Aye. It's a crossgen game that most probably doesnt push any of the consoles in significant ways. None of em are punching above its weight.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry: Assassin's Creed Valhalla Patch 1.0.4 - PS5 vs Xbox Series X/ Series S - Has Frame-Rate Improved?
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
Trust Ubisoft to "solve" performance problems by just switching features off & downgrading visual features/resolution.
Pretty shocking that the new consoles are struggling to run a last gen game; even with (very minor) upgrades.
Ubisoft's engine is clearly buggered.
Pretty shocking that the new consoles are struggling to run a last gen game; even with (very minor) upgrades.
Ubisoft's engine is clearly buggered.
What that patch show is that the is just Ubisoft being Ubisoft. I don't believe this is reflective of what the consoles can do, but I do believe this is just both consoles dealing with a shitty port and that one is dealing better than the other.
I mean we have SM:R and SM:MM, both with 60fps/30fps/open world that looks way better than this game. And they didn't have to drop to near 1080p rez to maintain 60fps.
There is also COD too, which has a 60fps mode with RT and a 120fps mode. No... Ubisoft is just shit at optimizing. I don't know how they pulled off Seige...
Your earlier posts kinda implied that the CPU will be running on cache basically all the time and I say...well, maybe? I haven't taken a deep dive into the Zen 2 cache architecture and I'm sure it is WAY better than what we had in previous generations but I'm sure you'll still have to architect your data structures to try to avoid cache misses. I'd argue that the point of the caches is to prevent the CPU from stalling and not necessarily minimizing memory bandwidth usage, which is kind of a subtle difference. But imagine if you had a way to perfectly prefetch data to warm the caches and you knew exactly what you were going to access before you got there... You could use considerable memory bandwidth depending on what you're doing (you'd still be loading lots of data from RAM and evicting it from the cache when you were done with it) but the CPU would never cache miss and stall if you did it right.
Also I think you mean GB and not MB at the end there... The CPU touching less than 1MB/frame seems a bit low for next gen, and if you meant 50GB/sec while much less than the GPU that's not nothing...
I think Era has this habit of over-reacting.
This is not shocking at all...this is Ubisoft, there s not a single thing in this game that they have do better than anyone. or everything they have done, we have an example of other games from other devs that does it better. Eg? 60fps mode, we haveSM, DS, Sackboy, COD that all have done that better. And one of those games even uses RT. Loading? Their game loads on the PS5 in18 secs? SM, DS, Sackboy, all loading under 3-6 seconds.
This is clearly not these next gen consoles struggling...its Ubisoft being a shit dev when it comes to optimizing hardware. hell, look at the game running on the PC.
This is why I simply refuse to buy Ubisoft games. Let's call spadea spade.
Pump the brakes a bit. AC:V is a launch crossgen title with SHIT TONS of bugs, game breaking glitches... making any sort of judgement is far too soon. Hell, there are games that run and look better than AC:V currently.
the game also "magically" found 5-6 extra fps on NV cards on PC thanks to the patch.
Many consumers are digital only anyway. So they are able to get their next gen console for $399 and have performance parity to $499 dollar consoles!
It's crazy.
Well, Gears5 ran at 60 on XBX so it's hardly surprising that it can run at 60 on a new console. And while they did make some graphical improvements there it's nothing substantial.
As for Demons Souls - and risking to get a lot of angry fan replies here - it's running at 1440p in 60 fps mode, no? And while it looks okay it is very much a current gen game graphically. From everything I've seen from it it could probably just as well run on PS4 just in lower resolution - and I think that it actually will at some point. So again not really a showcase for next gen graphics, more of a showcase on how well the new consoles can run current gen games IMO.
This is also what I've been saying for at least a year now - new consoles will be able to output 60 fps for sure but achieving this will actually eat up most of their processing power gain over the previous generation and as a result we would end up with previous gen graphics but running in 60 fps. All games which hit 60 (and even 120 in case of DMC5/COD - which were 60 on old consoles already) show this pretty well thus far. And the performance and resolution issues like those with ACV kinda support this too.
That's a fair point and yeah, there are a lot of optimizations which could be added on newer h/w to make the games run even faster. But still I don't think that it's realistic to expect something like AC game from 2025 to run with full on RT and such and in 60 fps while keeping with the same resolution targets as these of ACV.
