Lol do you know the game? PC version runs on a potato with a GTX 660. I'm not buying that, it's the least demanding nextgen game by an order of magnitude. If it can't run 1080/120, nothing can.
-
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: PS5 vs Xbox Series X/ Series S Next-Gen Comparison!
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
Lol do you know the game? PC version runs on a potato with a GTX 660. I'm not buying that, it's the least demanding nextgen game by an order of magnitude. If it can't run 1080/120, nothing can.
Maybe you have a TV with VRR, this would fix this problem and you wouldn't notice it.
I tried to make this point earlier in the thread lol. I think we can assume that thePS5/XSX settings are of the high preset instead of Ultra and maybe even a mixture of some ultra and some medium. But their resolution typically averages out much higher than 1440p.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.
Pretty damn impressive if you ask me. If you had told anyone 6 months ago that the PS5/XSX would be trading blows with a 2080Ti in any capacity you would have been lynched.
OP
OP
Your TV has support for VRR... Tearing isn't an issue for you.
I'm not saying loading times are better on XSX, nor that in general Valhalla has great loading times. If you ask me, they are the demonstration of how poorly optimized the game is for the next gen consoles. In my previous reply I tried to point out something different, addressing fanboys.
Most baffling thing is that XSX seems to consistently take a considerable hit when there's a scene heavy in alpha/transparency blending. Unless there's an actual bug somewhere, that shouldn't be an API issue, it's a very, very basic function that's been true to GPUs since forever, there's no optimization to fix this.
XSX should virtually always have an advantage when in shader bound situations, and we kinda see it with DMCV high resolution modes. PS5 will probably have an advantage everywhere else, bandwidth bound situations being a toss up due to very different approaches.
XSX should virtually always have an advantage when in shader bound situations, and we kinda see it with DMCV high resolution modes. PS5 will probably have an advantage everywhere else, bandwidth bound situations being a toss up due to very different approaches.
......your right, i forgot about that. My mind is still on last generation and my last tv. WIl experiment by turning it off and see how bad it gets. Sucks for people without VRR then.
Not really surprised by these results. Also wouldn't be surprised if they were flipped. I expect the PS5 and Series X to be roughly equal and trade narrow performance wins all generation long.
People expecting the Series X to eventually emerge as the dominant performer are setting themselves up for years of disappointment.
People expecting the Series X to eventually emerge as the dominant performer are setting themselves up for years of disappointment.
I didn't think you were saying load times are better on XSX. If anything I agree with you. The game is not well-optimized. For either platform... actually for ANY platform. So I was saying that even the XSX can load games faster than what or how we see it do here.
But I feel this is and has always been a Ubisoft thing. They make good games, but generally seem to have piss poor optimization. This is also why I don't really buy into the whole "tools" argument. The game is not running optimally on either platform, its just worse on the XSX and yes, that could be a tools thing, or it could be something else. My argument with the tools stuff has always been, if tools mature on one platform, at that same time they would also be maturing on the other or devs would be finding better ways to do more with the other..etc.
Given the PC benchmarks its not unreasonable that the consoles are performing around 2080ti level in this title. Performance barely scales lowering settings unless you go to low or medium. I doubt many of the visually noticeable settings are medium/low on next gen consoles.
Yup... and my point still stands.
At their peaks 1728p, thats a resolution of 3072 x 1728. 5.3M pixels. And maintaining 60fp means that you are internally running at an even higher fps than that and only need to drop the rez when you can't maintain that 60fps target.
1440p is pushing a total of 3.6M pixels.
The 2080ti, running at 1440p with high preset (which I think is a safe place to settle on what kinda preset we are getting with the next-gen consoles) is peaking at 77fps, averaging 68fps with drops to 53fps.
The PS5 on the other hand only drops to 1440p just to maintain the 60fps target. All those times you see it running at 60fps, it could be internally running at 65- 75fps for all we know because there is always a buffer to maintain any given framerate.
I think it's safe to say that its trading blows with a 2080Ti. And that's impressive no matter how anyone looks at it.
Do you own a PS5? If so you should do the settings comparison as IMO, it is better not to ever assume in this area at all. I would prefer if people did settings comparisons instead of assuming.
