-
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 think it's wishful thinking that the Xbox dev tools are behind Sony's. We've already seen a Technical Director respond directly to this question and say that that's not the case.
Also MS is the biggest software company in theworld and creators and owners of DX12. The tools excuse doesn't pass muster, and if MS version gets optimised, PS5's will too by the same degree. The gap is huge though, PS5 is 25% faster performance in some short sections of gameplay.
This is likely both a software and a hardware bottleneck on XsX at play.
I have to say this console generation (and forums) got way more interesting than I thought. Let's be honest, we all like to nitpick about those small differences, especially when it was unexpected.
The One X and PS4 Pro comparisons were boring compared to this ;)
The One X and PS4 Pro comparisons were boring compared to this ;)
I'm not really seeing the 'simplest' part here. Last gen - X1 tools/SDK was in an objectively bad state at launch (not just 'running late') and this barely got any mentions.
In ideal world each mode would be treated as a separate SKU if you wanted optimal experience. In reality - it'll usually be one (or none, as the case may be with DMC) that gets attention and rest is just kind of thrown in.
Anyway Valhalla shipped on 9 SKUs. Taking Series S out would still leave them with 8 - it's unlikely a major contributor in this case.
From Microsoft's perspective a cross platform toolset merging pc and Xbox makes sense. Also for devs eventually. But requiring it for xsx games means a forced migration which may be painful/frustrating vs a relatively more straightforward extension of the previous tools
providing both as parallel options with a migration path may have been a more dev friendly option
providing both as parallel options with a migration path may have been a more dev friendly option
well that would be lovely ;) but would also dilute some of the comments about immature tools? Or that some devs chose the newer ones.. so doesn't really answer anything :D
What on earth is this wording? "PS5 winning in all except 2 out of 3"....so losing in the majority of cases. The mental acrobatics some of you are resorting to...
The performance gap is surprising, but this a launch game developed during a pandemic. All kind of stuff could explain why such an unexpected performance delta occurs. Plus of course the maturity of dev tools, obviously, but that's something which is harder to assess for us plebs players.
Edit: Vid was good, as always with DF.
Edit: Vid was good, as always with DF.
Probably because it was 50% less powerful and not 17% more powerful - so, a large deficit was expected. And X1 did improve from a launch 720p to a regular 900p. Now, of course that didn't stop people from shouting about esram or whatever.
I'm pretty sure Matt's said as much. Also, the tech director said the tools, likely applicable to both consoles, were coming in hot and that some staff was having issue. But that wasn't really mentioned in the thread for some reason - probably because it wasn't a direct comparison or explicitly GDK.
But that isn't to say you're wrong about a bottleneck potentially being the issue.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it's silly, it couldn't be any other way really ...people were waiting for the first DF face to face for months (and even years!) after what happened last time around, and the plot twist makes it even more interesting in a storyteling sense. It's not surprise this is exploding.
We can wait for exclusives as you say, but exclusives don't really get the same attention or tell the same story as face-offs, and I'm not sure MS can get an advantage there anyway, seeing the things Sony first party has been able to do these last years.
Waiting might help us get closer to 'best machine' but for those of us just buying games then the here and now is the important part. If someone is looking to get a next gen console and is hearing talk about XSX being worse than PS5 then that would push them towards Sony. That's not good for MS. Shit can stick.
Yeah right because MS never released botched software lol
We can't know the exact state of development tools, but it's not unreasonable to assume that "launch day" tools are in a messy state.
I meant that from the 3 modes on DMC, one of them is best played on a PS5 and the other 2 on Xbox Series X. That's all. I meant that so far Xbox Series X doesn't play better in a single game, only 2 modes in a game that has 3 of them for you to choose.
Every single other game both versions are either similar or PS5 edges out.
Sorry for the confusion, english isn't my language.
The DF videos is informative but it would be sooooo much better if we could track GPU utilization or anything more than guess work. Not hating on them tho there is only so much they can do and they do a great job.
On PC games with multiple API's performing worse on DX12 has been a thing for a long time even though they'll boast about how much better it is than DX 11.
On PC games with multiple API's performing worse on DX12 has been a thing for a long time even though they'll boast about how much better it is than DX 11.
Are you talking about the custom ID Buffer? Maybe you could help us find those patents, I think we might have missed them.
Did somebody say screen tearing......nope.nope,nope.....I can't do screen tearing at all and I'm not even a tech guy tbh,low framerates,low res I can put up with but screen tearing rips me out of an experience like nothing else.
Looks like GDK allows almost the same code for Xbox and PC version.
This could mean less console specific optimization for Xbox if devs want to use the same code for pc and xbox.
