Support NeoGAF

[twilo99]

Windows and xbox run on same dx12 dev platform

Does that mean most “console” developers don’t know how to use dx12 properly? If a few can do it, it’s obviously possible to optimize for dx12

Let’s see how BG3 does, since that is also a PC port and it runs quite well on DX there

The issue is that games are being build around PS5 features and PS5 port in mind because of market share PS5 and safe investment ,therefore, whatever features DX12 and Xbox Series X has are not utilized and it is left behind.

When ever you see PC port first than you see that Xbox Series X will be ahead of PS5 due to DX12 features utilizing properly.

I don’t know if that’s true but it would make sense to optimize for the dominant platform I guess

 

[Neo_game]

Those aren't the quality settings. 960p? And DLSS?

Yeah not a fair comparison that I initially thought. He is running 835P balanced, 960P quality, 720P quality and 720P performance all with DLSS.

 

[Vergil1992]

Stats are fucked up because game has locked framerate. In the same scene with exact same engine load Xbox is performing almost 23% better, that's how you benchmark things.

If game had unlocked framerate average number could be used but not in this case.

Exactly. In fact, the 10fps advantage seems quite consistent, AS LONG as on PS5 it drops to 55fps, on XSX it remains at 60fps. Only when the PS5 drops below 50fps does the Xbox drop below 60.

It's pretty clear in this game that it looks like XSX's advantage is significant and we can safely say that if the framerate was unlocked, it would lead by around 10fps. Probably even more, because if the game ran at 70fps on PS5, the difference could be compounded.

But it's definitely not a case of having a "variable" advantage. It's not that sometimes it has 2fps more, or 5 or 10, depending on the scene, or even what we have seen in other games, that even if there is a platform with a more stable framerate, there may be areas where one surpasses the other and vice versa.


The excuse that Lysandro is making about vsync seems quite wrong to me. I don't know how many times it will have to be denied that vsync does not decrease or increase performance. If the game has adaptive vsync in a version, simply when it drops below the target framerate (if you don't have VRR) there will be tearing, and if the vsync is not adaptive and is the classic triple buffering, simply when the framerate drops there will be no tearing (although you may have more input lag and microstutter).

In other words, adaptive vs normal vsync has no impact on performance. I know there is a time where Oliver (DF) said the opposite, but Alex Battaglia (also DF) contradicts him. For me it is something that is not debatable, anyone can check their PC if it has an impact on performance or not. Does not have it.


It's probably an API thing. We do not know. But what we do know is that using "normal" vsync is not going to decrease performance. My theory is that it was probably a decision based on the performance of each one: If you use adaptive vsync on PS5 you would have abundant tearing. On Xbox Series X it would be marginal because its performance stays much closer to 60fps. It's much smarter to apply adaptive vsync if you're running a solid 60fps performance 99.9% of the time. But if the game runs at 50-55fps in many areas (it seems to be especially constant in Cauldron Lake), with adaptive VRR you will have very abundant tearing. Adaptive Vsync on PS5 with the performance it has would not be a good idea: you will not get more performance, you will have more tearing. Where it would benefit would be input lag (which is lower when vsync is disabled) when below 60fps.

 

[reinking]

And what happened then? Well, in Whoville they say that the adamsapple small e-peepee grew three sizes that day.

 

[TheRedRiders]

Maybe Mesh shader implementation in DX12 is more efficient compared to what Sony offers to use primitive shaders.

Mesh Shaders regardless of the DX12 implementation compile down to Primitive Shaders on all AMD hardware including the Series X.

Like I said though, I think the simple explanation is the best, a compute heavy engine favouring an architecture with more compute.

 

[Represent.]

lmao at anyone playing the most beautiful game of the gen in fucking performance mode

 

[HeWhoWalks]

lmao at anyone playing the most beautiful game of the gen in fucking performance mode

Not sure I would call it the most beautiful game this gen. It's actually quite drab (although that works in its favor).

Best looking (technical) game (on PC, that is)? I'd say so.

 

[Bojji]

Exactly. In fact, the 10fps advantage seems quite consistent, AS LONG as on PS5 it drops to 55fps, on XSX it remains at 60fps. Only when the PS5 drops below 50fps does the Xbox drop below 60.

It's pretty clear in this game that it looks like XSX's advantage is significant and we can safely say that if the framerate was unlocked, it would lead by around 10fps. Probably even more, because if the game ran at 70fps on PS5, the difference could be compounded.

But it's definitely not a case of having a "variable" advantage. It's not that sometimes it has 2fps more, or 5 or 10, depending on the scene, or even what we have seen in other games, that even if there is a platform with a more stable framerate, there may be areas where one surpasses the other and vice versa.


