Home » News » Games News » Xbox boss brands frame rate ‘significantly more important than resolution’

Xbox boss brands frame rate ‘significantly more important than resolution’

Luke Johnson by

Xbox One

With the Xbox One still suffering from resolution shortcomings, Xbox head Phil Spencer has claimed that frame rate is actually more important to games.

Although confirming that Microsoft is working hard to bring the Xbox One in line with the resolution capabilities of the rival PS4, Spencer has suggested too much focus is being paid to the idea of 1080p games being a ‘mythical, perfect resolution’.

At present, a number of Xbox One games are running a 720p resolution while the PS4 is offering the same titles at 1080p.

"We have done a lot of work with our partners and we constantly evolve our development tools," Spencer said speaking with CVG. "We announced that Destiny will have the same resolution and frame rate on Xbox One as PS4. There is a long list of games. Reaching parity with our partners has been important."

He added: “In the end I don't want it to be about a number, because 1080p isn't some mythical, perfect resolution.

“Frame rate to me is significantly more important to gameplay than resolution and the mix of those two which brings the right art style and freedom, whether it's on PlayStation or our platform."

With the performance gaps between the PS4 and Xbox One often discussed when looking at new cross-platform games, Spencer has suggested that certain genres will benefit from a higher resolution more than others.

"Clearly some genres like with racing sims like Forza, hitting 1080p/60fps is important.

“There are certain genres where there's an expectation, but there are also other genres where I'd rather use the cycles to put more effects on screen or better lighting. I've got to put the tools in the hands of developers.

"I want to put the tools in the hands of the artists and not try to math it that there's some sort of [mathematical] answer for what the right resolution and frame rate is for a game - because there isn't.”

Despite Spencer’s arguments to the contrary, resolution remains an important comparison point for a lot of games – even if it is a physiological reaction to numbers on paper rather than physical, visible differences.

Read More: Xbox One vs PS4

Go to comments

Matthew Bunton

August 14, 2014, 3:31 pm

Phil Spencer is absolutely right. However, if they had concentrated on making a more powerfull console instead of bundling the Kinect we could have had both.

Nettrick Nowan

August 14, 2014, 3:54 pm

Total damage control after Microsoft purposely hobbled their system just so they could force the Kinect on gamers.


And some of you called Spencer a "straight shooter"! He's pulling blinders over gamers eyes, just like that other Microsoft talking head that said you won't notice the difference between the PS4's better graphics and those on the Xbox One if you have a TV smaller than 60".

Bottom line is, devs should be able to create their game at the res and fps that they wish. Because of the weaker Xbox One, that cannot be accomplished because devs are restricted because of the hardware. Yes, the PS4 will run into roadblocks too--but it will happen less frequently because Sony did not intentionally downgrade their hardware.


August 14, 2014, 4:53 pm

ps4 has your A$$


August 14, 2014, 4:59 pm

I'd quite like both resolution and fps please.


August 14, 2014, 5:04 pm

With the PS4, a high resolution doesn't preclude a high frame rate. Microsoft simply got 0wned through a stupid BitBoys-like design choice (the eSRAM), and a false dilemma won't cut it. I have a 360, but if I change, I will most likely get the PS4 (the Destiny pack). I don't care much for things like the Kinect.


August 14, 2014, 6:20 pm

Buy a PS4 then ;-)

Matthew Bunton

August 14, 2014, 6:48 pm

Well that's very underpowered also so you would have been better off recomending a mid range PC.

Matthew Bunton

August 14, 2014, 6:50 pm

Hardly it is only marginally better technically than the Xbox One. Within just 3 years these consoles will be struggling and within 5 well.


August 14, 2014, 6:52 pm

not really its 50% on the GFx side


August 14, 2014, 6:58 pm

Not for livingroom / sofa use.


August 14, 2014, 7:27 pm

but a Pc isnt a PS4's competition u silly sausage

Tyler Mahaffy

August 14, 2014, 9:33 pm

All these arguments that PC as good as a Console are ridiculous. Build me a PC that costs $400 or less can match the quality of either of these consoles. Anyone can in theory build a PC. Then throw in a free controller and headset. What is your price? I challenge you. I don't want to see anything a dime over $400.

And for all this FPS and Resolution stuff, 60FPS is infinitely more important to me than 1080p. HE is right. I have 3 custom built PCs, Xbox One, and soon to be PS4. The differences in the consoles are marginal, and the build costs are nearly identical. Xbox One has a slightly more buffed CPU, PS4 has better RAM. In the end its all going to come down to advancements with the SDK's offered on both consoles which will get better over time.

IF you think these will be outdated in 5 years your crazy as well. Over time graphic drivers and SDKs get better. It seems like almost every AMD driver release on PC features some holy than hell 30% performance gain on specific titles. Its all about optimization. PS4 are nearly identical, and will continue to grow.

For Instance - Call of Duty 2 Launch Title VS Call of Duty Ghosts, both on same system and many years apart... just look at the advancement.



Mind you this is the same hardware. One made in 2005 and one made in 2013 (8 years) and on the same system... hmmmm how is that possible it looks so good?


