Dying Light PS4 Versus Xbox One Comparison: Almost Identical Across Both Platforms

Our initial analysis of the console versions.

Posted By | On 27th, Jan. 2015 Under Graphics Analysis | Follow This Author @GamingBoltTweet

58. Dying Light

Update: Our final analysis suggests that the game on the Xbox One is running at a resolution of 1536×1080.

Original story:

Techland’s ambitious open world zombie survival game, Dying Light is now available for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC. Our initial analysis suggests that the developers have done a decent job in delivering a fairly optimized game on consoles.

Last year we saw a few AAA games such as Destiny, Grand Theft Auto V and Assassin’s Creed Unity maintaining parity in resolution on both the PS4 and Xbox One. And it seems the trend is only going to continue as developers get more comfortable with handling the difficult eSRAM based architecture of the Xbox One. Dying Light runs at 1080p resolution on both consoles and is able to keep it up at 30 frames per seconds during most times. Parkour feels fluid and smooth but when you are surrounded by a ton of zombies, we saw that a few frames were dropped. Parkour’s fluidity is also helped by motion blur and depth of field, which helps in adding anxiety and tension to the gameplay.

The console versions use SMAA-T2x (Enhanced Subpixel Morphological Antialiasing) antialiasing solution which does a fair enough job to remove those hated jaggies, although it must be added that we came across a few instances where jaggies were present. So whether its implementation is bugged on consoles is something that we are not sure of at the moment. We will follow this up in our final analysis. SMAA-T2x isn’t exactly a unknown element for consoles games. Last year’s inFamous Second Son used it and before that Ryse: Son of Rome opted for a slightly less advanced SMAA 1x.

In-game assets and alpha effects seem to be consistent across both platforms. The shadow maps seems to be of a similar and higher quality with a screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO) applied. Texture quality, character models and foliage were similar in the levels we played for the initial analysis.

However we came across a few instances of screen tearing on both versions. Fortunately, screen tearing does not seem to happen in parkour, so it does not disturb one of the most important elements of the gameplay. We also came across pop-in issues with textures, zombies or random objects. However we must add that these issues are less on the PS4, which is probably down to its more capable GPU. We will pick up this point again in our final analysis when we explore the world further on both versions.

One feature that Dying Light truly excels in is the draw distance and the lens effect. Standing on the top of a building and gazing over the game’s zombie apocalyptic situation is a sight to behold. There is no doubt that the game can look gorgeous at times, especially during sunset.

Dying Light features a massive world so we will have more to explore and share in the coming days including our full review and final tech analysis that will also include the PC version. Stay tuned.

Update: From 7:25 till the end of the video, we made the mistake of including only the Xbox One version. The incorrect portion has been removed from the video. For anyone doubting this comparison, please check out at the video at 4:06 with speed turn down to 0.25, You will clearly see the X and Square Buttons. Here is the image for your reference.

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • andy

    You forget that they dropped last gen console support for this not too long ago. So we are essentially looking at another Wolfensetin, Alien Isolation, Destiny, Far Cry 4, Thief, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor release here i.e. It looks decent but nothing incredible or next gen. If it didn’t achieve 1080p on Xbone that would have been depressing (although it could turn out it isn’t full 1080p like other games like Far Cry 4 when a credible source does a performance analysis).

    • DarthDiggler


      Yeah they dropped the support when they knew they couldn’t make the game work on those platforms. That doesn’t mean the PS4/XBONE versions “suffered”.

  • d0x360

    I downloaded it for xb1 at about 3am today. Frame rate is solid and there is minimal tearing. Basically it’s a less clunky dead island with parkour. The visuals themselves aren’t anything amazing. You can tell its a cross gen game even though they killed the last gen versions. One thing I would change is the grain filter. It looks bad. Especially since the grain filter and low levels of AA combine to make some really nasty jaggies on both versions.

    • DarthDiggler


      Yeah the visuals aren’t bad, I consider Techland like a AA or BBB developer. 🙂 Dead Island was good fun even though it was rough around the edges. I look forward to laughing at some of the odd ball animations that I will see when playing with my friends. The drop kick was funny looking on DI and DI:R.

