thank you! I've made the correction. I've barely slept so I was bound to make such a mistake.
-
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: Hitman 3 PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Comparison: An Xbox Advantage At 4K
- Thread starter litebrite
- Start date
Again you're ignoring the fact that the XSX is running at a higher resolution during that single part of the map and if we calculated the average frame rate it would be closer to a 9% drop. Otherwise it runs the game at 60 fps at a higher
Last edited:
They cant because the Glacier engine doesn't work with dynamic resolution
neither are dynamic resolutions. It's static. Had it been dynamic we probably wouldn't see the frame dip in the flower field.
Thanks for the correction!
Typical:
S: 1080p60 reconstructed to 1440p
1x: 1440p60 reconstructed to 4k
Ceiling:
S: 1440p60
X: 1800p60 reconstructed to 4k
Then there are the theoretical base of 720p and 1080p in the engine which afaik is never hit in Hive busters.
Inconsistent frametimes come along with inconsistent frame rates. So: No, when both versions run at 60 FPS, the PS5-version doesn`t "appear smoother".
Last edited:
Seems like we stepped out of the tech Twilight Zone because this the kind of difference we all expected from day 1. We also can see a pattern where the load times are almost the same across third party games which is also what we all expected.
Let's see whether this trend continues.
Also kudos to DF for working their asses off with these next gen comparisons.
Let's see whether this trend continues.
Also kudos to DF for working their asses off with these next gen comparisons.
Looks plausible. i wish DF had done a video for all three consoles. Otherwise I would highly recommend watching this video.
You simply cant say this with any confidence.
We can see the devs are willing to launch a game with slight fps drops (XSX in a single area as shown), however in the PS5 case they chose to drop the resolution 30% AND reduce the shadow quality. That tells you simply dropping the resolution alone wasnt enough and they needed to optimise elsewhere to achieve a consistent fps.
I would suggest the available overhead above 1800p is not as great as you are thinking.
That's a assumption.
Exactly. They literally lowered a setting, which suggest there isn't a huge overhead on PS.
Thats irrelevant. Dropping the resolution to 1800P WAS NOT ENOUGH ON ITS OWN. They had to optimise further by reducing shadow quality.
If 1800P alone cant bring consistent fps without dropping SQ then its hardly going to perform better at 1965p, 2002p or whatever "exotic" resolution you have in mind is it?
See, I really don't care about any of those miniscule differences and I'm happy about what both versions are able to achieve. I just used your/DFs worst case fps to show that when using percentages one should use the same base when calculating them or else the argument gets skewed/framed in a certain way.
Furthermore, like I already stated, fps-comparisons make no sense at all when one of the platforms is a locked 60fps without the knowledge of the possible overhead of said platform. Maybe it's running the scene between 60 and 65fps, but maybe it runs it at 80, we will never know and therefore we should not jump to any conclusions.
Not to be misunderstood: Could the PS5 run the game at native 4k, yes. Would it dip more in bespoke Mendoza area, most definitely.
Last edited:
Because a game with a perfect 60fps cap means it runs in reality at above 65fps at least so yes we can run the PS5 version at an higher resolution
They wouldn't have set the PS5's resolution at 1800p if it could handle 2160p at the performance target of 60 fps or higher as you think. With the tools available and the time taken, only the XSX was able to achieve that. They didn't just make an arbitrary decision.
Sorry I guess things got lost in the responses. I was mentioning the performance for HiveBusters as an example of the One X performing better than the Series S. But thank you for linking the video. I was actually looking for such a video although I wish they were clear about what resolution the game is running at alongside the framerate!
Lol. Do you know why Dirt 5 120FPS mode bug was considered a bug before confirmation? The aston martin on the Xbox in the opening cutscene literally looked worse than GT5 and FM4 cars (PS3/360 Generation). That's why everyone was calling that a bug.
But thats not what you said? You said "easily run at a much higher resolution", no one is saying there isnt SOME headroom above the 1800p60 however I question the "MUCH higher resolution" part.
Maybe due the PS5's lack of VRR the dev's were less willing to ship with a fluctuating fps?
It is fair to say though, using the facts we know, that there isnt much headroom over the 1800p60 due to the fact they also had to drop settings.
You can`t say for sure how the game would perform without the 60FPS-cap.
Again: the developers did not only drop the framerate of the PS5-version (compared to the Series X-version) they also dropped the shadow quality. So, it`s more plausible, PS5 would struggle to keep consistent 60FPS with higher settings, let alone much higher resolutions.
User Banned (5 days): Platform wars, history of infractions for similar behaviorac
It's the first game where Xbox shows any sort of tangible advantage so after months of taking a beating all the Xbox tribesmen are finally able to stretch their wings
Nah
people will forget
the Bethesda announcement will cause meltdowns though
Circumstantial evidence across all platforms points to IOI/Glacier-Engine not using exotic resolutions and as far as I know 1800p is the next lowest res. after 2160p.
I'm not saying PS5 could handle 2160p with a locked 60 like XSX, I'm just saying we don't know how much farther the resolution could be increased from its current 1800p until we see the exact same behaviour for PS5 in scenes where the framerate on XSX drops.
The framerate NOT dropping at all in said scene is further evidence that 1800p can't be the maximum resolution PS5 could handle.
I think with dynamic resolution there would be scenes, which could run at a higher resolution on PS5. However they also dropped shadow settings and you don't do that if there is a huge overhead. Let me rephrase and ask a question? Wouldnt the PS5 run with the exact same settings (shadow), if it has a big overhead at 1800p? Why reduce the settings after reducing the resolution to 1800p?
Maybe it is an engine that suits better series X hardware. Maybe they had to split efforts to have a full VR version working and couldn't afford to optimize ps5 version further.