The excuse that Lysandro is making about vsync seems quite wrong to me. I don't know how many times it will have to be denied that vsync does not decrease or increase performance. If the game has adaptive vsync in a version, simply when it drops below the target framerate (if you don't have VRR) there will be tearing, and if the vsync is not adaptive and is the classic triple buffering, simply when the framerate drops there will be no tearing (although you may have more input lag and microstutter).

In other words, adaptive vs normal vsync has no impact on performance. I know there is a time where Oliver (DF) said the opposite, but Alex Battaglia (also DF) contradicts him. For me it is something that is not debatable, anyone can check their PC if it has an impact on performance or not. Does not have it.


It's probably an API thing. We do not know. But what we do know is that using "normal" vsync is not going to decrease performance. My theory is that it was probably a decision based on the performance of each one: If you use adaptive vsync on PS5 you would have abundant tearing. On Xbox Series X it would be marginal because its performance stays much closer to 60fps. It's much smarter to apply adaptive vsync if you're running a solid 60fps performance 99.9% of the time. But if the game runs at 50-55fps in many areas (it seems to be especially constant in Cauldron Lake), with adaptive VRR you will have very abundant tearing. Adaptive Vsync on PS5 with the performance it has would not be a good idea: you will not get more performance, you will have more tearing. Where it would benefit would be input lag (which is lower when vsync is disabled) when below 60fps.

Yep. Vsync shouldn't have any performance impact, it has input lag impact.

Mesh Shaders regardless of the DX12 implementation compile down to Primitive Shaders on all AMD hardware including the Series X.

Like I said though, I think the simple explanation is the best, a compute heavy engine favouring an architecture with more compute.

That's probably it, it could also come from higher memory bandwidth to some degree.

 

[TheRedRiders]

That's probably it, it could also come from higher memory bandwidth to some degree.

I think the memory bandwidth is a bit more complicated, the Series X memory setup is not as efficient as the PS5's despite the 576 GB/s which can be dedicated to the 10GB.

The most famous example of this in real world game performance was The Touryst which was running at 8K on the PS5 and 6K on the Series X, and the developers citing memory setup as the main reason for this.

 

[adamsapple]

And what happened then? Well, in Whoville they say that the adamsapple small e-peepee grew three sizes that day.

 

[Vergil1992]

I think the memory bandwidth is a bit more complicated, the Series X memory setup is not as efficient as the PS5's despite the 576 GB/s which can be dedicated to the 10GB.

The most famous example of this in real world game performance was The Touryst which was running at 8K on the PS5 and 6K on the Series X, and the developers citing memory setup as the main reason for this.

Honestly, I think that while it's a good argument for "small" developers, I'm not sure it can be extrapolated to all developers. In context, we are talking about the developers who created this game:

It is not my intention to discredit, but there are developers with more or less experience, greater or lesser budget... it could be that, for example, memory configuration or API management are more difficult on Xbox Series. If you work on the platform optimally and overcome its "difficulties" you can take advantage of the greater bandwidth compared to PS5. These difficulties will affect small developers more. There is something that the developers have already made clear on multiple occasions: PS5 is more developer-friendly. And to this we must add that it is a much better-selling console, the games come out with fewer polishing problems, etc.

I think that experienced developers with PC/Xbox games, like Asobo Studio or Remedy, are probably more capable than the studio that created The Touryst, they have created two of the most visually spectacular games of the generation, and both perform better in Xbox. And above all, Remedy and its Northlight engine require a large amount of VRAM and bandwidth. If PS5 really had any memory/bandwidth advantage, I'm pretty sure Remedy would have used it.

 

[Sleepwalker]

This game, not even once on console.

(Drop a disc and ill buy it tho remedy)

 

[Vergil1992]

I'm going to use something related to this game as an example: as we already know, XSS has a smaller amount of VRAM than its older sister. In this game, we have Saga's "mental room", which is basically an incredibly detailed room that we can access at any time by pressing a button. Obviously, that room is loaded in RAM.


Remedy in XSS uses (at 30fps) similar graphical settings to those of PS5/XSX in performance mode. But in Saga's mental room, the resolution of the textures is reduced compared to PS5/XSX (but not in the rest of the game). You can't reproduce that on PC, it is an exclusive "optimization" due to the limitations of XSS. Another developer with less means or talent would probably have taken the easier path. The XSX version would also have been scaled down so as not to have to work on optimizing on both platforms with different amounts of memory and bandwidth. and right now we would have Lysandro here explaining that it is because of what the developers of Immortals of Aveum said and that it is due to some technical inability of the Xbox Series X. Or worse yet, the XSS version would be unworthy. Both things happen. Versions of XSX that inherit graphical settings from XSS and coincidentally match some of them or versions of XSS that are close to PS4 games (for example, the Street Fighter 6 version).