    • d0x360

      I’ll go with BBB. I think their biggest issue is money. They have the talent but their budgets aren’t huge so they dont have tons of time to make the game. Another 6 months and they probably could have tuned the game enough to crank the AA a bit which would go a long way in this game. Other than jaggies its not bad looking. It won’t turn any heads but it gets the job done.

    • DarthDiggler


      Yeah but overall they got it where it counts, the gameplay is decent. So I have to give them props there, I have played so many pretty games with terrible gameplay at least their priorities are in order.

    • d0x360

      Yea I can agree with that. I got a chance to play coop in between comments and it was seamless so its definitely something ill keep coming back to

    • Marc D

      The grain filter has nothing to do with jaggies.

    • Michael Norris

      Runs better on Ps4,the screen tearing gets quite bad on the Xone to the point it makes me sick at times.Anytime you run into alpha effects such as fire/smoke/grass ect the system bogs down.This has to do with fillrate and the lack of it on Xone.

      I own a Pc that is much better than both consoles but if i had to buy this game for a console it’s no contest Ps4 all the way.You can also bet it will sell much better on Ps4 than Xone.

    • d0x360

      The fill rate huh. Any issue ever could be blamed on the fill rate. You need to be far more specific. Its more likely the games LOD system than anything else. Both consoles run am LOD setting below the lowest setting on PC. In this game even with low LOD distance it still draws things pretty far away which taxes the engine. This is readily apparent on PC as well. Crank LOD up and the frame rate tanks even if you are indoors.

      Only time I really see tearing is during custcenes or when there are 30+ zombies on screen which isn’t all that often. Tear is the single most hated visual defect IMO and it makes me insane. Its not that bad in this game. The frame rate stays stable more often than not.

  • DarthDiggler

    Not a surprise the developer already said they would have parity. Likely left some horsepower on the table with PS4.

  • John Doe

    I love how these fools from Gamingbolt act like EsRAM is the reason for parity. Even with EsRAM, Xbox One is still weaker and has slower memory. 32 mb of EsRAM doesn’t compete with 5 gigs GDDR5. This also doesn’t explain the Xbox One’s weaker GPU.

    The devs simply didn’t use the PS4’s extra power. The Xbox One is a bottleneck.

    • Mark

      Tell that to Sony’s first party studios…….unless u think the PS4 should running games in 2K 60fps?

    • shredenvain

      The bandwidth available per second is what really matters for these consoles.
      You say the Xbox one is a bottleneck, but do you really know if what you are saying is true?
      You do realize that even though gddr5 is great for moving large amounts of data to and from the GPU it isn’t idea for CPU usage. When the Ps4’s CPU is using near it’s peak bandwidth of 20 gbs it can cause memory contention issues GPU side. Sure the Xbox one only has 32 MBS of Esram, but it delivers over 100 GBs per second. Real game code has been measured at 140 GB/s. That’s almost the same bandwidth the Ps4’s gddr5 delivers system wide. The real advantage to esram is it doesn’t cause memory contention issues for the CPU and vise versa. The majority of a gpu’s bandwidth goes to render targets anyway which is perfect for esram. The larger pool of Ddr3 ensures up 30gb/s for the X1’s CPU. The remaining 30 + gb/s bandwidth is free to be used by the GPU as well. So like it or not and despite all the trash talking the esram has it’s advantages. Sure everyone knows the Ps4 has the stronger GPU, but it has to try and use all that alu while having similar memory bandwidth to the Xbox one as well as a slightly weaker cpu with less bandwidth. So if a game is maxing out bandwidth on both machines you will usually have similar graphics as a result. It isn’t always developers dumbing one version down. You also have titles that don’t demand anywhere near maximum performance from either system and therefore have similar graphics. Both systems are great and have good games. Why not just enjoy them without wasting time trying to put one anothers choice of console down?

