Evolve Head To Head Initial Analysis: PS4 Vs. Xbox One [60fps]

Our initial analysis suggests that both console versions are running at a solid 30 frames per second.

Posted By | On 10th, Feb. 2015 Under Article, Graphics Analysis | Follow This Author @GamingBoltTweet

Turtle Rock Studios’ Evolve is a highly ambitious asymmetrical, cooperative and competitive shooter that was released on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC earlier today. Turtle Rock Studios has an impressive pedigree, having developed the critically acclaimed Left 4 Dead. So it goes without saying that there is a lot riding on the studio to deliver with Evolve, after all it’s one of the few games available that is exclusive to current gen consoles.

Due to the scope of this analysis, we have analyzed only the offline custom mode. We are pleased to report that both versions run at a rock solid 30 frames per second with minimal frame rate drops in between. However, it seems that Turtle Rock Studios have failed to reach their sixty frames per second target on consoles. 30 frames per second does not drag down the experience but given that Evolve is a fast paced shooter, I would have preferred it to run at 60 frames per second.

A head to head video comparison between the PS4 and Xbox One versions. Please select 1080p and 60 frames per second for best video quality. 

Regarding rendering resolutions, we are still calculating the final numbers but we think that the PlayStation 4 version runs at full 1080p resolution compared to 900p on Xbox One, which immediately gives a better image quality on Sony’s console. However that is not the only advantage the PS4 version has over its counterpart, as it seems that the Xbox One suffers from shadow dithering at some places. We also came across minor texture streaming issues across both versions wherein character facial details and armor will take a few seconds to load up correctly. However we are not sure how consistent the shadow dithering and texture streaming issues are throughout the several maps but you can be rest assured that this is something which we will be revisiting again in our final verdict.

Both versions utilize SMAA solutions for anti-aliasing which results into a clean image quality, free of jaggies. Unlike Dying Light, whose SMAA implementation seems to be bugged on consoles, it was pleasant to see it in full force in Evolve. All assets seem to be similar across both versions including alpha effects, water physics and foliage density.

A selection of screenshots from the Xbox One [left] and PS4 [right] versions. Our final verdict will have even more screenshots comparisons including the PC version. For uncompressed images, please click here to download.

From what we have played, Evolve seems to be a graphically amazing game, something which I expected from the 4th generation of CryEngine. Gameplay wise, it’s fast paced and highly enjoyable but whether it’s worth your money is something that GamingBolt’s review team will analyze in the coming days. Check back early next week [or maybe earlier] for our final technical verdict on Evolve which will include a full blown performance analysis of the PC build along with the console versions.

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Fweds

    30 FPS on this type of game ! Forget it I’m updating my PC for non Exclusives 30fps on a fast paced shooter is a joke

    • Graeme Willy

      Yep, my PC is waiting for this game. That’s the smart thing to do. Use PC for non-exclusives, and only purchase first party titles on consoles. 1080p has been a concept, since 2003. PC’s have been running the equivalent of 1080p gaming, since 2003. Think about it, I was gaming Doom 3 at 1600×1200 resolution, that’s the equivalent of 1920×1080(widescreen). It’s insulting that even the last generation of consoles couldn’t 1080p, natively. This is just sickening.

    • d0x360

      In 2003 you were running doom3 at 1600×1200 at a playable frame rate? Amazing considering it came out in 2004. Even more amazing becauae at launch the game was the crysis of its day and even enthusiast rigs weren’t maxxing doom3 out for quite some time.

    • Graeme Willy

      Oh, you’re one of those, hey? Yeah go ahead, flam me because I was off a year. Gees. I didn’t Google the exact release year. Big deal. I played that game over 10 years ago, regardless of 03 or 04.
      I didn’t say anythng about max. As is the case with any PC game, you balance out texture detail and forego AA and AF where needed, in order to pull the native resolution of your monitor. Not everyone has to run a game at Max to have it look great. I usually run one below and opt a native resolution, before I ever consider upping the textures and/ or dopping the res.
      You’re completely off the point. Point being, 1080p is ancient. We’ve been gaming at the 4:3 comparable since 2003, not to mention, 720p/1080i was becoming common place at that time, with he more expensive TV’s being capable of 1080p. We’re talking the end of the Sony WEGA CRT TV era and the emergence of Plasma.

    • d0x360

      Easy killa I was just giving you ****.

      The only point I was making and its a 100% valid point is that when doom3 came out you would be lucky to be running it at 640×480 and getting a good frame rate. High end gaming rigs struggled with that game for quite a while. Nobody was maxxing it out especially not above the resolution I stated.


    • shredenvain

      Seriously man 4k 60 fps? Do you realize how much power a console would have to draw to pull that off? At high detail levels at least. Not to mention the cost of the hardware it would take to hit this. Then think about the size of the system. It would be freaking huge.
      Games don’t have to be uber high res to look great. In fact the quality of the pixels being displayed on screen is much more important than the amount of pixels. These current gen consoles are a large jump over last gen. They have 6 to 10 times the tflops output compared to last gen. They both have 16 times the memory as well. I personally don’t see any reason for even the next consoles to aim for 4k as a standard. We as gamers could be playing titles that look like top notch CGI at 1080p 60 fps next gen if they don’t make 4k a standard. Even 5 years from now the hardware needed to hit 4k and a locked 60 fps will be very costly. In the present, PC hardware that can consistently do 4k at 60 costs over $1500 at a minimum. You need to be running top ends cards in crossfire or SLI along with a really expensive Intel CPU. Even then 4k isnt guaranteed.