For example, with Robocop in performance mode XSX has the performance advantage, and the only division between PS5 and XSX is a graphical setting that reduces performance by between 1 and 3fps, but some forum members were trying to convince that it is some bandwidth/power problem of XSX. But then when I see that Robocop IN STEAM DECK can play the game at more than 30fps without the need for this clipping, I do an exercise in logic and common sense and theorize that it is most likely that they have not adjusted the graphical settings correctly for each platform. You can also choose to believe that Steam Deck's 88GB/s bandwidth is better or more efficient than XSX's bandwidth. It is not so difficult to use logic, and move away from the convenient narrative on each occasion. And on top of that some of these users seem to have little or no idea of the performance impact of some graphics settings.


I think PS5 is really the technological "winner" of this generation of consoles, I don't want to be misunderstood. Despite having slightly inferior hardware, it has managed to match the XSX in most games, and in many it surpasses them. They are the two most equal consoles in history and I do not doubt the great design of I/0, the choice of high frequencies over CUs can be beneficial in many cases, etc. In that sense, the victory has been clearly and resoundingly for PS5, especially after there were people who firmly believed that we were going to see cases like 4K on XSX and 1440p on PS5. But we also have to be fair, and I think it's fair to point out two important facts: I think Xbox Series S is holding back Series X, not because of its power, but because of having to optimize for two platforms with different bandwidth and amount of memory, XSX is really being hampered by one of the two is not correctly optimized (or both!), and we see how they sometimes coincide in shadows (or textures) when on PS5 they do not (although this could be related to the API), and the other fact is that PS5 has some more developer-friendly development tools.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Always believed game performance drops more during day time, not the case here. The game is beautiful and my Silent Hill 2 Remake replacement for this year.

then play during nights only

 

[adamsapple]

Remedy in XSS uses (at 30fps) similar graphical settings to those of PS5/XSX in performance mode. But in Saga's mental room, the resolution of the textures is reduced compared to PS5/XSX (but not in the rest of the game). You can't reproduce that on PC, it is an exclusive "optimization" due to the limitations of XSS.

Yep, for this one it makes sense as the mind-place is always residing in memory, accessible by a single button press, so those textures (always in memory) are cut-down. And not textures in other places.

 

[Skifi28]

lmao at anyone playing the most beautiful game of the gen in fucking performance mode

Most people use 60fps modes on games just to annoy you.

 

[Represent.]

Most people use 60fps modes on games just to annoy you.

It’s working

 

[Topher]

It’s working

 

[MasterDerico]

I mean.... the crying came from you, so that's what the confusion was.

That anyone can celebrate a minor win for an XSX game in 2023 is telling in and of itself. It wasn't the slam dunk many Xbox fans beat their chests about. Of course, those of us who understand how this stuff works knew these consoles were virtual equals once all specs were announced, but there were a select chunk that just had to cackle like drunk school girls over a slight theoretical advantage (even when the competitor's machine had its own advantages).

Ok, i will draw next time, maybe you understand i was not crying, just made an statement that happens all the time.

Keep doing what u want, i just said what many other fear to do it.

 

[FrankWza]

Playstation consoles are my favorite of all time (not because of its exclusives btw

 

[twilo99]

Despite having slightly inferior hardware, it has managed to match the XSX in most games, and in many it surpasses them.

Most of the difference you see between the two has nothing to do with anything but how well the developers have optimized each game. Sometimes they do a better job on the xbox version, sometimes on the ps version..

 

[Vergil1992]

Yep, for this one it makes sense as the mind-place is always residing in memory, accessible by a single button press, so those textures (always in memory) are cut-down. And not textures in other places.

I agree.

What I think is that if it hadn't been Remedy, here we would have another case of "game that reduces its graphical settings in XSX compared to PS5", because other developers would have made concessions with XSS (the textures of Saga's mental room). And probably They wouldn't have bothered to optimize for both versions and XSX would have "inherited" that setting. basically for convenience: it's easier to work on a single memory configuration and then scale on more powerful hardware than the other way around. Which I think is what has happened in some games where we see those cuts that don't make much sense, either because there is parity or because XSX has much better performance (Robocop).


Or they would have directly reduced the textures to low (on PS5/XSX/XSS they are at medium-high) throughout the game in Series S. As you say, the mental room is something that you access throughout the game with one button. it's loaded into memory, and the Series S trade-offs are very smart; It was probably a way to preserve the quality of the textures in the game while saving memory.


