Yeah it came out on launch for both consoles. 10th and 12th.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Digital Foundry: Assassin's Creed Valhalla: PS5 vs Xbox Series X/ Series S Next-Gen Comparison!
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
I demand a teraflop recount!
OT: lol honestly, long term, these two systems will perform very close to each other. Any sensible person even without a tech background would have told you this. Heck, devs told people this. But there was SO much fud by fanboys and ms media fanboys about PS5 capabilities leading up the system launch. That does make this hilarious. BUt yeah long term the differences won't be much I reckon with both systems doing better in some areas and worse in others.
My point is that many people preferred to listen to these unreliable people instead people who really knows how both software and hardware in these consoles are working. Jason was the first to report for example that Xbox was late, but many didn't believe simply because they showed the box and the concept trailer for Hellblade first.
Loading times performance is not a good way to judge the disparity between SSD's because we don't have data on the amount of assets these games are actually putting into memory. Anyway, the biggest feature about PS5 SSD is not the fact that you can load scenes at fast pace, it's the fact that you can keep only 1 second of next gameplay sequence on memory.
Sure, it's a 40% difference in resolution but at the same time it was rendering some buffers at 4K as opposed to 1440p on Pro, and there were improvements in other areas of the visuals. I haven't checked frame time graphs but the article doesn't suggest the One X is struggling there compared to PS4 Pro either.
There seemed to be an issue or bug in resolution scaling but nothing suggested the One X version was performing 40% worse than Pro. The issue with XSX right now isn't the same as a one-off bug in a single game impacting scaling, instead it's actually underperforming across a series of games. Keep in mind I'm not saying bugs don't impact performance but this is more fundamental than that.
I guess that's what happens when journalism gets confused with PR.
If only Microsoft stayed silent and let the games speak instead of trying to FUD the PS5 for months on hardware power even recently with the "full RDNA2" stuff, their (now evidently false) claim on twitter that AC would be best on XSX (!!), not to mention all the help they got from their friends in the press and certain toxic fans of theirs to spread misinformation about PS5, now that reality is here and PS5 is performing better in multiplatform releases things wouldn't have backfired for them in this way (and that's right when it matters, when the consoles are finally out).
Btw it's good to see that both consoles are equally capable (like btw most developers had already suggested).
Btw it's good to see that both consoles are equally capable (like btw most developers had already suggested).
Different dev team. Different engine. How could it be a Ubisoft issue?
So you are admitting that there is no difference? Despite saying earlier that there was an obvious difference?Your image is super low-res. I'll assume you're talking about the face/textures. The clothing is identical here, and has DOF applied to it, so texture resolution can't be compared.
Here's an HD grab from both. I can switch them around randomly, and no-one would be able to identify which is which, haha. There's no noticeable difference in this example.
There is one SUPER annoying thing in NMS texture pop-in on the ground is so damn annoying in the game, and happens on both XSX and PS5.
Which leads to say that particular scene prob had some kind of bug lol.
That's a fair point, but I think it's more a problem for Microsoft (and more specifically Microsoft's marketing team) then it is Ubisoft. I would not be surprised if the PS version of the game sold better than the Xbox version.
Needless to say, I would expect Ubi to iron out the performance issues over time while they work on the inevitable DLC.
Not sure games like Valhalla or even Cyberpunk which where clearly designed with PS4 and XBOX One in mind (see loading times) tell us the whole story.
That said, my avatar tells the whole story which of the three console I'll be getting tomorrow :).
That said, my avatar tells the whole story which of the three console I'll be getting tomorrow :).
There will certainly be refinements on Sony's side, but there will be significantly more refinements on Microsoft's side. The Series X will likely be outperforming the PS5 at the end of the gen, we'll see some slight resolution advantages that could be widened due to DirectML, though framerates on both are likely to be very similar due to them having a basically identical CPU. However, there is no doubt that currently, the PS5 is the superior machine and I'm glad that I went with the PS5 this console launch.
What we see in DMC5 looks *exactly* like a bug to me. The area the Xbox Series X performs worst in at performance mode has nothing on screen accounting for why it would be a performance bottleneck, when the generally 'heavier' cutscenes run faster. That scene with the door opening in this game, where the game has a repeatable performance drop... does that really look like the most stressful scene in all the footage here? Because to me it absolutely doesn't.
Its a 23% drop from 60. But again, it only happens at specific moments right?
The way this thread has gone you'd have thought the series X was consistently running at around 45 FPS.
As someone playing it on the XSX, I'll just say the tearing is really only noticeable during *some* cutscenes (just like the DF team said). People making a mountain out of a molehill. And I say this as someone who HATES screen tearing. I'm the type to always put Vsync on, to hell with input lag if it means I don't get tearing. So yeah.
Am I the only one who is bummed that we still aren't getting full 4K/60fps in games on these new consoles? I'm hoping once we get out of this cross-gen phase, things will start to be more optimized for the new hardware.
Am I the only one who is bummed that we still aren't getting full 4K/60fps in games on these new consoles? I'm hoping once we get out of this cross-gen phase, things will start to be more optimized for the new hardware.
NGL, the first time I saw that video, I let it play as a bit of joke laughing at myself in the beginning. But effin' hell, I nearly listened to the whole damn thing! It is akin to a knowledge dropping lullaby.
Both their titles are not where they should be on XSX (seemingly). They are using the same devkit. But, perhaps I should have mentioned the caveat that that was just a speculation given the enormous horsepower XSX objectively possesses.
