-
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: Red Dead Redemption 2 Stadia vs Xbox One X vs PC Analysis!
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
So stadia beat the Xbox one in latency
I don't think latency in cloud gaming should be a legitimate complaint anymore if it works for your internet, it's either so close that you can't tell a difference or in some cases like this one stadia beats it
I don't think latency in cloud gaming should be a legitimate complaint anymore if it works for your internet, it's either so close that you can't tell a difference or in some cases like this one stadia beats it
This is hilarious. RDR2 has such horrible latency that Stadia can actually be faster than a local console.
Nah, the question should be why it is almost half a second on the Xbox One X. That's ridiculous.
Looks like Rockstar did a much better job with their Stadia port than Bungie did with Destiny 2. Nice one!
This game has nearly half a second in input lag? God damn lol.
nah, 40 milliseconds of extra input lag is significant.
To be very fair, it is doing an activity that is designed to have that latency: Shooting a gun from the hip in first person. If you aim the weapon, it does not have as much latency of course. The reason why I at all wanted to highlight such animation priority as a test is because I think it is the real reason why people think the game "controls poorly": things just take longer to do than in other games which basically have no animation in comparison. It gets a bit better on PC of course, but it will never ever be like playing quake or counter strike where things happen nigh immediately.
And the one thing I found interesting was how stadia at 60 fps was better than x1x locally - in that action at least.
At the same time, the game graphically looks, IMO, better on console.
This is in no way damning of the Xbox One X or a *win* for Stadia. It's an indictment of Rockstar and RDR2. That's it.
What a joke.
latency in this case doesn't neccesserily mean input response, but rather the completion of an action. Since the game is animation priority and slow paced, it's clearly a design choice. Some may not like it, but it fits with the game, for the most.
I've seen several people trying the game on Stadia and the blacks are totally botched, did they mention this in the video? did it happen to them?
Still, the difference between PC and Xbox One X is more than some games have in latency overall. For the same action. That's crazy.
the main issue is movement. If moving forward gives you 300 ms+ of latency, it's going to control terribly. A game should have no more than 100ms ideally.
Well, I think it's a poor design choice. Realistic animation shouldn't take priority. There are games out there that found a great balance between detailed animations and responsiveness. Think naughty dog with uncharted 4.
There are no PCs running the game at max settings at 4k with a single GPU. I think you misunderstood Stradia.
I do mention how dark scenes look rather macro blocked and full of colour banding in the video, yes. IMO, give it a watch ^_^
That is not how you measure overall latency for an individual, as this is an edge case. Not at all. Latency is a constantly moving target, just like throughput, on the web. It is not, however, on a fixed system. The game may work perfectly for you one day and then have issues the next, depending on what is happening to the network. That's why you can't say "...if it works for your internet." It is more correct to say, "If you happen to have a connection that meets a particular threshold, then it's playable, but that QoS expectation is not dependable."
Look, I get that you are all in on Stadia, and that's fine. But don't brush away actual issues that will impact gameplay/IQ/etc.
I mean the wording here is pretty disingenuous. They've clearly advertised Stadia as running games at max settings when that has now been proven to be false. As well as the fact that it's not even native 4K, just upscaled bullshit.
So the pros and cons of playability and image quality are not quite in line with the level of power or the origin of the processed image. Remarkable. Thanks for the video, will watch it later!
Yeah, it's not what was promised (yet) but it's still competent, the biggest problem is the whole strange service policies and most important, the technology on people's side. This won't work in my country for another five years probably. I mean, it can work ok right now but with data caps as low as 500gb or 1tb, streaming is an impossible option.
I think the question is why it's running at Xbox One X settings, but at a much lower resolution when it supposedly has more powerful hardware at its disposal.
You're right on the wording. RDR2 shouldn't have been a release title either if they wanted to stick by that claim, but it's the big seller. They should've gone for performance because it looked all over the place in the footage.
This is why I was so confused when it seemed they hadn't targetted 60fps on RDR2. It seemed like such an obvious thing to prioritise. Frankly, ANY 30 fps game that runs on Xbox One X should be able to hit 60 fps on the Stadia hardware based on what we've been told, even if some graphical settings have to take a hit compared to the X to get there.
The actual game code, doubling it is about right. On a lot of connections going from 30fps local to 60fps streaming can give you something with comparable lag. It won't, of course bring with it the improved snappiness that you get in a 60fps game, but it will still look better, and will play as well as locally.
Hopefully they'll make 60 fps more easily selected than it is currently.
The actual game code, doubling it is about right. On a lot of connections going from 30fps local to 60fps streaming can give you something with comparable lag. It won't, of course bring with it the improved snappiness that you get in a 60fps game, but it will still look better, and will play as well as locally.
Hopefully they'll make 60 fps more easily selected than it is currently.
Another great video from DF. I can't imagine how much time it takes to get all the exact same scenes up on all versions of the game to do all those comparisons. I assume they just record everything and then just clip out what they need? Still, some determined work I'd not have the patience to do. Well done.
Interesting how in some of those early grabs that there was absolutely no snow on that person in the Stadia standard feed compared to the others. Just completely absent...
Interesting how in some of those early grabs that there was absolutely no snow on that person in the Stadia standard feed compared to the others. Just completely absent...
I'm dying to see Thumper get this treatment, as it's a low latency game best played at 120-144fps.
OP
OP
Isn't the whole point of Stadia that the games will run on the best PCs money can buy?
So how on earth can RDR2 not hold a steady 60fps?
So how on earth can RDR2 not hold a steady 60fps?
They run on low clocked intel server CPUs and mid range AMD Vega (56?) GPUs.
You cold probably build a much better PC for under $1000
Edit: Also they likely run linux which doesn't have a great reputation for gaming performance
OP
OP
Or run at universally higher than XBX settings. Or deliver native 4K. *
* I have to imagine these are launch-period jitters and the service will deliver better as time goes on.
Is this even correct way to measure latency? As you said, what you measured is input latency + animation duration. You didn't measure actual raw input latency. For example, what's input latency when moving camera with the right analog stick, and with all camera accelerations turned off and camera movement setting maxed out?
Of course it's a legitimate complaint. You might not be able to sense a ~50ms difference but many of us do. Especially for platformers, fighting games, FPS etc. And it's an even far bigger difference again for those of us who game on PC with Gsync and at 120hz etc (which never seems to feature in these tests!) - and these are features which will become standard on next gen consoles.
Latency is the stuff of my nightmares, hence why RDR2 isn't a game for me regardless of platform.
This is why Digital Foundry reviews are so useful. Before launch I was sold a bill of goods about 4k/60 10.7 TFlop GPU being greatly superior to XBox X and the reality at launch is very different with 1440p/30 RDR2 and Destiny 1080p medium. Google Marketing oversold the product which is why there is such a negative reaction here, despite many people in the OT quite happy with their Stadia experience
Both DF videos were informative and fairly balanced and I for one am grateful for the great work they do.
For years I was *dying* to shave at least a frame off the 48ms of latency of my 2008 Kuro. Finally got the 21ms 2017 OLED. Next stop, sub frame latency. I also game on CRT. No fucking way I'm ever streaming. Latency sucks.