I am convinced that with another less competent developer, we would have parity with the low resolution textures of Series S and X. And there would be some forum member here trying to explain that the difference is due to some technical deficit of Series X. But in this case he will have to explain how it is possible that XSX is performing 20% more than PS5 here (more than 20%, actually). I guess it's the vsync's fault.

 

[MasterDerico]

Maybe some for ps1,ps2, and ps3. Ps4 and Ps5, i swear, no...

What i like about Playstation is the third exclusives and japanese games that was only released on Playstation.

I have zero reasons to lie guys!

 

[Giallo Corsa]

Ok, i will draw next time, maybe you understand i was not crying, just made an statement that happens all the time.

Keep doing what u want, i just said what many other fear to do it.

Don't know man, out of all the "teams" and fans out there Microsoft's are definitely the worst :

- There's definitely visible shilling and astroturfing going on...everywhere, be it forums, Twitter etc

- There's absolutely no room for scepticism or judgement when it comes to their output - everything is great, there are no problems whatsoever with everything they do, everytime it's the other people's/companies' fault, all the other fans are worse than they are.
I mean, shit, there's new terms invented for excusing their own inefficiencies like "the Xbox tax®" , "engagement number" etc etc...

Meanwhile, in Sony and Nintendo land, users are actually critical when the respective companies shit the proverbial bed - just go and take a look at the topics about the PS plus subscription prices, the topics of the recent output and incoming GaaS fixation, the various Sony network outages, the topics of yore when it came to backwards compatibility during the PS3 era, about the removal of Linux installations etc, same thing with Nintendo when it came to joycon drift, the fact that their 1st party games don't drop in price ever, the overpriced Amibos and so on so forth...
The aforementioned companies though, gained respect, fans and goodwill by being decades in the industry and releasing actually good, iconic franchises and products that people loved without overhyping and under delivering 9 out of 10 times, that's the key difference.

Meanwhile, in MS land - and this is the weird thing -its fans are the loudest and most overzealous of them all without having any actual reason nor ground for being so :
The company has had less years in the gaming industry, has produced way less iconic franchises, has been touting, championing and overhyping games that under-deliver most times than not, has had its fan base waiting for a decade now with promises of "next year is gonna be the year" (and there's them receipts for that) and yet...the fanbase's chest thumping is the strongest of 'em all - the reason for it would be the desperate need to "stick it to the man®" (Sony in this case) by any means necessary, be that "engagement numbers", an upcoming exclusive (of unknown quality to boot) or, maybe even a better month of releases (of all things) compared to the "enemy" etc etc.
Take a look at the topics after the game awards, it took 1 Hellblade 2 trailer and 1 Marvel game (which we still don't whether it's exclusive to begin with) from a dev that has no experience whatsoever when it.comes to 3rd person action games for the chest thumping to begin again.

It just reeks of desperation in the end, and for what ?

Now, if all of the above reads and/or sounds fookin' idiotic...it's because it is, brand royalty is a real thing unfortunately and it's gotten almost to the point of team worshipping like in sports.

It is what it is.

 

[Lysandros]

I think the memory bandwidth is a bit more complicated, the Series X memory setup is not as efficient as the PS5's despite the 576 GB/s which can be dedicated to the 10GB.

560 GB/s

The most famous example of this in real world game performance was The Touryst which was running at 8K on the PS5 and 6K on the Series X, and the developers citing memory setup as the main reason for this.

Yes. But they actually gave three reasons for it: Higher clocks, memory set-up (pointing indeed to bandwidth in the context of 75% higher resolution) and PS5 native API without precising the order of importance.

The subject of bandwidth is further complicated by each PS5 CU having access to ~60% more L1 cache bandwidth per SA and Cache Scrubbers which minimize waste.

 

[MasterDerico]

Don't know man, out of all the "teams" and fans out there Microsoft's are definitely the worst :

- There's definitely visible shilling and astroturfing going on...everywhere, be it forums, Twitter etc

- There's absolutely no room for scepticism or judgement when it comes to their output - everything is great, there are no problems whatsoever with everything they do, everytime it's the other people's/companies' fault, all the other fans are worse than they are.
I mean, shit, there's new terms invented for excusing their own inefficiencies like "the Xbox tax®" , "engagement number" etc etc...

