Maybe so. But there'll still be 10's of millions of next gen console owners who won't get GP. I do love how people have to turn every topic into a GP topic.
-
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 | Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War - PS5 vs PC - Settings And Performance Analysis
- Thread starter Uzupedro
- Start date
Maybe so. But there'll still be 10's of millions of next gen console owners who won't get GP. I do love how people have to turn every topic into a GP topic.
Let me start by saying this the precise reason I prefer the PS5 with disc drive...
And while I agree the potential for the disc versions of consoles to have more value (for the reasons you stated), the value only gets realized if & when that person resells or trades in those games (which is not a given)
For those people the Series X with Game Pass is absolutely the better value.
Now to back up your point...You can say the option to trade-in/resell (the option itself)...has some value. I'm just not sure how to quantify that value
If you're adding in optional services you might be right... I was just comparing hardware value versus hardware value.
The market determines what is the better value. So far hardware wise it seems the market has decided PS5 has better value for next gen games compared to Series X plus gamepass.
We will see how that changes throughout the gen but this is the status currently.
The individual was arguing for `those people` though and not just for themselves... Therefore talking about what the overall market thinks is the better value in that context makes perfect sense then saying what you or I value. I could value ouya too but in the context of what `people` are going to value better it does not matter much
Exactly, the PS5 is around a 2080 in rasterization and less with pure triangle based raytracing.
How is 100% being between 80% and 108% isn't really accurate?
Without knowing the impact which reduced alpha resolution has it's impossible to tell where PS5 really averages. But considering that it's likely be at least 5% "running between 2070 Super and 3070" is as accurate as it gets.
Have you noticed that they've essentially disabled two out of three RT based effects in PS5 version?
RT performance isn't as easy as "add RT cost to rasterization". RT runs partially on dedicated h/w and partially as compute on shading units.
This means that if you have a carefully tuned and light enough RT workload you can run it in parallel with rasterization (on dedicated h/w and via async compute) leading to there being close to no performance impact from such RT.
All console RT we've seen so far with the possible exception of Miles Morales reflections are precisely such workloads.
I have GamePass, and it's ok but at $15/month it's not as great as people make it out to be(luckily I just add time when it's available for half price so I'll never pay $15/month). The third party games are basically indies and games that cost $15 at most to just buy the disc for it. It's a good deal at 7.50/month, but it's not this super amazing deal that people make it out to be.
NXGamer showed the difference of RT shadows in his analysis. Some higher quality shadows on PS5 with no flickering seen on XSX.
Basically Indies? Yeah... No.
@topic: Im glad how the consoles are built. I cant wait until more Next gen games arrive. I am pretty sure we will have loads of fun with both consoles.
Well, maybe it didn't run like shit, but the performance hit compared to AW was noticeable, i also thought AW looked a lot better.
AW had awful 91 fps cap. Bo3 on PC ran quite a bit better after a few patches. It definitely looked better than AW too..
Very lopsided view.
If the games you are buying are assassins creed, watchdogs, COD, Hitman, Cyberpunk...etc. What value does Gamepass offer you there? You will be spending the exact same amount of money on those games as would someone that owns a PS5.
No doubt, gamepass as a service is of great value, but people need to stop talking as if it covers all your gaming needs. It doesn't.
Now if the only games you are interested in are MS published/partnered titles that are also on gamepass, then by all means you are right(as subjective as that may be). But thats a flawed way of looking at this, you need to look at it from the perspective of having access to all the games that are available on either platform if you are going to compare the two.
And notice I am not even mentioning exclusives?
Anyways, from a dollar to performance ratio, the PS5 (digital) as a console is the best. Simply looking at what you are getting for your money. On the flip side, the XSX vs the PS5 disc version, has the tables turning and the XSX is a better value there.
It's indies and AAA games that came out 2-3 years ago, and now cost $15 to simply buy. I didn't say it was just Indies.
If i were to make a wild guess i'd say that the PS5's roughly equivalent to a 2080 Super in rasterization and a 2060 in Ray tracing.
That Turish Airbase scene uses moon shadows, which are essentially sun shadows. I made sure to check if they are shadow maps on PS5 or RT shadows before I did the bench. The PS5 version on that level at the intro at least is using RT shadows from the moon (aka sun shadows).The RT used on the consoles is only local and sun shadows (and sun shadows seem to go missing during the chopper scene) , RTAO is the heavy one and thats when AMD starts to suffer. There's a reason AMD sponsored games have only been RT Shadows (dirt / godfall)
RT local shadows
CoD: Cold War Revisited RX 6800 XT VS RTX 3080 Ray Tracing Scaling
You asked, we answered. Revisiting Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War's Ray Tracing performance, but this time exploring each setting and how much it's scaling ...youtu.be
RTAO
CoD: Cold War Revisited RX 6800 XT VS RTX 3080 Ray Tracing Scaling
You asked, we answered. Revisiting Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War's Ray Tracing performance, but this time exploring each setting and how much it's scaling ...
All on
CoD: Cold War Revisited RX 6800 XT VS RTX 3080 Ray Tracing Scaling
You asked, we answered. Revisiting Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War's Ray Tracing performance, but this time exploring each setting and how much it's scaling ...
I'm not even sure if sun shadows would be a thing during the scene benchmarked either seeing its at night?
That's what Jay of jaytwocentz nearly pegged it at two a few months back. IIRC felt it was more 2080 though.
I really disagree with it looking better than AW, especially not in the single player. Either way, i am not the only one to notice some COD games run better than others.
With 6800XT being on 2060 level in path tracing how would PS5 be at it as well? It's way slower.
