As other people before me said: All of this likely comes down to software. Shader compilers have quite some impact on GPU performance especially with ray tracing on RDNA.
-
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
Why do you think that high frame rate mode is necessarily "more strenuous" than any other mode? What does more strenuous mean, exactly?
I'm surprised by the amount of people who repeatedly use the "MS is a software company" argument in relation to its dev tools.
DX/D3D has been notorious across a large chunk of its existence for having issues as a developer-friendly platform. It's certainly a unified approach that allows for easier use of features relative to the alternatives that don't, but there's been several DX/D3D revisions that have been reviled for how much of a pain in the ass they've been to work with/implement. Hell, one of the reasons why "DirectX 12 Ultimate" exists is because OG DX12 was a mess and why for many PC gamers DX11 was the better revision to use over DX12, it was far more stable/optimized compared to DX12, even without the added features that DX 12 brought with it. DX12U is supposed to be the "optimized" version of OG DX12.
Also, like, y'all... how many times has MS not borked Windows 10 with quarterly updates in 2020 alone? MS is a "software company" that has a history of being bad at it.
DX/D3D has been notorious across a large chunk of its existence for having issues as a developer-friendly platform. It's certainly a unified approach that allows for easier use of features relative to the alternatives that don't, but there's been several DX/D3D revisions that have been reviled for how much of a pain in the ass they've been to work with/implement. Hell, one of the reasons why "DirectX 12 Ultimate" exists is because OG DX12 was a mess and why for many PC gamers DX11 was the better revision to use over DX12, it was far more stable/optimized compared to DX12, even without the added features that DX 12 brought with it. DX12U is supposed to be the "optimized" version of OG DX12.
Also, like, y'all... how many times has MS not borked Windows 10 with quarterly updates in 2020 alone? MS is a "software company" that has a history of being bad at it.
8ms total frame time consistently is a bit more strict than 16ms, considering a good part of the pipeline is fixed-ish cost, don't you think?
Also, note I qualified my statement. It's kind of an important qualifier.
I think it points to a shared similarity between xbox builds and the PC build. Direct X as an API is not the thing causing it.
I mean we always hear the 4K is taxing, never 120 at lower res
Different kinds of taxing. 4K taxes shading, usually. 120hz taxes other areas.
The thing with DMCV, we saw drops with nothing happening in the play space
From the moment the specs of both consoles were released numerous different developers (including third party multi platform developers) have been saying don't put too much stock in Teraflops and not to expect one box to definitively outperform the other based on the specs on paper. But that was brushed aside and it continued to be stated as a proven fact and foregone conclusion that one would definitively outperform the other because TFlops.
I don't have enough technical knowledge to understand how or why paper specs and TF numbers and percentages aren't necessarily translate into real world performance so far. I'll trust the developers who know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do (or Era does). The head to heads so far are proving those developers right.
All in all, I'm just really happy developers have been targeting 60fps - 120hz thus far and I hope that continues past the cross-gen phase.
I don't have enough technical knowledge to understand how or why paper specs and TF numbers and percentages aren't necessarily translate into real world performance so far. I'll trust the developers who know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do (or Era does). The head to heads so far are proving those developers right.
All in all, I'm just really happy developers have been targeting 60fps - 120hz thus far and I hope that continues past the cross-gen phase.
I agree that it's important. My point is that perhaps Sony isn't in a hurry to clarify because only relatively few people of those who bought the console care about it. Also with Sony basically releasing only one spec I can tell many casual gamers also bought it . For Xbox it's easier to make assumptions with how different both series model are.
Don't agree, the difference in those modes where XsX performs better was almost negligible, 4% in one.
But in performance mode the PS5 was 20% faster, in line with the 15-25% gap in Assassins Creed in demanding scenes. If anything, DMC points to a hardware bottleneck as opposed to a software one as the performance differences line up.
Apparently COD PS5 us outperforming XsX, but we should wait for DF analysis to see if the margins are up to 20% again.
Yeah no I've worked with MS products for over 15 years I know exactly their shortcomings when it comes to their products and their strengths and def are definitely capable of having issues esp with Their software solutions they have a ton of strengths but many times I've found their software sometimes lacks features where you have to pretty much customize to fit your needs as deep as making custom solutions not saying any of this is what's going on here but people really can't hand wave things because they are a software company lol. MS to me is a 80-20 software solution company and you get a lot of what you need but then that 20% you really need to you have to work around and or create a custom solution but that helps tons of other companies fill in the gaps MS has with the various software at times.
Considering ACV seems to be the only game exhibiting the tearing issues among the games I've played that were optimized for Series X|S, and it also seems to exist on PC and the previous gen Xbox platforms, there must be some kind of software bug specific to the game that needs to get patched out.
In defense of Sony, they probably will fix VRR quickly, but it's completely irrelevant to over 95% of their audience right now. They have crashing consoles and other potential firmware bugs that are probably higher on the priority list to work out.
Really :(, that's the problem I have, having both, picking a version is a task in of itself now.
It's a great time to be backlog gaming while this all blows over! So many games improved by the new systems!
This is literally making my choice paralysis so bad it is giving me anxiety. I have bought both versions of this game already, both sit unopened because I cannot decide what to do! It is going to be like this with most multiplats I think, and I am not looking forward to it.
In the modes that put more demand on the GPU, the XSX outperformed the PSV. If I was to draw any conclusion from DMC5 it's that the bottle neck in that game appears to be CPU related. Whether that's due to an inefficient process or a real difference in CPU power, I'd only be speculating and I have no idea.
AC I would guess we're looking at a GPU bottleneck, because of the scene with the torch. They are definitely showing very different results. At this point DMC5 is the odd one out. We don't know why. That doesn't disprove a potential hardware bottleneck in other games that are designed very differently though, same as how some games hit CPU limits and some games hit GPU limits.