August 14, 2014, 9:46 pm

Blah Blah, rant... rabble rabble rabble. 60 FPS is going to be a standard and so is 1080p, neither console has reached a quarter of its potential.

Last comment seemed to of been displaced. tl:dr Compare graphics from Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty Ghosts and tell me systems don't improve over time with SDK/ Driver updates / optimizations. Also build me a $400 computer that can do either of what these consoles do and include the controller with that.

Matthew Bunton

August 15, 2014, 12:46 am

Why not?

A micro or mini ITX form factor with a wireless controller, keyboard and mouse all done.


August 15, 2014, 2:33 am

Have to agree with you here. Microsoft really dropped the ball over crappy Kinect. The money saved should have gone on matching if not beating Sony's superior graphics capability.

To their credit Microsoft are updating the Xbox One on a fairly regular basis adding more and more features whereas Sony seem to be very slow in this aspect. You only have to look at the Playstation facebook page to see owners complaining about lack of features/ updates

Finally if high profile title Destiny on the Xbox One isn't on a graphical par with the PS4 version, it could be critical blow to Xbone sales in the run up to Christmas.

The smiths

August 15, 2014, 3:02 am

I mean lets be honest, the real reason both consoles are not running games 60 fps at 1920 x 1080 is because they dont have the power. Again you could say they do have the power providing you lower texture quility, lighting etc etc. All trade offs and im not saying these "next gen" consoles are not worth their money for what they bring, it was a long wait for if im honest not much of a "next gen" experience. Who has honestly been blown away by there graphical experience on ther new console ?


August 15, 2014, 8:17 am

For £350 all in, including OS, PSU etc? With a slim case that fits a decent graphics card and yet is quiet? For various reasons, consoles get more performance from the same hardware than PCs, so you'd need higher-than-PS4 specs.


August 15, 2014, 8:23 am

The Xbox One and PS4 have essentially the same AMD PC architecture, just with 50% more of it in the PS4's GPU. No "optimisations" will ever narrow the gap, simply because whatever you can do to one, you can do to the other, and we're back where we started. Removing the Kinect simply removed an additional overhead on the Xbox, for the unreliable wavy hand controller.

Alex Walsh

August 15, 2014, 9:44 am

We'll be another gen along before we get 1080P60 gaming from consoles. What do you need in terms of a PC card for that now? A GTX 750Ti or a 760? I've lost track. Some sites would say a 660 is equivalent to the PS4.


August 15, 2014, 11:25 am

750ti in most games 760 in some. AMD r260x would do it also. Most games are just ports of Console titles in the first place. They do not need some mythical high end setup to get the same results.

1080p standard was 8 years ago in truth. 4k Gaming or Virtual reality headset gaming is the next path most of the big brands will take.

Xbox one by the time the next Halo is lauched will be Sub £250 ill pick up one with it if it gets good reviews.

PS4 will be a similar price by the time Uncharted 4 arives can pick up one around then also.

Id be shocked if we see a new console from either Manufacture before 2020 in all honesty. Game developers wont like it but Microsoft and Sony made alot of cash from extending the PS3 and Xbox 360 life cycle from 5years to 7years.

Matthew Bunton

August 15, 2014, 5:07 pm

This argument has been done to death all over the net so no need to start another.

But to summarise basically you can build a far better PC for 500 easily, admitedly this is more than the consoles but remeber you don't need to buy a live or PSN subscription every year and most games are about 20 pounds cheaper. So you would recoup the extra in mere months and the PC would be far more productive.

Tyler Mahaffy

August 15, 2014, 7:39 pm

Two different audiences, its really like trying to compare apples to tomatoes. Both provide unique experiences, I love all my babies lol. You do agree Matt that the consoles are not being maxed to potential right now though? Maybe maxed to what the engines, drivers and current SDK's allow.

On another note, i feel like people dont want to look at launch titles of last gen vs modern titles of last gen... its the blind leading the blind saying the games won't improve over time.

Matthew Bunton

August 16, 2014, 9:12 am

Agreed I have many consoles and a good PC.

I do agree with you that we haven't seen the best of these consoles yet and probably won't until Naughty Dog, 343 etc start to release their respective exclusive titles.

I also think that the 360 and PS3 have held the newer consoles back thus far. Assassins Creed Unity which is designed specifically for the newer hardware is looking promising technically and will certainly be a glimpse of what is to come.

However this generation of console harware is disappointing. Sony whilst better than MS could have gotten away with charging a bit more and upping their CPU and GPU spec.

Microsoft got it completely wrong with theirs concentrating on what they wanted to give the consumer rather than what gamers actually wanted ie. Kinect.

Furthermore I don't think that we will see the drastic improvements that we have in the past with these consoles. The hardware and architecture are PC based and not the custom machines they used to be. The 360 and PS3 game quality improved drastically over the years as the developers learned each consoles unique workings.


August 16, 2014, 11:02 am

PS4 has plenty of room for optimization in terms of GPGPU, hUMA/HSA-like features, and unified memory.

Matthew Bunton

August 16, 2014, 11:27 am

They both do to a certain extent but don't expect too much.

Anyway i'm going to end my participation here as I think there are more fanboy comments in this thread than real acknowledgement of technical abilities.

comments powered by Disqus