The difference between the outgoing gen and the new one is that the new one is very close to the outgoing one while the PS4/XBO gen was a huge h/w change from PS3/360. Thus the amount of optimizations which can extract more performance from PS5/XSX will likely be smaller this time around.
That was not my point. Ubisoft will be Ubisoft in 2025 too.
Sure but both are cross gen games too and both are falling back to 30 with RT enabled already, aren't they?
There are more examples to consider than ACV alone already. All of them point into the direction of next gen likely moving back into 30 fps performance once we'll actually move to next gen graphics from current crossgen titles.
5-6%, a couple of fps. Don't see how this is relevant tbh since the game's issue on PC is its CPU pipeline. NV cards aren't even what's limiting the game's performance on PC at the moment.
The next-gen promise is (X)fps and double (X)fps. So basically you either have games that run at 30fps and also have a 60fps mode and games that run at 60fps and also have a 120fpsmode. And that has more to do with the CPU than the GPU. Basically, I expect every/most current-gen(next-gen)console to have a fidelity and performance setting. And that's good enough for me for what are 10TF machines. I don't know what you or anyone else was expecting. That we even get 60/120fps modes in these machines is mind-blowing to me.
and I don't et hat you are really getting at...have you senPCGPUs running RT based games without DLSS?
Unless developers take a stance and focus on 60FPS, no amount of power will prevent this from happening. This is not a hardware problem. It's a developers choice to go after 60,120,240FPS.
I can feel that the resolution takes a big hit to maintain 60fps in a lot of situations on SX. Ill take performance over image quality in most cases but it doesnt feel very next gen when youre hitting the low resolutions.
Id still prefer more flexibility in terms of settings rather than only deciding between locked 30 and locked 60.
Id still prefer more flexibility in terms of settings rather than only deciding between locked 30 and locked 60.
dgrdsv
As a reminder this is how cross gen AC looked on PS3 vs PS4. A difference yes, but not insanely big.
www.eurogamer.net
I think the gap is definitely closer this time around due to Xbox One X and PS4 Pro graphically. Furthermore those developers on PS5/Xbox had more platforms than ever to port their games to and covid happened. I think games in 2021 like Battlefield will deliver the goods and give us the 2013 Killzone/Ryse moment back.
Don't get me wrong, DS and Spiderman look amazing on PS5. But I wasn't as blown away as I was when I first saw Ryse/Killzone running live, which looked way beyond everything else including other launch titles. Having said that I think the biggest change will come next gen from world interactive and how dynamic the world's are. Add to that stuff like dimensions in Ratchet and then you got yourself a next gen moment. I can only speak for myself, but I am more excited about this gen than I was for the PS4/Xbox One gen.
As a reminder this is how cross gen AC looked on PS3 vs PS4. A difference yes, but not insanely big.
Next-Gen Face-Off: Assassin's Creed 4
Last-gen AC4 meets Wii U, PC, PS4 and Xbox One versions in a mammoth six-format comparison.
www.eurogamer.net
I think the gap is definitely closer this time around due to Xbox One X and PS4 Pro graphically. Furthermore those developers on PS5/Xbox had more platforms than ever to port their games to and covid happened. I think games in 2021 like Battlefield will deliver the goods and give us the 2013 Killzone/Ryse moment back.
Don't get me wrong, DS and Spiderman look amazing on PS5. But I wasn't as blown away as I was when I first saw Ryse/Killzone running live, which looked way beyond everything else including other launch titles. Having said that I think the biggest change will come next gen from world interactive and how dynamic the world's are. Add to that stuff like dimensions in Ratchet and then you got yourself a next gen moment. I can only speak for myself, but I am more excited about this gen than I was for the PS4/Xbox One gen.
And MS, some media outlets and many users hyped Series X for months, while doubting Cerny's approach. But all that was pure speculation, and while i agree that it is too early to draw conclusions, it is also true that we have a few games on both platforms that do perform marginally better on PS5, which was the contrary to the most prevalent belief, so now there's some 'revenge'' from the PS fans. And at the same time now the 'best multiplaform platform of choice' has also vanished and having certain % of lower resolution is a no issue anymore :P
They checked like only the first 2-3 hours and noticed worse performance during the intro. I doubt, the game in its current state performs as it did with patch 1.0.2 later on.
Your link doesn't work for me.
As someone who has spent a fair amount of time fixing code to try to reduce cache misses I hope you're right but you'll have to forgive me until I profile something and see for myself...
