Image 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 sampleXbox 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.

Performance - An Update Image Quality - Xbox One vs. PlayStation 4
Comments Locked

286 Comments

View All Comments

  • A5 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    AMD is pretty bad at power consumption. See: Bulldozer, R9 290, etc.
  • JDG1980 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    That's not really the best comparison, though. Kabini, which uses the same Jaguar cores as the PS4 and XB1, has very good power consumption figures at both idle and load. AMD's mid-range GPUs like the 7790 and 7850 equal or beat Nvidia's solutions in terms of performance/watt.

    Bulldozer was an inefficient design, no doubt about it. Piledriver was a bit better and Steamroller should be better still. But none of that is being used here.
  • Hubb1e - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    I really think this is a case of MS and Sony failing to add the necessary code to take advantage of the silicon. I think they had so many things to do to get these systems working that idle power consumption fell into the le'ts do that later category which greatly simplifies everything from the initial coding of the OS to the testing and validation. Anand thought that maybe that silicon for turning off cores wasn't there. I doubt that and I think it will be coming with a patch in the 3 -12 months timeframe.
  • mikato - Monday, November 25, 2013 - link

    Agree, and I don't know why Anand thought AMD didn't make that available. No reason to remove it that I know of.
  • kallogan - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    A powerfull PC with quad core i7 and a GTX Titan can idle below 30W. Gosh these are really prehistorical devices. Not green.
  • kyuu - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Source please? I don't doubt it idles lower than either console, but 30W seems pretty low to me.
  • ydeer - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link

    30W is low, but not out of the realm of possibility.

    The HardOCP Haswell test system with 16GB RAM and two SSDs used 32W idle. (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/01/intel_ha...
    A Titan would add less 10W to that because the IGPU would be completely disabled. (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/nvidia/geforce_...

    So maybe not "less than 30W", but 35W idle should be absolutely possible for a Haswell/Titan machine.
  • ananduser - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    Sorry for the offtopic Anand, but since you mentioned cutting the cord a few years ago... care to share with us your avenue of choice(as in streaming services, set top boxes and whatnot) ?
  • tipoo - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    The PS4 browser being twice as fast is a surprise, since the CPUs are so close. Do we know the official PS4 CPU clock yet?
  • bill5 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link

    it's 1.6. vs 1.75 on xone.

    anand speculates the ps4 is using more cores for os.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now