Support NeoGAF

[StateofMajora]

*Strokes my Radeon HD 6870*

Damn man. Is it at least the 2gb model? Haha, had a 6850 for quite a while until I got a 970, was rough. Rocked a 1090T until ryzen too.

 

[dotnotbot]

Wait, so what are the settings if we choose performance mode? Still the same but 60 fps and no RT?

 

[kyliethicc]

Is the PS5 version on ps+ tomorrow?

yup

 

[Mister Wolf]

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low. I also still don't understand why console versions of games always get shafted on the texture filtering even though that barely affects performance and improves the image dramatically. AF 16x has been a thing since like 2000-2001 and NG consoles still use 4x or 8x AF at best

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/avg of 60 (or close to) on a PC that is pretty comparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here

I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

Those additional shadows are an example of the raytraced shadows setting.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low. I also still don't understand why console versions of games always get shafted on the texture filtering even though that barely affects performance and improves the image dramatically. AF 16x has been a thing since like 2000-2001 and NG consoles still use 4x or 8x AF at best

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/avg of 60 (or close to) on a PC that is pretty comparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here



I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

nope, according to techpowetrup rx5700xt in 1440p is on avarage 42 fps so dips to 30ish probably, rtx2060super with rt and high setting avarage 23fps in 1440p

 

[kyliethicc]

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low. I also still don't understand why console versions of games always get shafted on the texture filtering even though that barely affects performance and improves the image dramatically. AF 16x has been a thing since like 2000-2001 and NG consoles still use 4x or 8x AF at best

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/avg of 60 (or close to) on a PC that is pretty comparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here

I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

Those are ray traced shadows and aren't on PS5, only on PC.

 

[Tickle My Tendies]

Settings are as expected for this. The game is super demanding and if it weren't for DLSS you'd be rocking the same settings on a 2070 as that card drops into the mid 30s without DLSS at 1440p (with no RT as well). It's just nice to see that the performance mode is mostly stable with a few issues here and there.


It's a PC game first and foremost. Nothing "last gen" about it.

If a 2070 Super can do 51.1 avg with settings maxed, I would have thought the PS5/XsX could do 1440/medium/60 (or at least higher settings in the 30 mode, even with RT). I didn't expect Low/Off/Lower than low

 

[rodrigolfp]

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low. I also still don't understand why console versions of games always get shafted on the texture filtering even though that barely affects performance and improves the image dramatically. AF 16x has been a thing since like 2000-2001 and NG consoles still use 4x or 8x AF at best

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/avg of 60 (or close to) on a PC that is pretty comparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here

I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

1- Because lack on bandwidth.

2- Because it is almost certainly a very bad port.

 

[TheTechnician]

The game is dropping frames when smoke effects show up on screen using those settings. How are those settings not the PS5's MAX?

you do realize that even a PS3 graphics Game could make the ps5 stutter if the code is just bad enough, right?!
i mean - you get that?
RIGHT??!

 

[Mr Moose]

Damn man. Is it at least the 2gb model? Haha, had a 6850 for quite a while until I got a 970, was rough. Rocked a 1090T until ryzen too.

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0047ZH7GE/

 

[sncvsrtoip]

If a 2070 Super can do 51.1 avg with settings maxed, I would have thought the PS5/XsX could do 1440/medium/60. I didn't expect Low/Off/Lower than low

its avarage, avarage on ps5 would be probably close to 70 with uncapped fps 1440p, also its just naming, watch df video and visual difference vs high pc settings are mostly subtle btw best comparing to 5700xt, only 43fps here

 

[SlimySnake]

1.8x pixel difference and 2x fps vs ps4 pro is impressive, also remedy chose settings quite clever as game looks good comparing to high settings on pc and zooming is necessary in most scenes to catch difference

Looking at the frame budget, we are looking at a 3.6x improvement over the 4.2 tflops PS4 Pro GPU. The PS5 is 10.2 tflops so the difference in power between the is 2.4x. I guess the Pro GPU was getting bottlenecked by the jaguar CPUs.

 

[FireFly]

Because it is incomplete lacking several platforms?
I thought it was obvious... rushed to get the early clicks.

BTW there is not "findings" in the video lol

Edit - They even had and played the others versions but choose the lol

Did you watch the video? Tom is handling the other platforms and his video will be up shortly. I presume that Alex's video finished processing first.

 

[Mister Wolf]

you do realize that even a PS3 graphics Game could make the ps5 stutter if the code is just bad enough, right?!
i mean - you get that?
RIGHT??!

Ok. I will tell you what you want to hear. Its the developers fault not that AMD GPU.