I'm just laughing at the "perhaps PS5 Digital is worth the $100 extra" ideas regarding Series S, some people apparently ignore Game Pass when it's convenient for their narrative. Microsoft has the value nailed down, what they need to do imho is be a bit more strict regarding quality and simply refuse to release games in such technical state.
I understand why it's exploding, what I find silly is that people are acting like it means anything in the long run. I've mentioned exclusives because those are likely first to utilize new hardware properly, crossplatform titles will have to wait until they're not crossgen, with the exception of separate, nextgen-optimized versions, which take time (Cyberpunk 2077 for example will get one somewhere in 2021) - and even then it's never certain which features exactly will get utilized and which will be ignored.
I mean, just look at loading times - between Velocity architecture, sampler feedback, and all the tech in PS5, loading times should be almost nonexistent. It's painfully obvious Valhalla uses none of this new tech, just acting like it's on older gen storage, just faster. Some are talking that Microsoft's SDK hides the details from the devs to make it easy to develop for both Xbox and PC at the same time - perhaps, I'm not certain regarding Velocity vs DirectStorage, but the thing is, on PC devs can't assume such features are available. Perhaps it'll get easier for them as the time passes by, when nextgen open world game may simply require some sort of feature parity with Series X|S and PS5 on PC to run at all, right now it's too early and that only complicates things for the devs.
Consoles got plenty of new features, PCs are playing catch-up, Xbox got new SDK, multiplatform games are expected to run across wide variety of hardware, including PCs that would never run a game utilizing new consoles to their full potential, and people are expecting a smooth transition? Personally I think it's better for Microsoft that their heavy hitters will get released later on, let them focus on backward compatibility for now, and on improving their tools first and foremost. People seem to forget how back in the day devs needed time to learn how to use new console hardware properly, since it was a while when consoles got something truly new by PC standards. At this point credit definitely goes to Cerny, he did a great job and clearly saw it all coming. It won't matter in a couple of months though, when devs update their engines.
Also, the initial hype is either getting the console(s) ASAP, or getting them before Christmas. With even the latter sometimes becoming unlikely, some people gave up already and decided to wait a few months - especially considering there aren't that many games taking advantage of the new hardware yet. At that point nextgen patches for existing titles as well as any new games that will get released on nextgen consoles, will become current benchmarks.
This situation will be unclear for quite a while. Benchmarking-wise, we'll know more probably in a couple of months to a year, but we're unlikely to know what all those consoles can truly deliver until some point in 2022. As it is, PS5 definitely has the momentum, and considering Playstation's market share, it matters. Lets not forget Microsoft is still playing the long term game though, and Sony isn't really their competition. Different caliber entirely.
The ps5 version is skipping 2 or 3 boot screens that the others have to go through. not a fair comparison.
A 5700xt is the same performance as a 2080ti in this game. Why would the PS5 be performing noticeably worse?
I will admit that I did not watch the full video before my first comments in this thread. I just took the time to watch the full video.
And I want to say that Ubisoft has been doing some weird things on the series X version. If it was purely down to hardware difference then I think the Series X would've performed worse more uniformly and consistently across the board. At the point where they have the character at the hut entrance, it is really weird that the Series S is performing more consistently than the Series X. It's true that the Series S is running at 30 fps, but the way it handles frame tearing and the Series X doesn't is odd.
Even more odd is the one segment the team highlights regarding the cinematic camera on the Series X suffering a weird judder during one entire scene, whereas the PS5's camera has smooth movement. And yet both versions are running at locked 60 fps with everything else equal in that scene.
After watching the video I've become convinced that whether or not Microsoft's dev tools factor in significantly into the situation, the bottom line is that Ubisoft is dropping the ball on optimization for the Series X. The very specific nature of the slowdowns, plus the weird oddities like the cinematic camera jitter seem to lend support to this being due mainly to poor work from the devs.
And I want to say that Ubisoft has been doing some weird things on the series X version. If it was purely down to hardware difference then I think the Series X would've performed worse more uniformly and consistently across the board. At the point where they have the character at the hut entrance, it is really weird that the Series S is performing more consistently than the Series X. It's true that the Series S is running at 30 fps, but the way it handles frame tearing and the Series X doesn't is odd.
