-
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.
Gears 5 - Graphics and Frame Rate Comparison
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
User banned (1 day): trolling
wtf the game still plays exact the same as gears of war back in 2005! even the most basic animations are the same lol
Nah it feels much slicker, even compared to 4. The controls feel light and easy, compared to the heavy and somewhat sluggish controls of the original trilogy. Edit: also it was 2006 :p
Why no PC in this comparison?
Last edited:
I knew they'd use a temporal reconstruction technique. It's built into UE4 and makes sense for this game.
It was never going to be with them targeting 60fps.
It was never going to be with them targeting 60fps.
OP
OP
Probably because PC involves testing way more configurations to see how the game performs on a wide range of systems. Xbox One vs Xbox One X is way easier and takes less time.
Yes? You couldn't move without someone shouting how it's 4K AND 60 fps...
Based on the last few Gears 5 topics, a certain few sure did and wanted everyone else to know that too :p
OP
OP
Well yes.
I've been hearing all this 4K/60 stuff so I didn't expect dynamic res fauxK.
I know its a technical test but this is the first time I'm not impressed with gears graphics. Maybe when I play the campaign
I'm playing on PC for the first time after playing every other iteration on Xbox and controller, and I don't know if it's the keyboard or the game, but things feel... stickier maybe? I'm having a lot of trouble getting off of walls when in cover. I've rebound my sprint and roll to shift to emulate alternate scheme on controller and it just doesn't feel right. I don't really want to go back to controller, but I almost feel like it would play better on controller (minus aiming of course).
Just take a look in the Gears 5 campaign benchmark thread, there's several in there.
OP
OP
It technically is 4K and 60fps though. I didn't see anyone shouting native 4K.
First time I've played a Gears game on PC with Gears 5 and it feels slick as hell for me compared to previous installments I've played on console. Low latency, responsive, playing with XBO controller. Not tried m/kb.
Well yes. TC said they're going for4K 60, that combined with all the comments of how amazing the game looked on the X (on a previous thread) and how good the IQ was I expected it to be native. Guess I was wrong.
This is the best looking MP game on consoles and the HDR is blowing me away. It is damn impressive. Well done Coalition!
OP
OP
They usually do nowadays. 4k can be achieved different ways. Imo every game needs to by dynamic tho. Think its a great thing we got this gen.
Its great back up to keep a solid framerate.
Interesting results and I am glad they stuck to 60fps but for me it's going to be 1440p and at least 60fps on my PC. Can't wait.
That's generally been the case ever since reconstruction techniques have been introduced.
60fps at 4K TR is still an impressive state for a console game. That's like saying games like HZD, GoW, RDR2, BF2, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and all the other games used reconstruction techniques to reach 4K aren't impressive.
The art is amazing too. District is so colorful and moody and training ground just explodes with color. Its such clean IQ. Graphics are subjective I guess but I think the people downplaying the graphics are absolutely 100% insane.
I never said it wasn't impressive. I think it's a great looking game but I just find it slightly amusing how reconstructed 4K is bad for some games, but not others, that's all.
Yeah I will say I prefer district's visuals over TGs but both are IMO very nice. And the HDR is certainly top notch to my eyes.
I would imagine they just want to compare it to games that run at half the frame rate. I'm playing Gears of War 4 right now and the visuals look impressive to me and to be honest Gears 5 looks better than that so I'm not sure what they are looking at.
I played Gears 4 MP right after this, and the difference is quite big in visuals.
It is gears. Why should it change?
It is gears. Why should it change?
Even then I don't think you can compare directly - games do different things in different ways and scale and design play a big part.
I have no names, only my personal experiences from reading threads on here. I'm not gonna dirty the thread any more with 'console warring' it ultimately serves no purpose, but I'm happy to talk more privately.
Edit: Basically what I'm getting at is hypocrisy. I just don't like seeing hypocrisy regarding any topic that's all.
I mean hell even when compared to 30 FPS games on console Gears 5 comes out on top IMO. I think the tech test is probably the best looking MP experience on consoles. 60 FPS is just icing on the cake. The only gripe I have is that the damn big red gears logo that pops up as you die is too much. I know that has been part of the game for a while but it just covers up the beautiful graphics.
Ok, now that makes sense. I was thinking there was no way the X could hit 4K60 compared to the performance I was seeing on my PC.
That part of the tutorial that drops to 48~50 and stays there depending on where you look will just make me cap it to 30 if it's as frequent as it is in the tutorial. Only way I found to completely eliminate this was dropping shadows to Low, but they look WAY too bad on Low.
It's interesting that it acts like a CPU bottleneck, so I can increase or reduce resolution and still get the exact same framerate at these spots, but at least in the graphics menu it says that the impact is on the GPU.
Dictator , did you look into this test?
That part of the tutorial that drops to 48~50 and stays there depending on where you look will just make me cap it to 30 if it's as frequent as it is in the tutorial. Only way I found to completely eliminate this was dropping shadows to Low, but they look WAY too bad on Low.
It's interesting that it acts like a CPU bottleneck, so I can increase or reduce resolution and still get the exact same framerate at these spots, but at least in the graphics menu it says that the impact is on the GPU.
Dictator , did you look into this test?
OP
OP
Really hope people embrace at some point these techniques. TR and Dynamic Res. It still results in a great picture and creates more room for other improvements and keeps the framerate balanced.
I mean a couple of lost frames you notice. A couple hundered pixels you dont.
I mean a couple of lost frames you notice. A couple hundered pixels you dont.
PM if you like but I imagine anyone ignorant enough to bash or troll reconstruction techniques aren't worth the attention.
It's mostly due the 60 frame per second not gameplay improvments!
first gameplay has shown in 2005 iirc :d
ٰNo need to change but the game needs some improvments after almost 15 years!
The insane image quality in combination with the smooth 60fps rendered output resulted in a really great visual experience during the tech test over the weekend. Super happy they achieved these visuals at 60fps while still offering dynamic 4K resolution.
Yeah, you're probably right. It's one of those things that unreasonably bothers me, that's all.
You make a fair point.
Does this game reconstruct from 1440p to 4K as well? I agree about maintaining a steady frame-rate.
Not a fan to be honest. I prefer they call it what it is.
I don't know, was RDR2 native 4K on Pro?
No. I'm not in favour of this image either.
I guess given the campaign is at same FPS as MP not sure there will be additional headroom.
I don't know, was RDR2 native 4K on Pro?
This is misleading as shit as well, and fairly got dunked on when it showed up here on Era.