Watch Advanced Warfare’s E3 Demo in 60 FPS, New Analysis Suggests Wobbly Frame Rate at 900p Display

A new analysis of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare’s E3 2014 single player demo once again suggests a near-900p display on the Xbox One, but uncharacteristically shows a weakness in frame rate this time around.

According to Digital Foundry, Advanced Warfare’s frame rate dips to the 40s and even 30s on occasion, which is most notable during the intro sequence and during some of the heavier action sequences throughout the demo. No need to grab your pitchforks just yet, however, as not only is the footage representative of a 6- or 7-month early build of the game, but it also debuted prior to the Xbox One’s critical XDK update that would have allowed developer Sledgehammer Games to tap into an additional 10% of GPU bandwidth. In addition, multiplayer level design in Call of Duty tends to favor performance over visual flair in order to maintain a solid 60 FPS.

But, for now, you can see the measurements for yourself in this analysis video:

Improvements to Sledgehammer’s new engine, however, are most prevalent in the usage of advanced full-screen and object-based motion blur, dynamic lighting techniques, shadow rendering techniques, physics-driven particle effects, and reflections. Along with improved audio processing and state-of-the-art motion capture technology, Advanced Warfare is still on course to push what sort of expectations you might have of a Call of Duty game.

You can read up on Digital Foundry’ full detailed analysis of the E3 demo right here.

If you’ve yet to watch Advanced Warfare’s “Induction” E3 gameplay demo running at an optimal frame rate, you can catch the 60 FPS version right here, courtesy of Eurogamer.

  • youlo

    With other words, u better buy this game on ps4 because ps4 can play 1080p 60 fps without problems.

    • Primey_

      Go on. Get out of here you bloody troll.

    • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

      Darkseid is not amused

    • George

      and pc…

    • Christopher Cioffi

      And yet that’s what they said about Ghosts, But you suffer even more frame drops than X1, Eat it fgt

      • MrMultiPlatform

        Because Ghost can’t keep up with the PS4. Do a little research you keyboard warrior.

        • Poop

          But it can keep up with an inferior Xbox One? Don’t see your argument dude.

      • George

        Just no dude

      • awkenney

        I do not experience any frame drops on PS4 that are not directly correlated to issues in coding – parts of maps and such that cause a direct hit to performance when 99% of the rest of the maps run perfectly and with a higher resolution than Xbox One. There are also frame timing issues that directly correlate to network lag, which I think is actually handled more honestly than the way the Xbox One does it.

      • Not_true

        Digital Foundry proves that PS4 multiplat games consistently run at higher res, framerate, and/or visual quality. Ghosts is a badly coded game that has framedrops even on expensive PC GPUs.

        Dumb, wrong fanboy.

  • http://youtube.com/user/extremenameHD extreme_name

    I don’t understand why people hate 60 FPS so much. Is it because some developers said that 30 FPS is better because of the “cinematic feeling”?

    • MegaMan3k

      Which is a stupid argument.

    • Samson

      It’s sour grapes. They bought a crap console with an underpowered GPU and overpaid because it came with a glorified webcam, and since it can’t do 60 FPS in all but like 2 games, it’s easier just to play it down then admit mistake in going with the wrong console.

      60Hz is the native refresh of the TV or monitor they’re playing on but they want to sit and argue that playing at lesser FPS is no big deal and even something they want. It’s record breaking stupidity.

      • Guest

        This comment was full of such win lol.

      • acealchemist

        This comment was full of win.

        • Not_true

          Uh except plenty more than “1%” of PS4 games run in 60 fps.

      • RustyFrags

        Or we could actually focus on what matters – gameplay. All this talk of frivolous resolutions and framerates is absurd, and now you’re bringing medical downfalls into this? Unbelievable.

        • awkenney

          Aside from motion sickness and other medical issues (I’ve seen various claims that this effects 25-35% of the population of gamers), frame rate and refresh rate play a large part in the responsiveness of the controls. It comes down to parts of a second, but in video games, even .3 seconds can mean the difference between success or failure. So there’s an example of gameplay being affected.

      • Not_true

        Plenty more than “1%” of PS4 games run in 60 fps. You’re wrong.

