Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Keano

Call of Duty : Black Ops III

Recommended Posts

Runs decent,40-60 at med settings (1080p). But drops to below 20 during super action heavy scenes, but nothing that will mess up the game for you. MP performs much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runs decent,40-60 at med settings (1080p). But drops to below 20 during super action heavy scenes, but nothing that will mess up the game for you. MP performs much better

 

Below 2?0..holyshit. From 60 to 20 fps :panic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Lower resolution & lower frame rates on XBone

 

Chu console is chu

It's really a third grade console trying to sell at the same price as the Much superior PS4

will never buy a single Multiplat on this pathetic system

 

Once the player gains control we see shifts in native resolution across both platforms, according to engine load. PS4 ranges between 1360x1080 to 1920x1080, although much of the time the engine manages to hit the desired native 1080p resolution for extended periods. During the opening firefight in the Provocation mission we see PS4 kick off at 1360x1080p before ramping back up to full 1080p a few moments later - the switch is often barely visible due to softening effect of the AA solution, although some blur across distant details is apparent.

Xbox One is a different story, targeting a baseline 1600x900 for gameplay, but after trawling through our captures it appears that the engine rarely - if ever - achieves this. Instead we're looking at a sustained 1280x900 resolution, even in less stressful gameplay scenes, with horizontal metrics dropping down to 1200x900 in more challenging scenarios - and the results are not impressive. Due to the heavy upscale, the Xbox One release possesses a consistent blurry appearance when the action really kicks in: fine details are frequently smudged over, while geometry edges appear rough and fuzzy. It's a substantial downgrade over last year's Advanced Warfare, where Sledgehammer stayed locked at a 1360x1080 resolution during the more demanding scenes.

 

 

And it's Xbox One where we see the most extreme scenarios where Treyarch's precarious balancing act doesn't really work out. A frantic shoot-out defending a control room is a low point: while PS4 sticks close to 60fps at various moments throughout the battle, Microsoft's system frequently struggles to rise above the 35-45fps No Man's Land, eventually succumbing to a 28fps drop. The situation here is grim: judder and fluctuations in controller response compromise the gameplay, while the dynamic resolution plateaus to its lowest point. It doesn't look great, but more importantly, the feel is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BO3 is having issues on high end PCs as well...So blaming Xbox One hardware for everything is unfair coz AW version of Xbox one was quite good and it never had any major frame-rate issues plus it looked much better visually than BO3..

 

 

here from Digital Foundry -

 

 

Sledgehammer's ground-up rebuild of the Call of Duty engine pushes heavily on post-process effects, such as full-screen (and per-object) motion blur, a depth of field filter and a sparing use of chromatic aberration during play. As a result, the stand-off between the Xbox One's minimum 1360x1080 and PS4's full 1920x1080 is less perceptible during hectic firefights, with fast camera sweeps often blurring these high contrast edges.The Xbox One produces a native 1920x1080 resolution too, but only in subdued moments. Clinical interior areas, such as Atlas' labs, tend not to strain the hardware enough to enforce a downsized framebuffer.

 

With patch version 1.04 installed, the PS4 version's constant 1080p output comes at a price. We catch dips between the 50-60fps lines during battles through Seoul's streets - with drops to the high 40s caught when throwing the 'threat' grenades to scan the area for enemies. Even in perfectly matched scenes, the Xbox One's performance tends to hold at a perfect 60fps by comparison.

 

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-performance-analysis

 

AW runs at much higher resolution on both consoles with better visuals and frame-rate....AW engine is much better than what Treyarch using it for BO3...

Edited by WhiteWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AW was a solo game genius

This is a 4player co-op campaign

 

Obviously the tech is more demanding

 

also AW was more stable in performance (like res & frames)

it wasn't more good looking engine wise or anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AW was a solo game genius

This is a 4player co-op campaign

 

Obviously the tech is more demanding

 

also AW was more stable in performance (like res & frames)

it wasn't more good looking engine wise or anything

Fidelity was much higher and levels were also quite massive in AW and you were never alone in AW, A.I teammates were always with you throughout the campaign..

 

Halo 5 also supports 4 player co-op with much bigger levels and vehicular combat and it runs at constant 60fps with same dynamic resolution like BO3. Both are using same techniques to hold 60fps on consoles..Cutscenes 1080p30fps and gameplay dynamic resolution 60fps. And before you say BO 3 looks better than Halo, i suggest you check some side by side screenshots of the game where Halo 5 crushes BO 3 in both scale & visuals.

 

 

And why are you forgetting that BO 3 is having issues even on PCs not just Xbox one...Game is poorly optimized nothing else.

 

 

HERE

 

GTX 980 is more powerful than both console GPUs and it can't run this unoptimized sh*t at stable 60fps..

Edited by WhiteWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, here's a guy who tested it on 980Ti and 970 and he isn't having any issues..So it varies from person to person with certain components in their rigs maybe ?

 

Edited by Agent 47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at guys downplaying blop3 cause of the missed marketing deal. advanced warfare looked just about the same as blops3 while playing the game. the only time is looked head and shoulders better than blops3 was in the cutscenes which was completely pre rendered back then. everything is in realtime here and the game is very ambitious in scope. even the SP campaign is very different to anything cod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, here's a guy who tested it on 980Ti and 970 and he isn't having any issues..So it varies from person to person with certain components in their rigs maybe ?

 

May be they patched it now, but lot of people on official COD forums and Nvidia forums were complaining about input lag and massive frame-rate issues on GTX 970 and 980..

 

Game takes massive hit in certain sections..This issue was not there in AW even on GTX 760 on high settings.. Here frame-rate drops as low as 20 from 60 fps.

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

Levels were bigger than past COD games and wide enough for player move to around...Game allowed you to flank enemies from different directions..BO 3 levels are bigger but game looks nothing special to have such severe frame-rate issues even on high end PCs, considering there are games with even bigger levels which run and look much better than BO3 visually on weak hardware like Xbox One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...