Meanwhile, in Sony and Nintendo land, users are actually critical when the respective companies shit the proverbial bed - just go and take a look at the topics about the PS plus subscription prices, the topics of the recent output and incoming GaaS fixation, the various Sony network outages, the topics of yore when it came to backwards compatibility during the PS3 era, about the removal of Linux installations etc, same thing with Nintendo when it came to joycon drift, the fact that their 1st party games don't drop in price ever, the overpriced Amibos and so on so forth...
The aforementioned companies though, gained respect, fans and goodwill by being decades in the industry and releasing actually good, iconic franchises and products that people loved without overhyping and under delivering 9 out of 10 times, that's the key difference.

Meanwhile, in MS land - and this is the weird thing -its fans are the loudest and most overzealous of them all without having any actual reason nor ground for being so :
The company has had less years in the gaming industry, has produced way less iconic franchises, has been touting, championing and overhyping games that under-deliver most times than not, has had its fan base waiting for a decade now with promises of "next year is gonna be the year" (and there's them receipts for that) and yet...the fanbase's chest thumping is the strongest of 'em all - the reason for it would be the desperate need to "stick it to the man®" (Sony in this case) by any means necessary, be that "engagement numbers", an upcoming exclusive (of unknown quality to boot) or, maybe even a better month of releases (of all things) compared to the "enemy" etc etc.
Take a look at the topics after the game awards, it took 1 Hellblade 2 trailer and 1 Marvel game (which we still don't whether it's exclusive to begin with) from a dev that has no experience whatsoever when it.comes to 3rd person action games for the chest thumping to begin again.

It just reeks of desperation in the end, and for what ?

Now, if all of the above reads and/or sounds fookin' idiotic...it's because it is, brand royalty is a real thing unfortunately and it's gotten almost to the point of team worshipping like in sports.

It is what it is.

I disagree.

 

[Giallo Corsa]

I disagree.

Of course

Cheers

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Ok, i will draw next time, maybe you understand i was not crying, just made an statement that happens all the time.

Keep doing what u want, i just said what many other fear to do it.

I don't think that's quite it, but okay!

 

[MasterDerico]

Of course

Cheers

I already said what i think about PS Fanboys in this very thread, it's unnecessary to repeat.

 

[Giallo Corsa]

I already said what i think about PS Fanboys in this very thread, it's unnecessary to repeat.

Of course

cheers

 

[MasterDerico]

Of course

cheers

 

[thismeinteil]

Wait, when did the official stance change from "I don't know why you PS guys care so much about these comparisons?" Oh, I guess when XSX started winning a couple. But, it's not that ~30%-40% performance advantage for every game people we're talking about before launch. I guess I'll just have to comfort myself in the fact that this will sell at least 3x as much on the PS5.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Eh whatever's the lead platform seems to win these minuscule differences this gen so it probably made the difference

Although PS5 has had the most attention this generation, meaning most games have used the PS5 as the lead platform, for this game in particular, the PC was the lead platform, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Funny that you bring that up and it's very telling.

 

[Lysandros]

Wait, when did the official stance change from "I don't know why you PS guys care so much about these comparisons?" Oh, I guess when XSX started winning a couple. But, it's not that ~30%-40% performance advantage for every game people we're talking about before launch. I guess I'll just have to comfort myself in the fact that this will sell at least 3x as much on the PS5.

Vgtech's video is late, XSX performing better on this was known since DF comparison analysis a while ago. Since then PS5 came out on top in a couple of titles such as COD MW 3 and WRC. So yeah, the usual state of affairs continues. Each system has its occasional 'wins', usually by slight margins. A balanced picture as expected from evenly matched systems.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Although PS5 has had the most attention this generation, meaning most games have used the PS5 as the lead platform, for this game in particular, the PC was the lead platform, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Funny that you bring that up and it's very telling.

Well you can infer as you wish. Never said it was 100%

 

[mrMUR_96]

This game is beautiful, but the image quality is awful. FSR looks ass and the specular noise is atrocious, why isn't it denoised or filtered in some way? The performance seems to really struggle in certain areas too, I often switch to performance mode in certain combat areas because it's so janky otherwise. I usually don't mind 30fps as long as it's well optimised, but this does seem like it needed more optimisation work.

 

[adamsapple]

Vgtech's video is late, XSX performing better on this was known since DF comparison analysis a while ago. Since then PS5 came out on top in a couple of titles such as COD MW 3 and WRC. So yeah, the usual state of affairs continues. Each system has its occasional 'wins', usually by slight margins. A balanced picture as expected from evenly matched systems.

Debatable.

MW3, per NXGamer, runs better on SX in the 120hz mode.
WRC, DF didn't note any difference in performance between PS5/SX and Series S was noted as having better performance than either of them.