    • Andy Stephenson

      Pc is for losers and pedophiles pick one to be

    • Andy Stephenson

      Oh and in theory a console would use 15-20% less power to achieve 4k than a pc would because console are far more efficient 🙂

    • albatrosMyster

      What did you write this on? :-S

    • Andy Stephenson

      iPhone at work 😉

    • albatrosMyster

      Great you’re saved, I was going to call the police on you!

    • Andy Stephenson

      Haha I was kidding anyway it was just controversial and I only said it because it makes “the master race” angry..

    • Graeme Willy

      The reasons consoles struggle, is because the history of PC gaming has suggested that games are developed to challenge furture hardware, but we become obsessed wth running things maxed out off the get-go, sacrificing native resolution for lower resolution, and ditching AA/ AF, in order to run things at max.
      These games are then scaled down to console and developers are forced into trying to do the same level of parity for consoles, forsaking even more clarity, instead of just putting consoles into their own realm and just playing off of what they could do and sticking with HD visuals and doing with them what they can outside of that.
      I disagree with the quality of the pixel vs resolution. Ever since the N64 days, I’ve been frustrated with jaggy pictures. You can run MSAA 12XEQ and still not get rid of a reasonable amount of jaggies, when a game is running at 1600×900. I have done such with PC and still thought it was too jaggy. This is where resolution is key.
      Why the heck would you want to have photo realistic graphics, if it’s going to be jaggy and blurry, due, to lack of AA and resolution? When I PC game, I always aim for resolution before textures and effects. There’s no reason why you should have to put up with, say, thinking that an aliased trash can in an alley, might be a person that’s crouched, because you don’t have a clear piture to make out the object.

  • A recap of what you see in the first half of the video is brown, brown, brown, red , explosion, brown, brown brown.

    • Guest

      I think I saw a little grey in there

    • Mark


    • i3myX1

      thx, that comment made my day, lol

  • d0x360

    2 things both important but #2 will be most important.

    1- how can a rock be rock solid and also have minimal drops? If it has any drops its not rock solid so which is it?

    2- what is your testing methodology? Are you guessing? Are you recording video at 60fps and counting unique frames? What capture device are you using?

    I find these comparisons fishy. You never have said what hardware is used for these tests nor have you broken down frame counts in video form. If you are going to try to be Eurogamer then you need to step up and tell us your methodology otherwise nothing you say can be trusted. ever

    • rodney patrick

      That’s exactly what I been saying to myself, right man

    • GamingBolt

      Thank you for the comment d0x360. I have asked Bill to publish a basic FAQ article about our capturing process and techniques. But please note that it may not be published immediately. He is currently working on delivering the final verdict for Evolve so he has to set aside time for it. But I will make sure that he is at least including basic parameters such as resolution calculation, an overview on frame rates, bit rates that we capture the video at and a few examples of uncompressed images.

      Also these articles are authentic. You can check the videos and images above and you won’t find the same scene anywhere.

      Hope this helps!

    • d0x360

      I appreciate the reply. I visit this site constantly and I want to trust the information presented in these h2h articles is trustworthy I just need some more info before I can do that as I’ve seen many sites in the past use less than reliable methods to achieve their results.

  • Mark

    Hopefully many games will use UE4 this year. Next year will be huge for it imo. Epic’s been working close with Microsoft in their latest versions of UE with DX12. Evolve does look good.

    • Kidd

      Cryengine looks very good as well!! Frostbite is begging for dx12 support. Should be interesting what they pull off they are very demanding with fps and really push a system to the limits.

  • thowedthanka

    holy ishnits… ps4 tears xbox a new one.

    thats TWO holes for mircosoft!

  • theCharlieSheen2

    I’ll sum it up for you guys who dont want to take the time to read, its better on PS4, you’re welcome.

    • i3myX1

      To go into further detail:

      Unless you make a picture to picture comparison with a microscope, they look identical and play the same on both consoles.

    • albatrosMyster

      I don’t know, I clicked one image at random before reading the article, I knew it was XB1 because it had tons of jaggies on it… oh well, it’s par for the course for this console, so no worries there.

  • Jonathan Bracy

    Oh man I want the game now, like today. But I just read that there may be a progress reset glitch, when switching between multiple consoles on the Xbox One. I play on at least 2 different Xbox Ones.(other being my buddies). And I would be very annoyed if that happens.

    Is there any way you guys can check that?

  • Ñosss!!!

    Boom!!! Lol. X1 bether than PS4

    • albatrosMyster

      Look at the light on the gun, it’s obviously not going in the same direction… I mean, worse comes to worse shadows could be of different quality/resolution between those two consoles, but having the PS4 missing shadows would just be absurd… unless there is a bug of some sort…

      EDIT: this is a great example as to why not everybody should do that kind of comparison.

    • John Doe

      Xbox fanboys are desperate. Look at the comparisons in the article moron. Nobody trusts your random pictures from the Xbox fanboy camp.

    • Pops

      I’ve seen in other comparisons.Even some of the weather affects that are present on xbox that aren’t on ps4.seems sony is desperately hitting native1080p by sacrificing

  • Champy0n

    Graphics do not really make the game…actual gameplay does! Look at WoW…


    1080p 60fps or death wasn’t it?

  • truthx7

    The xbox one version is sharper with more shadows.the ps4 version doesn’t even look 1080p.i don’t even know how gamebolt could’ve given such a poor assessment

  • V3

    “Regarding rendering resolutions, we are still calculating the final numbers but we think that the PlayStation 4 version runs at full 1080p resolution compared to 900p on Xbox One,”

    How can you “think” it’s 900p? It either is or isn’t. What is the official confirmed final X1 resolution?


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