If I said before the XSX was released that the XSX version dropped to 1080P you would have laughed at me. I would have laughed at me. It was unacceptable to think that would be the case. You would have been throwing out the DF articles saying how the XSX version was 4k60. Again, if I told you the series S would be doing some games at 720P you would have reacted the same.
Now it is a reality you act like it was totally foreseeable and expected.
What on earth are you on about? Before the console came out I was showing Gears 5 and AC benchmarks to show why a native 4K60 presentation was going to be very rare. So no. And you clearly do not understand dynamic resolution scaling either. On PC now that is becoming the norm in games. But with Gears 5 on virtually any PC you run with the same settings as SX at 4K and you wonât get anything like a locked 60. Thatâs the point - there is no magic going on, a console doesnât disobey the laws of physics.
Gears 5 is an absolutely amazing looking game running beyond the PC spec and outperforming the RTX 2080. Itâs exactly in the power window you expect. Other games on SX are not - Iâd focus on those rather than one performing above any sensible expectation.
Lol. Sure, dynamic 4k you might have expected would have dropped the game down to 1800p, maybe down to 1440p. But to drop down to 1080P, while using VRS mind you which wasnât being used on the PC version, and is stated by MS to give a performance boost of 5-12%, I would not expect it to drop that low, and neither would you have before it was shown to. I game on Xbox, but I am willing to say what I think is poor from MS. This launch has been really poor. No Halo, no exclusives, underperforming hardware. I think it will get better, but now Iâm not running around stupid trying to find a couple of series x consoles to buy. Iâm happy to keep using our One Xs until MS give me a reason to change over.
The whole point of DRS is to ensure you stay locked to the framerate target. The lower bound is 1080p on one X and series X so again I would absolutely have expected that to be the case given the introduction of extremely demanding global illumination. The problem with just plucking numbers out for gears 5 or just about any game is you arenât telling the story. Gears 5 runs on SX better than it does on PC. It has higher settings than it does on PC. Itâs a spectacular presentation. If you want it to be native 4K the game will look worse. As it stands it renders at an average of something like 1728p and looks probably two generations better than it would if you rendered at 4K.
You can keep trying to be selective but itâs pointless. The benchmarks exist we know what reality is. A game like ACV absolutely I think the series X is not performing where youâd expect looking at PC benchmarks. Itâs not miles away either but clearly there is a little room to get to there. But focus on instances where itâs not hitting RTX 2080 performance rather than where it is.
The differences are so small I barely see the point in talking about it. I really like my seriesX, the quick resume and visual improvements are great, but its getting to the point where I want something different to games that we have been playing the last 7 years.
It was 4k60 before they started going above ultra. Not even a 2080ti can lock this game at 60fps in ultra 4k. Itâs unreasonable to hold SX to such standards.
Also are you sure that it dropped to 1080p? From the video I got the impression that Coalition told DF it was the least resolution it could go (as in the hard-coded bottom) but they never actually got a count that low.
Interesting, the PS5 settings seems to perform like an a RTX 2080. Alex should of tested a 5700xt though as Nvidia cards perform badly, but judging by the standard 5700 performs about 20% worse then the PS5 the 5700xt may perform like a PS5 which is what I expected from PS5 in rasterized games. This is a pretty strong indicator that theres a pretty significant issue with software of dev time time with the SeriesX version. I dont see how its its possible for a 12tflop RDNA GPU to perform worse then a 10tf RDNA 5700XT.
I mean whatâs telling is all cards performed almost exactly down to their teraflop expected performance. The only outlier is the Series X. So something is going on there that is down to API performance is my guess. Has to be software.
Yep since cyberpunk2077 is a backwards compatible title i assume that it still will perform better on series x just going off of backwards compatible but who knows i wouldnât care about performance as long as its a stable performance
I have been waiting for this video from DF in order to get our first glimpse as to what is going on with the Series X.
First we need to take a slight caveat that this is only one game,and a launch game at that, but it is a decent first insight.
The PS5 seems to be doing what it should be in terms of raw compute, and that is around 5700XT performance - if the 5700XT performs what is to be expected when compared to the 5700. In fact you can have a whole discussion as to whether the much higher clocks are enabling the PS5 to punch above its weight - this example seems to indicate no.
The Series X on the other hand is punching below its weight: The Series X has more raw compute, more bandwidth, is based on more advanced architecture with pretty much the same clocks and yet is arguably performing slightly worse than what the 5700XT should perform. So yeah, something is definitely up with the Series X software environment, or developers just didnât have enough time with the hardware.
I think its naive on both fronts to think the Series X would obliterate everything from the gate or that the PS5 would not be a quality machine and lagging behind.
Both are massive jumps in quality over the previous gen and might fine devices. Its been 1 month and it feels like a lifetime with all this pixel counting.
This pic is useful
Yes, very good points you make, although PS5 can improve, ACs performance for the time being puts to bed the theories that âPS5 performance is more then the on paper tflopsâ and as you say the so called higher clock speed âadvantageâ
On the seriesX it has to be a software issue, unless Microsoft purposefully gimped there tflops to be less performant then standard RDNA.
Naive ? If MS selling Graphics Card and deliver this performance then it will be shitted on 24/7⌠this excuses you will only find it in consoles space
The truth is that the PS5 is performing as expected (5700xt in rasterized games and 2060s in Raytracing games) but the seriesX is performing considerably below its hardware. Even if AMD release a PC gpu with exact same specs as the SeriesXâs gpu it would performe better then a 5700xt, just look at the performance delta between the 5700 and 5700xt and those cards both have the same 448gbps ram bandwidth, so the difference between the 5700xt and seriesX calibre GPU should be even bigger.
high clocks did actually give PS5 36CU %15-%20 boost and on the other hand MS played it safe with Clocks XSX Can easily handle 2000Mhz and Series S should be higher
Not in a AC:V they didnât, maybe if a dev taylor makes a games with the PS5 high (but variable) clocks in mind they can extract more performance, but theres a reason why higher clock rates have never given PC hardware which have equal tflops an advantage
yeah that is true but XSX can Handle 2000MHz without variable or Smartshift tech.
Series S should have been 1700MHz or 1800Mhz
Not trying to be rude but I dont know what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
I hate to be rude but he just be posting nonsense.
iâm just saying high clocks did give boost for 36CU GPU it doesnât matter if it was %5 or %15. Sony pushed their GPU to the limit.
When you look at RDNA 2 cards all of them have high base clocks and boost clocks only Xbox consoles played it safe with clocks.