    • Deciver95

      I hate the fact ‘fps’ has become such a big deal during the start of this gen for primarily console gamers. To me, it is not a big deal, providing a game can stay above a minimum threshold and not lag, I’m satisfied. But then I see clowns saying
      “I’m not buying a single game this gen unless it’s 60fps.”
      And I’m just like, why?

      • http://youtube.com/user/extremenameHD extreme_name

        Because 60 FPS should have become a standard more than 10 years ago. And once you 60 FPS, you can never go back.

        • Deciver95

          I disagree. I doubt 2004 would of been reasonable. And I’ve subconsciously played 60fps games, only to find out later they were 60 fps, and I can’t honestly can’t notice a big enough difference. I wouldn’t not buy a game because it was locked at 30 fps. I think that’s just sad

          • http://youtube.com/user/extremenameHD extreme_name

            No offense but you are probably have bad eye sight :P
            And one of the reasons you can’t notice much is because of the motion blur they add to the game which makes everything looks smoother.
            http://30vs60.com/

          • Cycovision

            60+ FPS has been around since before the turn of the Millennium. Games like Quake 3 and UT allowed 60+ FPS which is why caps were placed, especially on the ID engines, of 90.

    • Richie Tellez

      When the game is more focused on single player like Uncharted or The Last Of Us. I would rather play on 30fps with all the eye candy it can give. But on multiplayer focused games like BF or CoD. 60fps can make a big difference on how the gameplay is felt and the flow of the game.

      • http://youtube.com/user/extremenameHD extreme_name

        I prefer 60 FPS and great graphics fidelity, and why can’t the new console do so?

        • Richie Tellez

          Either the hardware isn’t good enough. Or devs haven’t optimized their game/engines for the new consoles. Look back at xbox/ps3 launch games. They were pretty crap. And look at the last games released for both consoles eg. The Last Of Us & Halo 4. Same exact hardware from launch.

          • http://youtube.com/user/extremenameHD extreme_name

            But 720p 30 FPS :P

  • Ryan Schulze

    I hope they stabilize the frame-rate, but really looking forward to seeing what the multi-player looks like. I know they won’t release a demo, but hopefully I can try it out somewhere before I take that leap again. MW3, Sledgehammer’s last contribution, just sat on my shelf collecting dust.

    • Samson

      MW3 was total garbage so you didn’t miss anything.

  • jaskdavis

    Hopefully it reaches 900p+ and a steady 60fps. We do know that this COD games graphics are actually pretty good from this video and a noticeable step up.

    • awkenney

      Hopefully it reaches 1080p and 60fps. I realize how unlikely that is, but 4K is just around the bend. No reason we should have consoles that are targeting effects over resolution. 1080p should come first. Cinematics don’t need to be given such a high priority in a video game when the console isn’t ready to produce those types of effects at the default resolution of most TVs and monitors. When you look at the consoles as they are, they are just now getting around to producing COD4 on PC-type graphics. It’s a shame consoles have had to wait 7 years to get this kind of fidelity.

      • jaskdavis

        I agree, Both Consoles can output up to 4K but not gaming at that output. If Both consoles were delivering 1080p AND 60fps on most games and cost $100 more each, I would be fine with that, I just feel underwhelmed so far. But I try to look back at the PS2/Xbox and PS3/360 days and how far they stretched those systems out gives me hope for the future I guess.

        • Witblitz

          You do realise 4K is only doable with SLi/Crossfire systems?

          • NuttyTheSquirrel

            That’s not the point. The point is that 1080p is almost 10years old now and this so called “NEXT GEN” can’t handle the standard graphical fidelity of today.

  • BFplayer

    Just give me my 30 fps with 1080p resolution already.

    • nigpls

      30fps is fucking horrible.

    • Primey_

      30fps is awful. CoD is about fast paced action and tight controls. You won’t get that at 30fps.

      • NuttyTheSquirrel

        Not in MP, no. But I don’t really see a problem with 30fps Campaigns. Yes, 60fps is way better than 30fps, but still.

  • Spectre01N7

    Why can’t call of duty reach 1080p in 2014? battlefield 4 does so much more with the same tools.

    • Witblitz

      BF4 is 900p upscaled.

      • Spectre01N7

        really, I thought it was 1080, my bad then.

    • Poop

      Battlefield is 900p, and it had a god damn awful launch.

      • NuttyTheSquirrel

        The launch has nothing to do with graphical videlity.

