for. I am clinging on to MS PR about the cloud and hoping it jumps in soon to aid computational tasks freeing up the XB1 to do more as regards rendering graphics locally. But I get the feeling we are talking halfway through the Xbox Ones life and games running and looking better on PS4 is going to be the norm for sure.
EditorGed
Also have both and were your right that Ghosts, Ac and FIFA 14 are minimally sharper looking, the same cannot be said for Battlefield 4 though. It definitely looks and runs better on the Xbox One, I’ve had the framerate on PS4 dip to about 20 several times on PS4 but it’s only ever dipped to around 40 on Xbox One, the Xbox One version also looks far more detailed and the clarity of the textures are much better. Also the colour is a lot more vibrant on Xbox One than PS4 IMO.
DividSmythe
I agree with Fifa looking jaggy on Xbox one. It is very noticeable. I’ve not tried other said games. Also saying that there’s nearly twice the about amount playing in seasons at the same time and I’ve had both running same time to prove my theory. Still nothing to Ps4 is best yet there’s a long way to go also Forza is stunning.
3shirts
Given the similarity of the two consoles, these differences are surprising. I’ll hold my fanboy smugness until there is confirmation though.
padair
How important is 60 fps anyway. It doesn’t take anything away from the story or the gameplay.
Still, will look forward to getting this when I have finished with don’t starve.
3shirts
It depends on the game. Racing games at 60fps really are nice and FPS’ (argh, two different uses of the same acronym) can feel less laggy too. In an action/adventure though? Not sure it matters much at all.
leeroye
You can really feel the difference in a FPS. Killzone on PS4 is just so smooth.
JR.
‘Marginal difference’ … Glad I’m on the right side of that margin.
gazzagb
I don’t get why Devs think 1080p is the magical number, 60fps is far more important, even in 3rd person, imo. They should just downscale the XB1 to 720p if that means you can get the performance increase.
BullyBurton
Exactly, and BF4 is a great example. The visuals are fairly close between the two systems there and dropping to 720p was a good decision. But, even then there is so much lag when the hotel finally crumbles on Hainan Resort (on XB1) and the weirdest “ink” like effect in most levels (ink like blotches appearing over geometry). This could just be a lack of optimisation as DICE have made a shoddy (but addictive) game, and no doubt haven’t stretched the XB1 that much.
Kennykazey
This ink effect you speak of sounds like it could be a side effect from (possibly cheap) ambient occlusion.
Stefan L
Neither console is running BF4 at 1080p, and upscaling from 900p has slightly different visual sideffects to 720p.
Having said that, I’d agree that having to drop to 720p isn’t the worst thing in the world if 60 frames per second is important to the game.
BullyBurton
It is a really weird effect, ink like patches that disappear if you turn to face a different direction. Friends online notice it too, though oddly a mate of mine says his looks like white paint rather than black ink. I’m not tech savvy enough to know what it is, first guess was memory leak or something.
Anyways, PS4 version seems to run better and push a few extra pixels, but certainly not enough to render the XB1 “inferior” as it does (at times) seem to have crisper textures.
The big gripe I have with both 360 and Xbox One is gamma/black levels. Even after heavy calibration the Xbox systems crush detail in shadows and really mess up RGB levels. The excuse of making the colours more saturated doesn’t fly either, since Playstation had RGB full and Super White features – it looks significantly better on compatible TVs/Monitors.
beeje13
There’s the argument that 60fps looks wrong or uncanny, compared to 30fps which is closer to the 24fps that is used for films. There’s been uproar with the hobbit films being shot at 48fps for 3d.
Im not sure personally.
Kennykazey
Awesome, I wasn’t expecting that! We heard talk about framerate differences like this before the console launches, but I didn’t expect to see much of it.
60FPS is a definitive win, making the game appear cleaner in motion, it’ll feel more precise and animations will look smoother. It’s not a must, but can have a greater affect on a game than a jump in resolution for most people.
When it comes to framerate it’s stability that’s key, but at 60FPS you can have drops of 5-10 frames go basically unnoticed. That’s not the case when balancing on 30.
bunimomike
It’s fascinating, funny and ugly to see this news unfold across the internet. Okay, not the news itself but the comment sections fill up with the most ludicrous posts. However, what’s very interesting is to see the wave after wave of folk finally realising that there’s little they can argue against when game after game appears to prove that the Xbox One has an uphill battle with regards to multi-platform graphics.
beeje13
Yes IGN and the like goes into meltdown!
Kennykazey
Yeah, the Xbox One has its work cut out. It’s got less processing power and a slightly more complex architecture.
The Ps3 suffered similarly, but made up for it in the long run by having a lot of untapped potential. The Xbox unfortunately doesn’t have a hidden power, the ESRAM was meant to be the special sauce but there’s not enough of it to be very helpful in 1080p rendering. Kinect constantly takes up system recourses as well.
But it’s nothing compared to the inferiority complex Wii U is suffering from.
beeje13
I was reading the other day that both would run at 30fps…. Im curious as to why the dev made this decision, they will both look and plah completely differently now, which doesn’t happen with resolution.
Lots of talk about 50% more gpu power, but if you don’t factor in the 0.032GB (which isnt even big enough for some 1080p framebuffers) of esram in the X1, then PS4 has double memory bandwidth. A verified developer on NeoGaf also claimed that the cpu performs better. All tnese things add up. I didn’t understand when Andrew House said that the performance gap will get wider, but it looks like it could be the case.
gjh299
I think a lot of Xbox users think the colours are better maybe due to leaving the rgb setting on full just like you can on PS3 and 4 makes the colours more vivid and saturated but crushes blacks.