Even more odd is the one segment the team highlights regarding the cinematic camera on the Series X suffering a weird judder during one entire scene, whereas the PS5's camera has smooth movement. And yet both versions are running at locked 60 fps with everything else equal in that scene.
After watching the video I've become convinced that whether or not Microsoft's dev tools factor in significantly into the situation, the bottom line is that Ubisoft is dropping the ball on optimization for the Series X. The very specific nature of the slowdowns, plus the weird oddities like the cinematic camera jitter seem to lend support to this being due mainly to poor work from the devs.
Do we know that no actual loading is going on during the display of those splash screens? Seems like wasted time that they could be background loading stuff if not?
I think it isn't at all safe to say and you should wait for an apples-to-apples comparison before drawing any conclusions.
Seriously doubt the extra splash screens are to give more loading time. The actual time to load from menu to game is extremely fast on both with a couple second difference between the 2. Such a large discrepancy doesn't make sense from launch to menu.
valhalla favors AMD and amd engineers helped with the code to optimize for their gpus.
I don't think so, because the others comparations outside the boot secuence are almost the same
I disagree.
Like I don't get why anyone would be touchy about this.
The 2080ti is running at high settings and peaks at 70+fps with lows of 50+ fps in 1440p. Even if e want to assume that the PS5 is using medium to low PC settings, (which is an extreme assumption but fine) it's still running overall within spitting distance of a 2080ti. How can this even be up for debate?
And the PS5 costs $399!!! How is this not impressive? But cool, less wait for apples to apples comparisons.
It's more like Ubisoft games, AC especially, aren't good indicators for PC performance because they pretty much all have sub par performance on average.
The camera stutter says it all really. It's clear as a day that that engine is bugged and that the Playstation branch of that engine is in way better technical state.
Unfortunately, considering Playstation's market share, as well as the current pandemic, it isn't really surprising. Wrong, yes, but not surprising.
PS5 is running with a variant of the 6800 series GPU architecture.
I already explained that you are drawing a conclusion based on nothing else but assumptions. For a proper comparison you need to run the same sequence on similar settings and observe the result. That is how benchmarking is done since, well, ever. On console settings are not set based on low, medium, high presets, they vary based on the machine's various bottlenecks. In DF's Watch Dogs Legion video the game on console used settings than varied from high to lower than the lowest setting on PC.
Now, given RDNA2's performance in rasterization, it wouldn't be a surprise for PS5 to perform in that ballpark. The big deal about the 2080 Ti was ray tracing and tensor cores, neither of which are being used in Valhalla. In terms of pure rasterization the 2080 Ti performs not much better than the 1080 Ti which came out more than three years ago.
This is also the case in Halo MCC running on XSX at (up to) 120fps.
Do you have a display with VRR? If so then you won't get tearing.
Same problem but in two completely different game engines 🤔
Honestly no idea, I just know I have a PC monitor 1080p
Honestly no idea, I just know I have a PC monitor 1080p
It shows up in MCC, ACV and CoD (so far), so at least three different engines. Also, as I mentioned, it's a very simple function, it's not novel tech.
What do you make of these results, Alex? I'm assuming, since no one really expected this at all, you guys must've been just as surprised as us?
But Gears seems to hold it fine (150% increased particles). Unless that's something different
Is there any good reason why they don't lock the framerate at 60 and make the resolution completely variable? Wouldn't that get rid of tearing entirely.
Although I m no technical person, I think this trend is going to continue in the future also. Because if XBOX tools are going to get better with time, I believe then Sony is also going to improve its tool and support, and it's not going to sit idle.
To me, it looks like Sony has designed a better overall system and MS may have more raw power but may be facing a bottleneck at some other point which is not allowing it to achieve full performance in most of the real-world cases.
Just my 2 cents
To me, it looks like Sony has designed a better overall system and MS may have more raw power but may be facing a bottleneck at some other point which is not allowing it to achieve full performance in most of the real-world cases.
Just my 2 cents
I believe in the 4k60 mode.
The 120 mode has some things toned down but it's a lock 120