Outside of that one level where all three are disabled, RTAO appears to be the only one disabled across the board on PS5.
I sort of agree at the moment but since MS is buying up soon to be former third parties I think the value will eventually be there. For me now the value isn't there for their own first party games since I never had too much interest and the slate of third party content it has now since the best of it like Yakuza or Dragon Quest I already beat elsewhere. But not having to pay full price for a new Elder Scrolls or Fallout is gonna be dope.
In games with more demanding RT effects but which are not fully path traced, like the example of Watch Dogs Legion.
Why do ppl say things like this?? Tekken 7 is an indie, Final fantasy? Dragon Quest 7? Entire Yakuza series? Doom Eternal? access to all of that is definitely worth more than $15. MS just announced 8 new games for GP this week, only 2 of them are indies. I havent even spoken about EA access which is included.
"iTs jUsT InDiEs" is one of the strangest arguments ive seen against GP as of late
Dollar to Performance ratios matter among PC hardware, where we're talking about the same platform.
When you look at consoles, it's different because now we're looking at hardware as well as games and services. On that end Xbox obliterates PlayStation. It's a no contest. More powerful hardware, and thanks to all of these acquisitions - a lot more developers and big name franchises.
Throw in Game Pass, where you can play these games day one, not to mention some excellent third party games, and there's value PlayStation can't even begin to match.
Going further Xbox has unmatched bc among the consoles, as well as Cloud play, and a very generous Rewards program.
Meanwhile Sony raised the price of their games to $70. Sony offers no valueTheir $400 system is limited to digital only, and the best game deals are among physical titles. So there goes that.
Last edited:
I didn't say anywhere that it's "just indies". I actually said it's indies and games that came out 2+ years ago(Doom Eternal is the exception) so cost sub $20 to just buy, such as FFXV, DQ, Yakuza.
And the games included in the EA Play sub included in GPU are all sub $10 besides Fallen Order(which is $20 to buy a disc for that game)
Trust me, I follow the new games that comes out on it pretty religiously as I have said before, I am a subscriber, it's just that most of them I have either already played a year ago or I have no interest in. The past month or 2 have definitely improved verse how it was for most of the year though, I will give you that.
Last edited:
Oh, it can't be because their services or their games. The ones that do not choose the 'better value' are wrong and do it for loyalty. Just like the switch, that has even less services and even less 'powerful' hw. There's only one correct choice.
Probably not. That sure is brand loyalty.
Yeah. And I'm not even sure why people are talking about Gamepass in a thread about a game that won't be apart of the service. Let alone when this service isn't even serving 1/3 of the current Xbox install base.
That's not "raytracing", it's a benchmark of a hybrid renderer which use RT for some reflections but doesn't render the whole scene with RT. When you're saying that PS5 is about on par with 2080 in rasterization you're comparing raster to raster.
You can't say that PS5 is equal to 2060 in RT by comparing them in a hybrid renderer which still builds most of the frame with rasterization - this way you're looking at a mix of both and RT there likely isn't even the biggest part of a scene frametime. So you're still comparing rasterization performance for the most part.
So a proper comparison of RT performance would be to run pure path tracing. We can't do that on PS5 (yet?) but we know where PC RDNA2 GPUs land in these workloads.
Again pathtracing title won't be common out of maybe Minecraft. The measure for 99,99999% of the title will be hybrid renderer or rasterization without raytracing at all and alternative method for Global illumination.
Great video. I seem to remember DF doing something similar for RDR2.
Have they done similar videos for other games?
I like trying to approximate console settings and tweaking from there to figure out what sacrifices I'm willing to make for framerate.
Have they done similar videos for other games?
I like trying to approximate console settings and tweaking from there to figure out what sacrifices I'm willing to make for framerate.
OP
OP
They did with AC: Valhalla(comparing with PS5) and Watch Dogs: Legion(comparing with XSX) recently.
I tried to play the game about two months ago and it constantly crashed on PC, 2700X + 2070 Super. After trying a bunch of things I just uninstalled and moved on to the next game in my COD campaign run through.
Also, glad this video exists, because I asked about console comparable settings in the OT awhile back, so thanks for that Digital Foundry. I wish we normalized having accessible console settings in PC games if only for comparing purposes. Also, the fact that certain settings go lower is unfortunate that those aren't accessible.
All this speculation about whether or not a current GPU will keep up with a PS5 is kind of moot I think just because it's a hypothetical situation that never really pops up in the real world. There was a 7 year gap between the Ps4 and Ps5 release, how many hardcore PC gamers kept the same GPU for that long?
The fact that it's a struggle to even find benchmarks for PS4-tier graphics cards as a point of comparison is pretty telling - noone who is interested in high-end PC gaming still uses such old hardware.
The fact that it's a struggle to even find benchmarks for PS4-tier graphics cards as a point of comparison is pretty telling - noone who is interested in high-end PC gaming still uses such old hardware.
People buy into brands. You think Beats headphones were the best quality/value for your money?
Sure, but you can't use such titles to assess actual RT performance of the h/w. That's my point.
Tbh I had my 970 from December 2014 until April this year and it did me absolutely fine. It was running almost everything I threw at it at medium/high settings at 1080p. Fantastic value for money.
[
Your 'value' is different than mine, and yours is not "better' than mine or viceversa either.
People buy what they want to buy, value is subjective, that is why some brands do better than others. The 'ecosystem value' matters nothing if the games on the aren't the ones you want to play. And that is why there are two brands ahead of the third in the console space.
Your 'value' is different than mine, and yours is not "better' than mine or viceversa either.