    • justerthought

      What your calculations fail to take into account data retention for quick access. Although the ESRAM is fast, it is very small. It cannot hold large amounts of data over time, so everything has to be streamed again. The fast ESRAM cannot fill the slow large capacity DDR3 RAM any faster that its physical limit. There is your bottleneck.

      The PS4 RAM can hold more of the world in RAM so it streams less resulting in less pop up and the ability to run at a higher resolution. Hence GTAV has more lush plant life on PS4. Games are mostly graphics based so gaming RAM is of most benefit. Latency is not as important as large capacity fast storage.

      The only time we have seen the PS4 has hit a problem was when a dev went over the top with thousands of NPC’s that required intense CPU processing to manage the AI and GPU calls. The PS4 CPU struggled and the dev was not up to speed computing such processes on the PS4 GPU using direct compute.

      CPU’s do not need massive amounts of RAM for games. Graphics are the largest form of data used by games and it’s beneficial to stream as little as possible for increased draw distances and to allow players to reverse decisions without having to completely stream in a new set of data.

    • corvusmd

      On your roll of telling everyone how little you know….how much can 32mb of eSRAM move with tiled resources?…it gives the system access to how much instantly???

      now keep in mind that X1 and PS4 aren’t built to work the same way…and it’s not simply eSRAM vs 5gbs of GDDR5

    • Michael Norris

      It’s Cloud Vs GPGPU i like the odds better for GPGPU

    • corvusmd

      Maybe in the immediate future, but in a year or two that could change dramatically.

      Either way, that’s actually not the comparison

  • corvusmd

    So at around 7:30 or so he opens a door that shows the X1 “X” on both doors…yet one is slightly darker than the other….does this mean that the comparison video was purposely made darker on one video to be able to show at least SOME sort of difference?

    • GamingBolt

      We made a mistake but we made sure to rectify it asap. The incorrect portion has been removed and this is still a PS4 vs Xbox One comparison. Check out at 4:06 with speed turn down to 0.25, You will clearly see the X and Square Buttons. Here is the image: http://i.imgur.com/LNdbn9Q.jpg

  • Bliss Seeker

    @7:53 both are XB1 version. PS4 button should be SQUARE.

    It’s fake.

    • GamingBolt

      We made a mistake but we made sure to rectify it asap. The incorrect portion has been removed and this is still a PS4 versus Xbox One comparison. Check out at 4:06 with speed turn down to 0.25, You will clearly see the X and Square Buttons. Here is the image: http://i.imgur.com/LNdbn9Q.jpg

    • Bliss Seeker

      Hmmm… I don’t really know how this sort of thing happens by mistake but I guess I’ll take your word for it for now.

    • GamingBolt

      I understand your concern but it was a mistake. We made sure to correct it ASAP. Our apologies for this.

    • corvusmd

      At least you guys fixed it, but at first that understandably raised concerns as to the validity of the video…it also kinda points out how little difference there is in the two versions….how many of those other portions could have also been the exact same console…and people were saying on looked better than the other.

  • Marc D

    Looks almost exactly the same just like most multiplats on PS4/X1.

    • Michael Norris

      It’s not just about ”Looks” it’s about how it plays as well.

  • spideynut71
  • andy

    Haha where is the comment I left here yesterday? The one where I said you are more than likely wrong with your amateur analysis and that it is highly likely that the game is not producing a full 1080p resolution on Xbone????
    No matter, here is EG Digial Foundry’s first impressions

    “We’re still working on a final resolution calculation, but we’re
    inclined to believe the PS4 renders at full 1080p, while Xbox One is
    operating at a reduced 1536×1080 – or something very close to it. That’s
    a basic 20 per cent drop in the overall pixel count.”

    You just proved me right and trying to hide it made you even more pathetic.

  • Michael Norris

    I find it funny how Gamingbolt says both versions are ”full 1080p yet the Xone game runs at 1536x1080p not only this but the game runs much worse and has a lot more screen tear.The only advantage the Xone has is AF that is it everything else is a wash.

  • Kidd

    In the comparison video Xbox one was better Ps4 was blurry & washed out. Xbox does better job at 1080p I think> Imo


Copyright © 2009-2017 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.