Call of Duty Advanced Warfare 1080p Video Comparison: PS4 Superior But Xbox One Not Too Far Behind

Sledgehammer Games have almost achieved parity for the year’s biggest game.

Posted By | On 06th, Nov. 2014 Under News | Follow This Author @GamingBoltTweet

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare (1)

Last year’s Call of Duty Ghosts ran at 1080p on the PlayStation 4 and at 720p on the Xbox One. Since then Microsoft have made significant progression in providing better development tools to game studios so that multiplatform games look and feel similar to the PlayStation 4 version. This was apparent in Bungie’s Destiny wherein both the versions ran at 1080p resolution. So there is no doubt that Microsoft are working hard to improve their SDK and tools, and slowly but surely they are getting up there.

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is one of 2014’s hottest games and Sledgehammer Games have achieved almost equal results on both the PS4 and Xbox One versions of the game. The game runs at native 1080p on the PS4 whereas the Xbox One version employs a dynamic resolution of 1360×1080 which can jump to the golden 1920×1080 resolution, depending on the on-screen action. Other than this, the PlayStation 4 version seems to have better image quality but the differences can only be seen via static images [see below.].

We found next to no differences when there is ongoing action in the screen, as evident in the video below. The lighting effects, texture filtering, anti-aliasing, motion blur, depth of field, all seem similar across the PS4 and Xbox One versions.  Check out the video and screenshots below and let us know your thoughts in the comments section below. Check out us again, as we will gauge how the current gen versions stack up against the last gen versions with the PC SKU set in the mix.

Xbox One:

xb1 1


ps4 1

Xbox One:

xb1 6


ps4 6

Xbox One:

xb1 5


ps4 5

Xbox One:

xb1 4


ps4 4

Xbox One:

xb1 3


ps4 3

Xbox One:

xb1 2


ps4 2

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Cenk Algu

    Lol @gamingbolt.The problem is,even a person who has problems with its eyes can easily say that XO version literally killed the PS4 version by far after see those ss and video.Not only looking much better on XO and outperforms the PS4 on fps side.Next time try harder gamingbolt.Lol!!!

    • rudero

      But that is not the case. Single player has a, on average, a 2fps difference with the Xbox one but less screen tearing on ps4. Multiplayer, ps4 is solid 1080p 60fps vs the xboxone sub 1080p. The color difference is actually a mask. Kind of like Instagram filters. And an fyi, adding filters will degrade the image. Maybe this is one reason the Xbox one is having a hard time hitting 1080p so far and dealing with crushed blacks from high contrast. Don’t believe me, go to any photo editing software and play with the contrast. Yes, will make the colors seem more vibrant but, loss of detail and the blacks blow out. The differences are minimal but the meat and potatoes for any cod is online and ps4 squeaks out the better version.
      There really is no winner for this game though. Hiding the zombie co-op behind a paywall of another $50 and having both no reviews or advertising informing the consumer is ridiculous and the lagging is, for the fith year in a row, stupid insane for as much money as they make every year.

    • Cenk Algu

      “Single player has a, on average, a 2fps difference with the Xbox one but less screen tearing on ps4.”

      Are you sure? The game seriously suffers from fps on SP on Some missions on PS4 while XO butter smooth 60fps.Go check it.Even there are some reviewrers reported this issue for PS4.Sorry but no one can recognize anything between 900+p and 1080p from the distance over 1m.So talking that kind of resolution numbers is ridiculous.The winer is XO by looking better and performing much better.

    • rudero

      No, I’m sure. And in actual comparisons they too show the difference. When the ps4 version would go down, so would the Xbox one version. The most horrible of dips comes from cut scenes on both platforms when quick time prompts would come up but, those scenes are also in slow motion. 60fps is not a necessity in said scenarios from a developers stand point.
      Yes, in single player, the Xbox one has the smoothest version, but both dip although less frequently than on the ps4 but, then there is screen tearing on the Xbox one version. Then, the ps4 gets the most solid multiplayer nod at a solid 1080p 60fps while the Xbox one is sub 1080p

      To add, it is a tie, comes down to which one do you prefer, campaign or multiplayer

    • bardock5151

      It’s been said many times before, but on multiplayer Xbox live has a much better track record. In turn, Xbox for multiplayer as well.