Series X is the more powerful machine regardless of how you cut it. But theres more to getting a game to run than just the hardware.
The promise (that it seems to fall short of) was that it would run the game at the same framerate as the XSX but lower res.
Good lord. Now this is getting fun.
This is why you don't wrap-up your identify in the graphical performance of your platform of choice folks.
honestly this just kills any chance xbox had of getting back up there with playstation if things don't change fast. no one is ever going to consider one over ps5 now. This will really hurt them. someone needs to explain what's going on quickly or they just look bad to the public.
It will be extremely interesting to watch Series S throughout the gen. When developers really start pushing the other two will there be big framerate differences? Also, if a developer is targeting 1440p 30FPS on the Series X will Series S even be able to hit 900p on that same title? The value proposition tumbles by a lot if it can't keep the same performance.
LMAO at some of the hyperbole in here. I guess we shall see how things shake out once dev tools on the X and S mature over the next year
There is an obvious difference in some clothing textures in like for like moments. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, there's an obvious difference in some scenes. There is no major difference in textures (like the faces) in most scenes.
I literally pointed out there are differences in some places, but not in others. It's a possible bug. Yes, there are obvious differences in what I posted the first time. No there aren't major differences in the face textures in the second comparison.
Why are you acting like pointing out differences in one scene, and no difference in another is some kind of contradiction? 🤣 It is what it is.
To Dictator and Dark1x, just want to thank you both for this incredibly in-depth and detailed analysis. You covered so many different bases and aspects, with a great selection of example scenes and attention to detail. I can only imagine how much time and effort went into it.
On a side note, I'm glad you covered the weird Series X cutscene stutter issue too. At first I thought it was just frame drops or something, but it seems you're saying it's a weird camera skipping issue. Either way, the cutscene judder and tearing are both distracting.
On a side note, I'm glad you covered the weird Series X cutscene stutter issue too. At first I thought it was just frame drops or something, but it seems you're saying it's a weird camera skipping issue. Either way, the cutscene judder and tearing are both distracting.
So the Series X just happens to have version specific bugs across all these games that tanks performance but the PS5 is bug free?
DMCV shows that there are elements of its rendering that favour Series X at lower frames but PS5 enjoys an advantage at 120fps. The other comparisons we have show better overall PS5 performance so right now there's evidence of something wrong with the Series X. What that is we don't know but it's not looking like an unfortunate string of game specific bugs.
With a 60fps target, the only time you can see a difference in performance is when a frame takes longer than 16.6667ms to render. That's where we see the dips inflame rate. When both consoles are running at a smooth 60fps it doesn't mean that their performance is actually equivalent - it just means that the difference is not visible. One could be rendering the frame in 10ms while the other takes 13ms, and you wouldn't be able to tell. The distinction might seem academic given that they're producing the same visual result in this instance, but it's probably not a good idea to think of them as equal performers even in this situation. After all, it means one has more overhead than the other that a developer could use for additional draw distance, or effects, or higher quality materials rendering.
You should see their next tweet where they quote some fanboy on the Machine Learning on XSX to equal performance gains with DLSS on a Nvidia 2080 LMAO.
I get the feeling that this thread is going to be fun to read in a couple of years once we are full swing into next-gen and not comparing ports in a pandemic
Already posted ? Not mine btw
But can I get it on a t-shirt?
MS is working on it, i'm sure they're having a real good laugh about all this.
You were trying to suggest there is a difference in textures across the board, even doubting the dynamic res. If there was a difference in texture quality, then it would be visible all over the place, but that's not the case. The game clearly has DRS, and it's going to differ from scene to scene.
Quite odd on the Xbox side, as I consistently get 55-60 fps on average on PC (I am playing at 1080p, mind you), and that's with Valhalla completely maxed out. I'll parrot what several others have said here: This likely comes down to a need of patching, and the dev tools, while not being completely foreign and new, are still new, and that takes time to nail down. I'm sure that after a patch, we'll see much more consistent performance in Valhalla on Series X. The same will likely be said for other titles if the respective devs patch those games also.
I am still perplexed as to why:
- The framerate is capped at 30fps given the near parity in CPU
- The load times being slightly longer on S given not only the said point about CPU but also having to load lower resolution assets compared to X. In fact, this result is not just exclusive to ACV.
Hey! I am already 12 mins into it (all over again) and am enjoying it.
Should be threadmark and that's something the DIRT developer wouldn't be allowed to talk about due to a NDA.
Xbox has dedicated compression hardware as well.
Some users are, while others are not.
This was about BC and I don't see what's the problem with them talking about their advantage and something they are proud of. Should we criticize Sony for mentioning their SSD? I don't think so.
As for their comment about consistent clocks... Well, perhabs this is a dig. But one based on a decision that has some advantages and of course disadvantages. But you won't hear MS and Sony talk about the disadvantages of their choices. I am sure Cerny didn't talk about the advantages of more CU either.
Absolutely. The new SDK is perhabs worthwhile in the long run for their strategy. After all having one SDK for Xbox and PC could be good for their studios as they will have to make PC versions of every game. But short-term it did hurt as we can see here imo.
Fair enough and yes some should believe what reliable sources, even though they were wrong in the past say.
I know, I know. My point was more in the vein of people simply jumping to conclusions here prematurely. The same could be done for the current SSD performance, but as I said those would be silly claims.
Your post doesn't make any sense. It's not FUD that Xbox is the only console with full RDNA2 and some worse performing games don't proof this wrong. What a silly thing to even suggest and by the way it would be illegal to make such a false claim for Microsoft.