VGTech's video is 'late' but it is also a patched version of the game, we haven't had any follow ups on either of the above examples after their post-launch patches.

 

[Vergil1992]

Vgtech's video is late, XSX performing better on this was known since DF comparison analysis a while ago. Since then PS5 came out on top in a couple of titles such as COD MW 3 and WRC. So yeah, the usual state of affairs continues. Each system has its occasional 'wins', usually by slight margins. A balanced picture as expected from evenly matched systems.

If in COD it is a victory that PS5 remains at 60fps in a single area where in XSX it works at 60fps with some drops to 59fps, I don't even want to imagine what a consistent difference of 10fps is then like in Alan Wake 2.


Seriously, those "victories" are unrealistic. They are two versions that work in a practically identical way. COD MW3 works exactly the same in terms of resolution and framerate, they just found one area where it was slightly more stable on PS5.

WRC a similar story: same resolution, framerate and visual quality. The only real difference is that the shadows on XSS and XSX are the same.


In both cases you could say that they are indistinguishable versions from each other, and we don't even know if something could have changed after the updates (no one would do another analysis because there is a 1-2fps difference), and the difference is nothing more than a anecdote. In Alan Wake 2 there is a much larger difference and after several patches, the performance gap has not decreased.


It is also curious that you have omitted The Talos Principle, which shows an advantage of XSX over PS5 that is also more significant than in the two you have mentioned (although to be fair, it is not a difference like in AW2):





In short, COD or WRC are essentially versions with extremely similar performance. It is as if in a race two runners reach the finish line almost at the same time but by a few thousandths of a second one of them wins. In the case of Alan Wake 2 it is as if the slowest runner arrived 10 seconds later. You could also have included AC: Mirage which runs at a higher minimum resolution and with some higher quality alpha effects on XSX compared to PS5. I agree that victories on one side or the other is what would be expected from such similar systems. But it doesn't seem fair to me to give an example of a game that works practically the same, with a marginal difference between versions, with another that is running 10fps ahead of 1/3 of the game.


Edit:


Adamsapple's interesting note. COD: MW3 in 120fps mode according to NXGamer has an advantage on XSX. It's strange that you omit this when you sometimes give it the same or more credibility than Digital Foundry. In any case, and taking into account only DF's analysis, if there is a PS5 victory here it could be defined as marginal. We are talking about that in a specific area of the game on PS5 it remains at 60fps and on Xbox Series X it is having small drops to 59fps for a second. It's okay to give a small victory for being marginally more consistent to PS5 here, even leaving aside the nuance of NX Gamer, but it's not comparable to the case of Alan Wake 2.

In COD, the framerate is locked to 60fps for 99.99999% of the game. Even in areas where there are drops to the mid-50fps , the framerate drops are the same on both systems. Example:

 

[adamsapple]

Although PS5 has had the most attention this generation, meaning most games have used the PS5 as the lead platform, for this game in particular, the PC was the lead platform, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Funny that you bring that up and it's very telling.

Well you can infer as you wish. Never said it was 100%

The game was formally revealed at the playstation showcase this year (aside from the original announcement at TGA a couple of years ago) and even today Sam Lake wrote a blog on the playstation blog about it, I think it's safe to say playstation was the lead platform.

 

[Darsxx82]

The game was formally revealed at the playstation showcase this year (aside from the original announcement at TGA a couple of years ago) and even today Sam Lake wrote a blog on the playstation blog about it, I think it's safe to say playstation was the lead platform.

The game was formally revealed at the playstation showcase this year (aside from the original announcement at TGA a couple of years ago) and even today Sam Lake wrote a blog on the playstation blog about it, I think it's safe to say playstation was the lead platform.

The first gameplay of the game was shown on PS5 and Remedy only mentioned the PS5 version on their tweets. Of course, at least it was the reference console version.

That said, I think that in the case of Alan Wake 2 it is a lighter situation if you compare it to the cases of 3rdParty games with full marketing for PS5 and that Sony sold and promoted as if it were an exclusive. Let's recall: Callisto Protocol, Hogwarts Legacy, Elden Ring... and we already know how they were launched on XSX .