      The only factor to take in to consideration is, what do your mates game on.

    • rudero

      Yeah, I see what the fankids say. Seems to me, if you do not own a ps4, you know how it runs. Or the magical “I own both”. Kids will be kids I guess. Too bad reality makes those people look like idiots. But, I guess, when that is the only thing a fankid can fight with as far as comparing the toys, not only are they helping sell ps4s by looking so childish, they are also burying any reason to buy an Xbox one.
      How about you brag about what you ACTUALLY do with the system instead having to run around and look like an idiot?(not you, the kids that actually think they can prove the Internet is better on one system over an other) makes me giggle thinking this is the new defense. “Our internet runs better than yours” kids will be kids.
      Just an fyi to the fankids… Sometimes positivity leads to positivity. Defend(sell) your console about the cool features over making up stuff that every current gamer has known for 6 years to be false.

    • BWest

      ps4 version is a little better just like ghost most people dont really care

    • BWest

      it is a little better on ps4 like ghost most people don’t care about that your average person does not..

    • GHz

      “Single player has a, on average, a 2fps difference with the Xbox one”

      It’s more like a difference of 10.

      “However, the less consistent 50-60fps performance level on Sony’s platform is a surprising state of affairs, and bearing in mind that frame-rate is king in Call of Duty, we’re surprised that the dynamic scaling tech wasn’t deployed on both platforms.”

      And even Eurogamer recognizes that gameplay is sacrificed here for the sake of static 1080p on the PS4. Sony’s machine would’ve also benefitted from dynamic res. But Sony have an image to keep up with. Sad.

      “less screen tearing on ps4” <– ?

      Euro said,

      "The only concession on Microsoft's platform, besides its variable resolution, is the use of adaptive v-sync. In practice, this causes frames to tear during spikes in concurrent alpha effects, or scenes involving multiple allies on-screen. While very rare, this helps the platform avoid any delay in getting the next frame on screen….." By comparison, the PS4's approach is to engage v-sync permanently, waiting until the next frame is rendered in its entirety, causing a touch more stutter."

      In other words that's a win for MS's console. They said the use of adaptive v-sync can cause screen tear, but in this case its rare. In comparison the PS4 approach to v sync cause it to stutter more.

      " adding filters will degrade the image."

      That's a picky opinion because we're talking about an art form. This applies to photography too. Artist should be allowed to use colors how they see fit. At the end of the day, the average gamer don't know what these terms really mean. And for the fact that the 1st time most gamers heard of crushed black, was when Eurogamer claimed the version of BF4 looked a tad better on the XB1 than its ps4 counterpart, despite it running on a lower 720p. And this puzzled them. If your eyes says it looks better, then what's wrong with that?

      I agree with you that there is no winner here platform wise. As gamers we win though because no matter which platform you game on. CODAW will rock.