It is possible for GPU driver devs to abstract away console specific optimization behind API calls, but for APIs like vulkan and dx12 that may be more difficult. (compared older DX or OpenGL)
DF, Jason and irrc a couple devs have said as much...the GDK is really behind, hopefully MS can get the it up to snuff asap atleast before the huge AAA XGS and Bethesda games start hitting the console. Id software , Machine Games, NT, T10, TC, TI and PG games will be the first to show what the console is truly capable of imo.
Very interesting, but I don't think particularly telling. It seems like the game is in a pretty messy state in general. I assume cross-platform games are typically going to look slightly better on the XSX.
The real concerning point are those load times... I don't want to do twenty second loads anymore. Demon's Souls has shown me another way.
The real concerning point are those load times... I don't want to do twenty second loads anymore. Demon's Souls has shown me another way.
the ps5 dev tools have received nothing but praise, whereas there has been a few insiders hinting that the xsx/xss dev tools arent in the best of state currently.
not sure how you manage to conclude "both consoles" from this.
obviously the ps5 tools wil improve over time as well, but that doesn't mean that xbox series currently isnt in a worse state software wise.
Whilst I don't know what settings the XSX/PS5 versions run, it looks as though the PS5 may be hitting between RTX 2080 Super and RTX 3080 performance.
That's on the basis the PS5 runs at high to ultra settings at a dynamic resolution between 1440p and 2160p (4K), at near enough a locked 60fps in actual gameplay with only occasional dips. Here's a few benchmarks of how different GPU's run the game.
High Settings at 1440p.
Given the RTX 2080 Ti here drops to 53fps, a low the PS5 never hits, the PS5 outperforms an RTX 2080 Ti here, at a higher variable resolution.
High Settings at 4K.
The PS5 rarely hits native 4K, but it does generally sit somewhere between 1440p and 4K, so this gives an idea of just how well it's performing.
And for comparisons sake, here's benchmarks at ultra settings.
Ultra Settings at 1440p.
Ultra Settings at 4K.
The person is very obviously saying "PS5 winning in all [comparisons of third party games so far] except 2 out of 3 modes of DMC5SE", stop being deliberately obtuse.
Whilst I don't know what settings the XSX/PS5 versions run, it looks as though the PS5 may be hitting between RTX 2080 Super and RTX 3080 performance.
That's on the basis the PS5 runs at high to ultra settings at a dynamic resolution between 1440p and 2160p (4K), at near enough a locked 60fps in actual gameplay with only occasional dips. Here's a few benchmarks of how different GPU's run the game.
High Settings at 1440p.
Given the RTX 2080 Ti here drops to 53fps, a low the PS5 never hits, the PS5 outperforms an RTX 2080 Ti here, at a higher variable resolution.
High Settings at 4K.
The PS5 rarely hits native 4K, but it does generally sit somewhere between 1440p and 4K, so this gives an idea of just how well it's performing.
And for comparisons sake, here's benchmarks at ultra settings.
Ultra Settings at 1440p.
Ultra Settings at 4K.
You shouldn't make comparisons without knowing the settings.
As a reminder - I never ever got a count above 1728p on PS5 or XSXWhilst I don't know what settings the XSX/PS5 versions run, it looks as though the PS5 may be hitting between RTX 2080 Super and RTX 3080 performance.
That's on the basis the PS5 runs at high to ultra settings at a dynamic resolution between 1440p and 2160p (4K), at near enough a locked 60fps in actual gameplay with only occasional dips. Here's a few benchmarks of how different GPU's run the game.
High Settings at 1440p.
Given the RTX 2080 Ti here drops to 53fps, a low the PS5 never hits, the PS5 outperforms an RTX 2080 Ti here, at a higher variable resolution.
High Settings at 4K.
The PS5 rarely hits native 4K, but it does generally sit somewhere between 1440p and 4K, so this gives an idea of just how well it's performing.
And for comparisons sake, here's benchmarks at ultra settings.
Ultra Settings at 1440p.
Ultra Settings at 4K.