PS.Avatar is in these group of games with total marketing rigth under PS also. I'm interested to know what the status of the XSX version is like on launch day. I hope not as bad as in those cases.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

its odd how when a small detail is better on PS5, it´s a non issue or difference.

reeks of old green rat bullshit, no bother goin on the ol back n forth

 

[TxKnight7]

Rare miss. Most games perform better on PS5 but makes sense since this comes from a formerly exclusive franchise

Add to them
plague tale requiem
the quarry
Hitman 3
Crysis games
Bright Memory Infinite
Etc

 

[Gaiff]

its odd how when a small detail is better on PS5, it´s a non issue or difference.

reeks of old green rat bullshit, no bother goin on the ol back n forth

You best be trolling. The pendulum swings both ways.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Add to them
plague tale requiem
the quarry
Hitman 3
Crysis games
Bright Memory Infinite
Etc

Yep sometimes Xbox gets it

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Vgtech's video is late, XSX performing better on this was known since DF comparison analysis a while ago. Since then PS5 came out on top in a couple of titles such as COD MW 3 and WRC. So yeah, the usual state of affairs continues. Each system has its occasional 'wins', usually by slight margins. A balanced picture as expected from evenly matched systems.

I don't know why people can't just call it a wash. Even when there's a difference it ain't 1080p to 900 or 720p like we saw on the base systems last gen

 

[Vergil1992]

Add to them
plague tale requiem
the quarry
Hitman 3
Crysis games
Bright Memory Infinite
Etc

There's a little bit of everything. Small victories for a PS5, XSX or something very "balanced". For example, there are games that have slightly higher resolution in XSX but also worse performance, this for me would be a tie (Cyberpunk, Need for Speed Unbound, Metro Exodus)...

There are also games that score small victories by the slimmest of margins, like COD MW3 on PS5, or Star Wars: Jedi Survivor on XSX.

From everything I've seen and read, I think the ones that truly show SIGNIFICANT differences, i.e. resolution differences of 20% or more, or 20% higher performance metrics, or better graphics settings for too much of a difference (considering that both hardware are equal)...

On PS5, we have Hogwarts Legacy, Callisto Protocol, Elden Rings, GhostWire Tokyo, Assassin Creed Valhalla... which are clearly better versions on PS5, some were even (I understand that Callisto is essentially identical today, even the RT reflections ).

On Xbox Series X, there are several that show big differences as well. A Plague Tale Requiem, Alan Wake 2, Resident Evil 3, Bright Memory Infinite...


But the narrative that "multis are usually better on PS5" that I see on the forum seems very misguided to me. There are many games that have gone more "unnoticed" (some because they are only new generation patches) but they were clear victories for XSX, in some cases not because of big differences like the ones I mentioned before, but because of bigger differences than, for example, COD MW3 that others have mentioned. Many examples come to mind: Far Cry 6, Call of Duty MW2, Alan Wake Remaster, Doom Eternal, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dying Light 2, Resident Evil 8, The Quarry, Witcher 3 next-gen, The Talos Principle, A Plague Tale Innocence, Deathloop, Outriders... there are quite a few that have some resolution or performance advantage, but generally when it is PS5 that has the advantage, more noise is made, I suppose due to its "inferior" specifications.


For example, GhostWire Tokyo has a much worse version on Xbox, but for some reason the fact that Deathloop was better on Xbox by +10fps in some modes doesn't usually matter that much on the forum. However, dropping one more frame on Xbox in a specific area automatically makes the PS5 a "victorious" version. It's amazing.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I think PS5 is really the technological "winner" of this generation of consoles, I don't want to be misunderstood. Despite having slightly inferior hardware, it has managed to match the XSX in most games, and in many it surpasses them. They are the two most equal consoles in history and I do not doubt the great design of I/0, the choice of high frequencies over CUs can be beneficial in many cases, etc. In that sense, the victory has been clearly and resoundingly for PS5, especially after there were people who firmly believed that we were going to see cases like 4K on XSX and 1440p on PS5. But we also have to be fair, and I think it's fair to point out two important facts: I think Xbox Series S is holding back Series X, not because of its power, but because of having to optimize for two platforms with different bandwidth and amount of memory, XSX is really being hampered by one of the two is not correctly optimized (or both!), and we see how they sometimes coincide in shadows (or textures) when on PS5 they do not (although this could be related to the API), and the other fact is that PS5 has some more developer-friendly development tools.

As someone who owns both an XSX and a PS5, I have to admit that I am shocked at how much parity there is between the two consoles, when the XSX should have an advantage. When there is an advantage, its usually something like 1600p vs 1800p.

 

[MasterCornholio]

There's a little bit of everything. Small victories for a PS5, XSX or something very "balanced". For example, there are games that have slightly higher resolution in XSX but also worse performance, this for me would be a tie (Cyberpunk, Need for Speed Unbound, Metro Exodus)...

There are also games that score small victories by the slimmest of margins, like COD MW3 on PS5, or Star Wars: Jedi Survivor on XSX.