Are you referring to the PS fanboy on twitter or did we get confirmation from a trustworthy source on this?
I remember when we were happy to see AC4 running on PS4 launch at rock solid 30fps compared to what we were seeing the generation before.
This game, as well as many cross gen games ....are on what, 7 or 8 platforms ? It launched at 60fps target and within weeks its now a pretty consistent 60fps game on all 3 next gen platforms .
I wouldnt say they are a shit dev. Seems like a ton of work and with covid and all I wouldnt say this is a bad job at all . Its pretty impressive imo .
I'm bored and want to check out this game even though my PS5/SX console's haven't even been shipped to me.
Can I buy the game on PS4 Pro and keep playing on PS5? Will I play the game in back-compat mode or will it be the 4k/60fps version? I read somewhere that there is cross-platform saves either way, but I guess PS+ covers that.
Can I buy the game on PS4 Pro and keep playing on PS5? Will I play the game in back-compat mode or will it be the 4k/60fps version? I read somewhere that there is cross-platform saves either way, but I guess PS+ covers that.
Well it's not a good start for MS to be honest. For MS they care less because it's not about hardware but GamePass subs. But for us we like to compare hardware. At the moment XSX is looking a little impotent. MS didn't come out swinging and had no showcase or tent pole games.
Also the sales figures we're hearing have PS5 blitzing XSX again.
I'll take 1080@60 any day over 4K@30
I'd assume the cross platform cloud saves will take care of you as far as that goes and the game does have a free next gen upgrade so you should be good to go.
This was always bound to happen, because PS is the more popular brand. As I recall both are sold out tho and DF results don't matter in the grand scheme for consoles sold imo. I agree Xbox didn't came out swinging, thought.
Last edited:
I don't mean to knock the herculean effort they must have made to get their game on all supported platforms. However, why I say Ubisoft is a shit dev, isn't just tied to this one game. Its tied to every (almost) game they make. Their games just never seem to perform as well as whatever games are out there from other devs. I don't know if it's their engine or whatever, but they always seem to be performing 30-50% worse off than everything else. Including and especially on PC.
Oh, COD:CW is also releasing on 8 platforms.
But think about it, with the exception to siege, which other Ubisoft game can you think of that didn't have a myriad of performance or unoptimization issues right off the bat? And mind you, even that one did to at some point. Oh...and they are pretty much the only ones still doing that bullshots(or in their cases bull- trailers)type marketing. Where their games never end up looking anything close to however their first trailer or even in-game playthrough of the game was.
Last edited:
I play Blops Cold War on Series X in cross play with a friend on a Xbox One S and he finds the game phenomenal looking on his 50" 1080p and he has no intentions of upgrading his TV, and I know of several others who laugh at me about upgrading to 4K, saying they don't understand why. Even on Pc a lot of players are still stuck at 1080p for some reason. Series S will look fine for those people who don't need the best or are on a tighter budget.
this is correct. Ubisoft games are not famous for running well on pc. but actually AC performance seems fine on the next gen consoles anyway. So it seems like there's a bit of overreaction
Yeah, PS has so much of the mindshare it seems and this launch was a chance MS had to get it back. That said I remember an interview with Phil Spencer (GameSpot??) where they asked him about not having Halo etc and he said even though it was a bummer, from a business point it doesn't really matter because they are sold out anyway (As you said). Next year will be interesting to see how things go but it always feels like if you don't come out swinging and get into consumer's heads early you struggle for a while. Not forever necessarily (PS3), but for a while.
I just want to see some kickarse looking sexy games on my Series X to see what it can do.
Nothing you said imo makes them a shit dev . I'm not a huge fan of the ubisoft formula but almost everything they put out is gerenally well received and sell well .
While their games may have some performance issues I've never encountered anything as bad as you are saying and tons of games last gen had performance issues as well .
I think saying a developer is shit when they put out solid game after solid game and are quick to fix issues with said games is a little harsh but maybe thats just me .
Your calling of Ubisoft a shit dev is disrespectful and of all the games to choose to compare it to, I wouldn't hang my hat on the game that is bricking consoles with RT enabled. The performance in Valhalla is more than acceptable.
That DF video I watched this morning seems to dispel nearly all the hysteria we have spent 10 pages talking about re: PS5 performance or am I missing something? Seems a shame the XSX has a slightly lower minimum dynamic rez, but it also doesn't seem like a huge deal?