Count 1 – PS5/XSX = 1440p, XSS = 1440p
Count 2 – PS5/XSX = 1728p, XSS = 1656p
Count 3 – PS5/XSX = 1440p, XSS = 1188p
Count 4 – PS5 = 1728p, XSX = 1440p
Count 5 – PS5 = 1440p, XSX = 1440p, XSS 1296p
Count 6 – PS5 = 1728p, XSX = 1728p
Count 7 – PS5 = 1440p, XSX = 1440p, XSS 1296p
Count 8 – PS5 = 1440p, XSX 1440p, XSS 1188p
Count 9 – PS5 = 1728p, XSX 1728p
Count 10 – PS5 1728p, XSX 1728p
The game on PS5 and Xbox series X is generally between 1440p and 1728p - and most definitely not near 4K. That is why I made a big point in the video to say the game does not look "4K-Like" on both platforms and was really easy to count res always.
thor is it tho?.jpeg
if this comparison produced a flipped result, I guarantee it would've been nothin but a sea of "XSX is a beast" and "PS5 can't even run cross-gen games." in other words, same shit, different smell. but all things considered i think the reaction has been relatively mild. for one, you don't see people extrapolating the latter against the XSX. and this reaction isn't so much from a single comparison as it is a slew of comparisons at this point; Microsoft (and their ambassadors on social) basically served up this crow themselves.
Awesome. Appreciate the response and numbers. Based on these figures, the PS5 averages to around 1584p (and basically the same for the Series X).
Out of curiousity do you know what PC equivalent graphics settings the next-gen console versions run at?
I'm not assuming, a technical director working with both said they're both coming in hot. I don't understand the denial against this hard evidence. You are refuting this evidence with 'insiders' or 'sources' when we're getting direct info saying otherwise. Timestamped:
Giant Bomb seemed to think Watchdogs ran a little better on PS5 too FWIW
Yeah was going say the PS5/XSX game is pretty much 1440p. Seems like the perf is around the 5700 and 2080 mark with a mixture of high and ultra but you'd have to really be confident on settings. Just one ultra setting on PC not on console could tank the frames.
If people actually listened to people other than MS marketing and Xbox centered media outlets then they wouldn't be surprised by this. Lesson learnt don't believe all the bullshit that's said. Both games look good to me however 🙂
I have not had the chance yet to even look into it with any depth. But I noticed in quick side by sides I had time for that the distant object LOD and shadow settings were lower than the highest on PC.
I also presume consoles would choose to use the "low" DOF setting as it is imperceptibly different from High and runs better at higher resolutions.
No time for a fine grain look there unfortunately.
edit: I did not do the back and forth checks, but the clouds on console have obvious low resolution. So they are not the higher settings found on PC.
Last edited:
Has Sony said when VRR is going to be supported on PS5? I really wonder what the hold up is.
Microsoft's diligence in this regard has already paid off for some players in this very thread who didn't notice tearing in AC:V , thus proving the clear benefit of the tech.
Microsoft's diligence in this regard has already paid off for some players in this very thread who didn't notice tearing in AC:V , thus proving the clear benefit of the tech.
VRR eliminates tearing, but it does not improve framerates. The Series X version will still perform worse than PS5 (though VRR helps the subjective impression of fluidity).
Actually, One X has had lower framerates than Pro in a number of games. It's just usually been due to higher res targets, which isn't the case on Series X.
This has been true all generation. PS4 versions of games often are triple buffered while Xbox versions tear.
I'd wager all that's "amiss" is that the game has trouble hitting the very high performance target of 120fps. But it doesn't with 60fps, so there's no partial frames to tear.
That has already been tested. Regular mode both platforms hit the 60fps cap, so no difference. In 120fps mode, PS5 is 2-3% better.
As always, great job Alex (and all the people at DF)!
I see many people here arguing that, since Valhalla runs better on PS5, Xbox is bottlenecked in some way, "the most powerful console" is only a marketing claim, Microsoft spreads FUD and so on. These same people didn't say a word about, for example, loading times or fast travel times where difference between Xbox and PS5 is nowhere near the performance gap on paper of the two SSDs. So, this means Cerny was lying about SSD speed and what could be achieved with such an extremely fast storage?
Please folks, stop console warring.
I see many people here arguing that, since Valhalla runs better on PS5, Xbox is bottlenecked in some way, "the most powerful console" is only a marketing claim, Microsoft spreads FUD and so on. These same people didn't say a word about, for example, loading times or fast travel times where difference between Xbox and PS5 is nowhere near the performance gap on paper of the two SSDs. So, this means Cerny was lying about SSD speed and what could be achieved with such an extremely fast storage?
Please folks, stop console warring.
Maybe you should wait for the comparison video on Watchdogs. It's a Ubisoft game after all.
We don't have to say anything about load times. Because it's obvious what is happening there. Just to prefix, even the XSX load times are nowhere near as good as they can be.
For the PS5, we have a good number of games that have SHOWN us how good it can and should be. No one n their right mind can talk about loading times when we have seen other multiplats with far better loading times.
I looked it up, I barely can notice even in the video, how the heck do you guys like notice this stuff haha?
Weird, I never see that when playing...Guess I really dont notice the small things!