I don't mean to disregard the anxiety but you are going to have a hard time if you have to wait for performance reviews of every game :) I am like you, making choices around stuff like this can drive me nuts. When I'm in your situation I would just buy one console and then I have no choice. Or get a PS5 and an S and obviously play everything but MS exclusives on the PS5. This way the choice is not so evenly matched.
On a different note, with the observation of PC and XSX AC both having issues I think we could have the answer (Yeah I know this is an N of 1). It's not a HW issue but something in the actual libraries/DX implementation.
The issue for me, all along really, is how long will it take for MS to fix it because it's not painting them in a good light.
Well, its quite obvious that both consoles are still struggling to show what they really can do - especially third party games. Xbox in Valhalla und PS5 regarding the loading times.
Having said that, I think that all will be well. We got some incredible machines from MS and Sony. So excited for the upcoming months/years.
Having said that, I think that all will be well. We got some incredible machines from MS and Sony. So excited for the upcoming months/years.
The Series S having lower shadow resolution and 30fps. Didn't Microsoft claim the series would be the same as series x just lower resolution? I remember a quote from them talking about scaling. Seems a bit disingenuous To make claims like that.
Idk how they've came to that conclusion. Unless the PS5 is running at a higher frame rate. The series x is a consistent 30fps. Multiple videos have shown that. I'm guessing the PS5 is the same consistent 30 frames
But then again we had journalists and reviews state the series x version of Valhalla was a consistent 60fps at 4K....... well you know how that turned out
Last edited:
I dont think so look at DMC I think I saw that they no RT on S tell me if im wrong
I know, I wish I had the discipline! I of course bought both new systems as well as upgrading my PC (though right now I'm particularly unimpressed with PC optimization in a lot of games), wanting to have the "Best" experience. Unfortunately, as you say - it is not entirely clear how to determine that right now and it might take a lot of time to figure it out. At least I have a pretty big backlog right now (I am likely to not start Valhalla til early December due to my backlog, and then push Cyberpunk back to early next year). Good to know others have similar thought processes and can empathize :)
yeah the posts claiming that there is a hardware bottleneck are so absurd. Its 9 days into the generation.
Screen tearing in this game aside (legitimately shitty), the performance of the two appears to be landing so close that I wouldn't trip about which versions to buy. I feel like the littlest differentiator like ancillary features in the os would weigh more heavily that 15% performance one way or the other.
This is getting pretty lost here. While the differential isn't what we were expecting, both version mostly perform well, screen tearing and camera movement weirdness aside. It's not a bad turnout for a launch title at all.
I had originally planned on getting an S but it is extremely disappointing to me. You can spend another $100 bucks for a DE PS5 (which i now have) and get a proper next gen experience.
I don't know, I kind of feel that we could have gotten better results. A cross-gen game with no ray tracing having to drop to as low a resolution as 1440p doesn't seem super impressive.
I don't think the S is intended for a gamer's main console. You could also spend $200 more and end up paying less (physical is cheaper and resaleable)
I don't disagree. I'm not *impressed* by it. I'm just saying that the performance dips are pretty minor, all things considered.
i understand, but speaking from my perspective its disappointing as an xbox. And i have no intention of owning physical media so its not in the equation when i look at value.
The value proposition for the Xbox isn't just third party games. It is Game Pass and Microsoft exclusives. Buying a PS5 no matter the price doesn't get you into the same ecosystem. Same goes for buying an Xbox instead of a PS5. Gamers should be buying into ecosystems at this point. The S allows for gamers who don't care about visuals/performance to get into that Xbox ecosystem or be a companion system for someone who wants to be in both the Sony and MS ecosystem.
If you have VRR stick with the Xbox version. If you don't then go with the PS5. It is really that simple unless you want to wait for more patches which might or might not fix performance and tearing across the board.
Definitely, the 60 fps target helps a lot with that. A 30 fps game dropping to 25 feels like crap, a 60 fps game dropping to 50 is still very smooth and responsive.
even for going to xbox ecosystem, series x is much much better value, for $200 extra i think.
Although while I didn't test this scientifically or anything, another poster here and I both felt that on the SX it drops to 30 or below when using a torch indoors.
remember half the point of the gdk is easy dev between series and pc
20 bucks they used gdk to dev the pc version too and we are seeing bugs from that
EDIT: I know people who just bought a new console don't want to hear this - but just wait a few months - game will be cheaper and will run correctly
i understand all that. but Valhalla is not on Gamepass. Related to this thread... it running at 30fps is disappointing.
I guess I was trying to point out that comparing the S and the PS5 is fruitless. Obviously if you are getting a console for mainly third party games then the PS5 DE is the cheapest way to get the best experience. Expecting anything that even remotely compares to the SX or PS5 from the S whether it be framerate, visuals or anything else is unrealistic at this point.
This depends on what you value. If the space on the machine and visuals don't matter to you, I think the S a really good proposition. $200 is a lot of money to plunk down if you really don't give a shit about what a game looks or runs like and just want to play the damn thing.
The cutscene camera issue looks like some issue regarding how they are obtaining the frame time which might be related to their usage of the Direct X API. It reminds me to old issues with dual GPUs in which the game though that half the frames took "almost 0 time" (since two frames are rendered in paralel by each GPU). Either way it should be a bug rather than an inherent issue of the Direct X API.
It's worth remembering that Assassin's Creed games have performed poorly on both consoles and PC for several iterations now. High CPU and GPU usage despite little on screen activity, inexplicable frame drops and stuttering, and physics bugs are practically hallmarks of the series.
Valhalla actually seems to run pretty well on Playstation platforms, but the Xbox versions and PC need some work.