I would sacrifice resolution for better performance and so far is true Series S can have performance parity. Sometimes the sacrifice is big like in AC Valhalla, but I think things will be better when the support for old gen is dropped.
Disrespectful?
Its my opinion of them. And I am entitled to that. I do not buy their games and don't even buy COD either, I talk with my wallet.
I am totally free to think and ay a dev is shit if I think it is. You are free to not agree with me.
I applaud their effort.. doesn't stop me from still thinking that their nd result is still short of the mark.
Here's the thing about the "solid game after solid game" argument. It's subjective. As is my statement that Ubisoft s a shit dev.. it's subjective. To me. And I don't see why I have to defend it. It's my opinion. I didn't always feel this way about them, but since coming into the PS4 gen it's been growing.
And I personally think a lot of people now just kinda accept things and move on, I don't... eg...I am not going to buy TLOU2 until it has a PS5 patch, or Cyberpunk, or FF7R, yeah I am weird like that. And the only thing that would make me buy them absent patch is if they are getting sequels in which case I know they never will get said patch. So to me, ND not having a PS5 patch for TLOU2 is a dick move. But I get it, not everyone thinks that way, but I do, and thats why I won't buy their game till it does. Same way how I have never bought or paid for any kinda mxt in a full-priced game.
Point is, I don't care how you or anyone looks at Ubisoft or their games, I know why I look at them the way I do, and how many bad experiences have had with them. So to me, they are shit. And while my reasons may not be enough for you to call a dev a shit dev, they are enough for me. And I know all games can be buggy or have issues. But that not my issue with Ubisoft games...
Last edited:
It should be done on most titles honestly. I know of a lot of people asking why WD Legion doesn't have a 60fps mode that te movies Raytracing for example. Even lower resolution can become acceptable for a higher fps. I play Blops Cold War at 120fps even though the dynamic resolution is much lower than 4K simply because it's worth the trade off for me. Dynamic 720p is honestly not that bad since it doesn't spend all of its time at that res.
Well you can feel however you want and you don't have to defend yourself , and that's fair . But I think if you call a dev shit then you should expect to be questioned on it.
No hard feelings .
I think the hysteria is a reaction to the apparent misconception that XSX was supposed to show a clear performance advantage over PS5 even at launch. When that didn't manifest, and considering that many seem to see that multiplatform advantage as a defining feature of XB platforms, the community went off the deep end a bit in overreaction. With users needing to justify the purchase of their new $500 box, with no 1st party launch games, and only features and potential to fall back on, the reaction was understandable, but still definitely over the top.
Doesn't it proves that it's 100% performing worse in the opening! In an open world game with 50+ hours and limited DF testing, how are people using this to say those claims about it also performing worse in other situations are unfounded?!
I finally picked this up on Series X, and must say, I'm really impressed with how great this game looks, runs, and feels to play. It plays as smooth as silk.
It's actually probably one of the nicest looking games I've played across both systems. One really noticable aspect, are the incredibly high resolution textures, which is something I'm not seeing in any other titles, even Demon's Souls (which focuses on high poly counts).
It's actually probably one of the nicest looking games I've played across both systems. One really noticable aspect, are the incredibly high resolution textures, which is something I'm not seeing in any other titles, even Demon's Souls (which focuses on high poly counts).
None taken...
I don't mind being asked why I think they are whatever I think they are. It's being told shouldn't think they are what I think they are that I have a problem with.
And right off the top of my head, the three things I dislike about them most...
- Bullshot/bull-trailer marketing. They still do this more than any other dev I can think of. At this point, it's pretty much a guarantee that whatever they showoff a game is not how that game would actually turn out when it's released.I find that super sleazy, and they have made this habit of theirs. This has become so bad from them, that they even do bull-gameplay lol. Like if Ubisoft uses a live gameplay snippet to tease or show a game... DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
- Underperforming ports. Across the board, their games just don't seem to perform as well as how everything else in the industry does. There is just always this middle ground of acceptable performance that their game seems to fall into. And this has also become a habit. And I am not talking about bugs, all gams have bugs. I am talking about persistent performance standards. There is this soulless let's just get it good enough vie about their stuff.
- and this one... I won't go too much into this, but how about I just tell you that the next AC would be in feudal Japan.
Last edited:
The reason it sucks is because the XSX on paper should not be having to have a lower res than a PS5.