  • http://Youtube.com/user/lallyofthevalley Nemesis_96

    Well at least it’s only dropping to 40, as oppose to starting at 30 and dropping to draw-it-yourself

  • Witblitz

    With parity, expect the same results on PS4. Thus, I will not buy this. Or any other game running 900p ever again.

    • Poop

      Why does it fucking matter?

    • SiftBlade

      Yes, because 900p is so game changing, especially in COD where you’re concentrating on winning the match or killing an enemy instead of admiring the aesthetically beauty of the maps. [Sarcasm]

      • awkenney

        Agree. Aiming, finding the target, distinguishing the target from the environment, and killing the target all benefit from both a higher resolution and a higher frame rate. Why would you not want 1080p and 60fps?

        • SiftBlade

          I want it, I’m just saying 900p isn’t something to not buy the game over. Obviously it would be an advantage and it would be much better with 1080p 60FPS, but 900p is not a deal breaker imo.

        • http://www.facebook.com/datkidfromawendaw Clay Johnson

          You mean to tell me character models look drastically different at 900p as opposed to 1080p? Wow I though my eyes were bad but if people have a hard time distinguishing a moving, high res texturedthree, three dimensional character in a fully rendered map then they must be a special kind of blind.

    • Not_true

      There won’t be parity. PS4 will always have superior game graphics over Xbox if its hardware is being pushed.

  • SiftBlade

    In Ghosts they lowered the resolution so that they can run at a steady 60FPS. If they can’t find a way to fix this, they’ll probably do the same. Then again, the game wasn’t compete when they showed it at E3, so let’s hope they fix it.

    • awkenney

      Or Sledgehammer can remove some of the unnecessarily used effects. This level of immersion isn’t worth the cost to performance. Not only would the gameplay be more desirable as a result, but the amount of information needing to be processed would finally be in line with the hardware that is processing it.

      • SiftBlade

        Plus, in the E3 demo they were trying to show it off as much as possible. So they probably maxed everything that they could, which could be the reason for these framerate issues.

      • NuttyTheSquirrel

        Yep. It’s also Singleplayer gameplay, which usually looks better than the Multiplayer. They can also use many effects that are “prohibited” in MP, such as that huge amount of Depth of Field (seen in minute 3:20) and so on. Also, the Multiplayer doesn’t usually have that many polygons in one scene.

  • Vasco Machado

    I have to admit, Advanced Warfare definitely looks much more superior in terms of graphics than opposed to Ghosts, and honestly does seem promising. However, personally, I hate the semi futuristic theme that this game has :/

  • Jack S.

    I actually like 30FPS — in single player. It does give a cinematic feeling. BF4 campaign in 60FPS felt weird.

    • Blaine Reinsma

      ^ Things actually said by console players.

      You can’t make this shit up.

      • Jack S.

        I’m dead serious. 60FPS singleplayer doesn’t feel right to me. Maybe because movies are shot in 24 FPS, so I’m more used to that cinematic feel in SP. Call me crazy, whatever. :)

      • Not_true

        Another fanboy asshurt that some people like 30 fps in certain game modes or genres.

      • Deciver95

        How dare some one have a preference! Let’s attempt to demean them!!!!!

    • uwantSAM0A

      Cant tell if trolling, a spambot, or a dev in disguise.

      • Jack S.

        I’m not trolling. I’m serious.

    • Green117

      Translation – I’d rather take the bus to work than a gorgeous red Ferrari xD

      • Jack S.

        Not really, that’s a pretty huge gap. Half of a Ferarri is probably like a nice Porsche.

    • RandomAssNigga

      Legit question. I play on PC and I see a lot of people like you preferring this “cinematic feeling” but I’ve always wondered, What is this cinematic feeling and what is so great about it? 30 fps is trash IMO and since switching from console to PC, I could never go lower than 60 fps. I also want to know why is 30 fps “acceptable” in singleplayer but not multiplayer? Why not 60 fps everywhere?

  • imran

    is this game really worth picking up not sure if I should get this or AC unity

    • Nick Eidinger

      Get AC Unity call of duty ghosts failed black ops 2 was good and black ops was the best and mw3 bombed compared to mw2 so a new series I think will suck because they have already made so many call of duty and most were good but now there just pulling shit from their ass and handing it to you for $60 so I would recommend getting AC Unity

settings

close