    • rudero

      “On record in our Xbox One video, we hit a lowest 56fps on the opening Instinct stage test – kicking in just as a shader effect disrupts the screen. Paired with that are a few torn frames, with the upper 33 per cent of the screen cut in each case. However, much like the Xbox One’s campaign mode we rarely see many drops below the 60fps line at all, and v-sync is almost always intact barring exceptional moments. A few odd, missed frames are caught while charging around Instinct, but for Detroit and Defender this simply isn’t a problem.”
      The quote right before the one posted. You will also note that the issue of said fram rate has rather fine print that is actually tight in front of you… It is about the first level only. Their very own video posted of the highway scene has both consoles drop to 30+ for a button sequence! So it exist on both consoles.
      There is give and take on both consoles. I’ll take a drop in frame rate over torn screens. (Why, to this day, I can play an assassins creed game) I also love how not one quote was used from the multiplayer part of the article, of which is the point I was making, where draw distance is effected on the Xbox one along with cairity and detail. If I must, I’ll grab that quote too but seeing it was before what you quoted, I’ll take it you read it and skipped it. In the videos posted, you will see that the average drop was 2 frames below the xbone with dips lower. But then the Xbox also dips, you are not really comparing anything tremendous. Just like saying 900p is not that big of a difference from 1080p but here, you are just saying the Xbox one hits 60fps more commonly, and I agree. Be it how many. According to which game on which console with whatever fanboy war you will find many who say it is not a big difference in any category, 5hrs later, the longevity of the game is the multiplayer and if that is to be compared, it is a constant difference with no dips.
      The filter is to anyone. My point was that this filter is might be what is hampering the clarity since it is how it works in real life. A suggestion not a bash. And like you stated then must know, the image is the same as far as “the image” but Sony allows you to adjust your tv on how you like to view images where as reversing the filter is impossible. You can turn down the contrast or brightness but the crushed black will still be present and just look worse. once again, do not care but, there is a reason why all gamers say “that’s not how it looks on my tv” and they would be correct.
      Love the console you want or have both, but this game has no winner on consoles. Better multiplayer on one, single player on the other. Two great consoles. But lies and goal post moving does nothing for nobody.

    • GHz

      Summary, both offer a great experience. In motion, they look identical. Problems found on each are minute. If we were to only use our eyes to evaluate, we would conclude that this game is exactly the same on both consoles. How bout that?

    • BWest

      no its a little better on ps4 like ghost most people don’t care about that your average person does not..

    • GHz

      I got it for my XB1 cause all my friends play on XB1. And it looks great! Plays GREAT too!
      You don’t have bionic eyes, or a pixel counting chip embedded in your brain. You wouldn’t know jack if Eurogamer didn’t tell you the thinks that are not so obvious. As far as the human brain is concerned, they look the same. Now back to gaming. 😀

    • bigevilworldwide1 .

      Ummmm maybe you need to have someone read you the digital foundry comparison….Because the frame drops are not anywhere near as bad as you moronic Xbots want to pretend….and NO those crushed blacks do not look better, please learn about what an actual picture and black levels should look like

    • demderp

      Digital Foundry consistently proves PS4 versions of multiplatform games run at higher resolutions, framerates, and better visual effects than Xbox.

      Call of Duty Advanced Warfare SP Campaign

      XB1: 1360 x 1080 when any action is going on, which is most of the time. 60fps most of the time, some very brief drops to 40s or low 50s. Adaptive V-Sync (screen tearing). Crushed blacks that can’t be disabled.

      PS4: 1080p native, 58-60fps most of the time, some very brief drops to 40s or low 50s. Fully V-Synced (no screen tearing)

      Call of Duty Advanced Warfare Multiplayer

      XB1: 1360 x 1080 100% of the time, res scaling disabled, 60 FPS locked. Crushed blacks that can’t be disabled.

      PS4: 1080p native, 60 FPS locked.

  • Starman

    PS4 colors looks pretty bland and dull , lack of detail also …and let’s not forget the constant frame rate drop , from mid /high 30’s to

    • Guest

      Yep and in the meantime. PC vastly superior, running the game at 120+fps with double the texture quality and AA. Teh powah of the PoS4.

    • rudero

      Actually, In most pc reviews, there are complaints that it feels like a console port. No vastly superior version to be had even with your made “powerhouse” pc. PC is and should always be better, people like you who pretend to be PC players putting down the ps4 are no better than mold. They are toys. Do you need a time out? Sit in the corner until you learn to play well with others? Or do you actually have to run around and literally sound like a baby that can not afford the PC you are bragging about?

    • BWest

      lol over exposure equals realistic to you.. maybe I will crank up the contrast on my display to 400 to be more real.. ps4 version is a little better most dont care


Copyright © 2009-2017 All Rights Reserved.