From everything I've seen and read, I think the ones that truly show SIGNIFICANT differences, i.e. resolution differences of 20% or more, or 20% higher performance metrics, or better graphics settings for too much of a difference (considering that both hardware are equal)...

On PS5, we have Hogwarts Legacy, Callisto Protocol, Elden Rings, GhostWire Tokyo, Assassin Creed Valhalla... which are clearly better versions on PS5, some were even (I understand that Callisto is essentially identical today, even the RT reflections ).

On Xbox Series X, there are several that show big differences as well. A Plague Tale Requiem, Alan Wake 2, Resident Evil 3, Bright Memory Infinite...


But the narrative that "multis are usually better on PS5" that I see on the forum seems very misguided to me. There are many games that have gone more "unnoticed" (some because they are only new generation patches) but they were clear victories for XSX, in some cases not because of big differences like the ones I mentioned before, but because of bigger differences than, for example, COD MW3 that others have mentioned. Many examples come to mind: Far Cry 6, Call of Duty MW2, Alan Wake Remaster, Doom Eternal, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dying Light 2, Resident Evil 8, The Quarry, Witcher 3 next-gen, The Talos Principle, A Plague Tale Innocence, Deathloop, Outriders... there are quite a few that have some resolution or performance advantage, but generally when it is PS5 that has the advantage, more noise is made, I suppose due to its "inferior" specifications.


For example, GhostWire Tokyo has a much worse version on Xbox, but for some reason the fact that Deathloop was better on Xbox by +10fps in some modes doesn't usually matter that much on the forum. However, dropping one more frame on Xbox in a specific area automatically makes the PS5 a "victorious" version. It's amazing.

I think it's time to stop thinking there's a massive difference between the two. People just need to accept the two are very well designed consoles and you can't go wrong with either. And that's despite the sales advantage the PS5 has.

 

[Gaiff]

There's a little bit of everything. Small victories for a PS5, XSX or something very "balanced". For example, there are games that have slightly higher resolution in XSX but also worse performance, this for me would be a tie (Cyberpunk, Need for Speed Unbound, Metro Exodus)...

There are also games that score small victories by the slimmest of margins, like COD MW3 on PS5, or Star Wars: Jedi Survivor on XSX.

From everything I've seen and read, I think the ones that truly show SIGNIFICANT differences, i.e. resolution differences of 20% or more, or 20% higher performance metrics, or better graphics settings for too much of a difference (considering that both hardware are equal)...

On PS5, we have Hogwarts Legacy, Callisto Protocol, Elden Rings, GhostWire Tokyo, Assassin Creed Valhalla... which are clearly better versions on PS5, some were even (I understand that Callisto is essentially identical today, even the RT reflections ).

On Xbox Series X, there are several that show big differences as well. A Plague Tale Requiem, Alan Wake 2, Resident Evil 3, Bright Memory Infinite...


But the narrative that "multis are usually better on PS5" that I see on the forum seems very misguided to me. There are many games that have gone more "unnoticed" (some because they are only new generation patches) but they were clear victories for XSX, in some cases not because of big differences like the ones I mentioned before, but because of bigger differences than, for example, COD MW3 that others have mentioned. Many examples come to mind: Far Cry 6, Call of Duty MW2, Alan Wake Remaster, Doom Eternal, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dying Light 2, Resident Evil 8, The Quarry, Witcher 3 next-gen, The Talos Principle, A Plague Tale Innocence, Deathloop, Outriders... there are quite a few that have some resolution or performance advantage, but generally when it is PS5 that has the advantage, more noise is made, I suppose due to its "inferior" specifications.


For example, GhostWire Tokyo has a much worse version on Xbox, but for some reason the fact that Deathloop was better on Xbox by +10fps in some modes doesn't usually matter that much on the forum. However, dropping one more frame on Xbox in a specific area automatically makes the PS5 a "victorious" version. It's amazing.

99% of those threads end up making console warriors look like that Simpsons meme where two monkeys are about to fight each other and everyone else around them cheers.

There are differences worth discussing such as this one or A Plague Tale or Callisto Protocol but when one console has lows of 58fps vs 59fps for the other, it's nothing short of comical to watch system warriors go at it for over 5 pages trying to claim a "win". What is very consistent between both parties however is how if you bring PC into the mix, then suddenly max settings vs medium makes no difference and ray tracing is pointless, as is 120fps that so claimed is a minimal difference over 60fps (not even joking). Oh, and let's not forget that you need a $2000 PC to match consoles.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

You best be trolling. The pendulum swings both ways.

Of course.. I just see more of the green folk doing that.

I´ve got the popcorn ready though, off topic but John from DF is about to drop the GT vs Forza video