I'm sure you have more insight than us, but I wonder if mid combat the game will still hold over 50 fps, is it possible to determine that with the photo mode solution?
VRR is going to be integral to gaming experiences in the future. It'll be many years, but that's why I said "down the line". VRR makes 50-60fps feel the same as a locked 60fps. VRR makes 90-120fps feel like a locked 120fps. It's a gamechanger.
I believe AMD doesn't have core likes the NVIDIA tensor cores, but my understanding is that basically all you need is a chip that can do lower integer calcs faster for machine learning tasks. XSX has a dedicated processor for this but it would be no where near as efficient as Tensor cores and DLSS. Both AMD and Microsoft has shown a previous investment in machine learning upscaling, so my hope as a XSX owner is that while DLSS can take something like 1080p or lower and make it 4K, the XSX could take ~1440p and make it 4K. Still would make a huge difference from what we have now on consoles. A couple years from now looking at all the tech in these consoles I would hope a graphical "showcase" game could do internally rendered 1440p at 4K with upscaling, 60fps with dips handled by VRR, and select RT.
VRR would be fine at 120hz output using frame doubling. ie 30=60 so still above the 40hz lower VRR limit.
Curious myself. I'm surprised more games don't resort to 1080p 60 with RT.
It doesn't work like that. You can't just take outlier examples. The same way we can't reference times when the difference between them was just ONE frame.This video shows the consoles have the overhead to do a 1080p/60 FPS RTS mode if Remedy puts it in with optimizations.
I don't think this is true in this case.
Going by the video, the XSX has an advantage of 3% to 11% to 20% depending on a scene.
Meh I feel like it would result in more sales. People are buying the game again for better performance, the better it is, the more interested they are. Its why the definitive edition even exists after all.
TBH i expect it to be the opposite, a bigger team will be able to squeeze out a lot more out of more powerful hardware. That is why it would be nice to know why the XSX is doing 30% better here. Like somebody said above, the game is probably CPU limited.
Or XSX could have slightly higher settings here and there when the resolution and framerate are capped.
PS5's CPU is clocked lower (3.5 vs 3.6GHz). If the game is CPU bound then yes, the difference would likely be lower.
That too... but I omit that because that could really go both ways. But it's possible.
I think Control doesnt load faster on PS5 because the file size is smaller instead. I would think thats probably due to the SSD, so maybe instead of faster loading they went with lower file size.
I have a hard time believing it's due to the SSD, but rather maybe better/more mature compression methods, but the huge difference in file sizes fascinates me. I'd love to know if other games have a difference in size.
Then again, the PS5 version of the game is about 45% smaller in size than the XSX version.
I thought Control on XSX held up better under combat stress tests than the PS5 but had inexplicable drops elsewhere.
It is really bizarre, but it has shown in practically every single multiplatform game. MAN I'd love to hear from devs about this. When it comes to first-party games, you rarely if ever see any loading times above 5 seconds.
If the loading times are bound by the CPU, and the CPUs are near identical, it could be the reason you're looking for.
The stutters almost all seem to be related to HUD elements appearing (like the tiny 'saving the game' icon can trigger them), and it would make zero sense for that to be related to storage throughput.
DirectML isn't an AI upscaler. it's the foundation of which one can be built on