There are many maybes. This one performs better on series X, and ps5 is still great , it is not a Bayonetta 360vsPS3 scenario.
There are other games where ps5 performs slightly better two. For whatever reasons. If you have both consoles, pick on SX, or pick Ps5 if interested in VR. Just like other games having both the version too get maybe was PS5 one.
Time will give a better picture, until then i wouldn't draw many conclusions, because just like already happened in this thread, people that now care a lot about those extra pixels, when the result is in other direction, those extra pixels don't matter anymore.
So why do you think they weren't able to get it to 2160p? Maybe it couldn't handle. I'm certain with better engines we'll see better looking games running at higher resolutions but based off the conditions, IO chose that resolution because they couldn't get it higher while maintaining the 60 fps.
Who knew this is the game that would make the fanboys cry back and forth.
I mean are we really arguing between minor differences here ?
Both console versions look and play spectacular. This whole talking hypothetical "well if the devs did this, it could have been at a higher resolution or higher frame rate" is just stupid.
On paper, the Xsx is just a more powerful system overall then the ps5 but it's not like the ps5 is some Slouch. This was known going into this gen by just looking at hardware specs.
Given time, 90% of 3rd party release should have a GPU/CPU advantage because well, that's how the systems were built.
The ps5 will still be closely behind and sometimes, the amazing IO and ssd helping it achieve beyond what it's capable of.
That's a possibility, considering DF did test equal TF RDNA1 GPU in the past and the one with more CU and slower clock performed better in Hitman 2.
Where has Xbox taken a "beating"?
Ultimately it is going to come down the the devs getting better tools and more familiar with them and then deciding what the baseline will be, I highly doubt there will be any massive difference in third party games between XsX and PS5
I know, I don't get it.
PS5 is a bit slower than Series X on paper and now we're starting to see games reflect that. Who cares? Going from 4K to 1800p with slightly worse shadows (but a 100% stable framerate) won't affect your enjoyment of the game one iota.
Any reasonable person knew that the Series X would most likely perform slightly better in multiplatform games ever since the specs of each console was announced like a year ago. Don't know why this is such a controversy now.
People were surprised when the opposite turned out to be true and PS5 performed similarly or better across the majority of games tested.
Apparently the results in THIS specific game will dictate how thing will turn out in the future and we should ignore all the evidence suggesting otherwise.
Mental gymnastics will be sight to behold this gen.
None has "superior" or "inferior" console
except xss
Last edited:
Like I said, it could also be a bug/oversight like seen already in several next-gen games. (ACV using higher then Ultra foliage on PS5 comes to my mind, and there where several other odd jobs which, however, I can't exactly recall from the top of my mind)
Going from high shadows to medium netted a 7% FPS increase in Hitman 2 on PC. That is still a lower performance hit from a stable 60fps than the XSX has in the Mendoza scene. So why ship the XSX with ~13% perf. hit but not the PS5 with a ~7% perf. hit?
Source timestamped at 3:12
[Edit]Just watched the DF video I posted a little bit further. In other scenes, shadow quality had almost no effect at all on performance.
Last edited:
I find it hard to believe people who care this much about the difference in resolution don't just play on PC. Then you can gloat over everyone and ignore these minor differences on locked, cheap platforms. Of course the XSX will perform better than a cheaper console, but the PC will perform better than any console.
Is the game a very open game in its levels, or you have a clear goal and preferred killing method?
Super duper open and freeform. The series is about replaying the stages many, many times.
As open as it gets. There are mission stories which are guided ways to cinematically kill the target, but there are way more ways to take the target down, and you can just turn off the guided story or display less hints.
Shadow thing could be a bug as well. Just saying. We know too little even with df.
Who I was replying to was only comparing the gpu raw power. Of course engine differences are going you have different results, but it is also true that the PS5 probably has more overhead in this case.
The maps are very open and yes, you do have clear goals (e.g. kill these two people). Usually, but tough to achieve, as silently as possible. How you reach that target is always the big unknown. In each mission you have opportunities/mission stories that maybe can make it easier to reach said goals. You can turn these off if you want and completely immerse yourself, finding stuff out yourself. I would recommend you start/unlock Hitman 1 (from 2016) and Hitman 2 within Hitman 3's client and play those first as there is some story/background involved to all these locations/people you kill.
You have goals like kill X person but then you have to figure out how to do the task from getting to where the person is and figuring out how to get rid of them.
NPCs also have schedules they follow so they don't stay in one place and walk around minding their own business so you have to plan that accordingly too avoiding suspicion and whatnot.
Example is you can take out a target by either pushing then down a tall ledge to their death, poisoning their drinks, drown them as they use the washroom, take them out by messing with the ventilation system, etc or by just just shooting them.
It's really open how you approach stuff especially with the stages being really big and learning NPC routines
People were surprised because the PS5 outperforming the XSX early on didn't make any sense when you actually look at the specs of each console.
Undercooked dev tools on Series S|X as an explanation of why makes sense, and Dictator stating that build performance has indeed increased over time since launch on XSX lends well to that explanation and the results we're now seeing in Hitman 3.
The results here actually make sense and it's reasonable to expect similar results moving forward.
And I agree that neither console is "superior" or "inferior". I'm confident the PS5's uniquely fast SSD speeds and DualSense capabilities will be further taken advantage of in first party titles, just as I'm confident the Series X will generally be the platform of choice for multiplat games. Exciting times ahead for both consoles.
It literally won't stop until more games come out. Early gen, big releases come out slowly, even slower in a global pandemic. The fact is, the series x was always a beefier boy as it were. I mean if we're talking raw grunt, there's more to a system than a spec sheet and that's where the PS5 makes ground with all its smart design choices. This outcome with Hitman 3 isn't unexpected. The idea that it's a permanent prophecy for every game, is foolish though. There will be games with advantages for both.