 

[martino]

All of this is precisely why it's unoptimized crap. Try running this turd on a maxwell card. PC philistines are no better than any console zealot and will defend anything lol.

It's just not visually pleasing and is far too resource heavy for its graphical return. This and Quantum break have this temporally unstable (ghosting), sterile and repetitive look with a greenish piss filter layered on top. Artistically as well, not good. Technically, we can compare it to RE engine games which run orders of magnitude faster on comparable PC hardware.

Keep fighting the good fight, warriors on all sides haha.

they are not really comparable and the level of interactivity, the thing video game could be about, they try to give in their world is not the same...
One is standard you find in most game the other is pushing boundaries there and it has a cost.

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/near 60 on a PC that is pretty coimparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here

I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

Diminishing returns....removing contact shadows is diminishing returns and not visible without a 800x zoom ... /s

 

[sncvsrtoip]

Looking at the frame budget, we are looking at a 3.6x improvement over the 4.2 tflops PS4 Pro GPU. The PS5 is 10.2 tflops so the difference in power between the is 2.4x. I guess the Pro GPU was getting bottlenecked by the jaguar CPUs.

for sure cpu make difference here

 

[rodrigolfp]

its avarage, avarage on ps5 would be probably close to 70 with uncapped fps 1440p, also its just naming, watch df video and visual difference vs high pc settings are mostly subtle

But not subtle in performance. Especially the RT effects.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

But not subtle in performance. Especially the RT effects.

yeah, 22fps on 2060super in high settings with high rt 1440p, remedy for sure didn't want to target 22fps avarage with drops to below 20 on ps5

 

[TheTechnician]

Ok. I will tell you what you want to hear. Its the developers fault not that AMD GPU.

fault sounds always so accusing. they already stated the lack of savegame porting to next gen as is because they are a small dev.
PS5s API is a very hard low level API and they almost certainly did not opt for it out of the same reason.
instead the used the high level "wrapper" API wich is similar to direct x .
easy to develop for but you dont use hardware efficiently.
it would be a big miracle if they leveraged the low lvl API so early in the cross gen Phase...
still disappointing though..
lets see what the comming patches bring..

 

[Endless Fluff]

If a 2070 Super can do 51.1 avg with settings maxed, I would have thought the PS5/XsX could do 1440/medium/60. I didn't expect Low/Off/Lower than low

You are looking at average FPS there. 2070S crashes down into mid 40s. A 2080ti mid 50s if you look at their 99.8 percentile performance. PS5 could easily push higher settings, but what’s the point when the game dips into the 30s during combat?

You’d need to run the game at mid preset to get a stable 60fps on these cards, or at 1080p or use DLSS.

The only thing I find weird is texture quality and filtering. This surely can go higher than medium and low.

 

[Tickle My Tendies]

Too early in the morning for me, shoulda waited until I posted in here. I stand by my thoughts, though. I am disappointed. I explain why. That's just me.

I never said PS5 should be able to run the game on Ultra, but Low/Off/Lower than low? I am sorry, I don't see why medium settings were out of the question, especially with textures and texture filtering

 

[The Hamburglar]

RT looks good when you stop, stare and record it. But are you even going to notice in fast space gameplay? Probably not still a huge waste of resources. Until they can implement it with zero cost I’ll pass.

 

[rodrigolfp]

yeah, 22fps on 2060super in high settings with high rt 1440p, remedy for sure didn't want to target 22fps avarage with drops to below 20 on ps5

Those 22fps are with all RT effects. PS5 only has reflections. imagine if it had all effects. 10-fps PS2 Shadow of the Colossus GOTY.

 

[Tickle My Tendies]

Until they can implement it with zero cost I’ll pass.

So, in like 10 years?

Edit:

But, yes, based on this footage, the RT reflections look nice and all but I am probably going 60 fps mode all the way with this one.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

Those 22fps are with all RT effects. PS5 only has reflections. imagine if it had all effects. 10-fps PS2 Shadow of the Colossus GOTY.

thats why remedy is clever and chose settings that looks good and keep stable fps

 

[StreetsofBeige]

This is disappointing.

He also continues right after this to explain that Far Object LOD on PS5 is lower than PC's Low. I also still don't understand why console versions of games always get shafted on the texture filtering even though that barely affects performance and improves the image dramatically. AF 16x has been a thing since like 2000-2001 and NG consoles still use 4x or 8x AF at best

I have seen this game run at 1440p/Ultra/avg of 60 (or close to) on a PC that is pretty comparable to a PS5/Series X. I am having a hard time understanding why NG consoles (assuming XsX has these same settings) can't do better.

Look at the difference in shadows here

I am a little bit letdown with this one. Oh well.

I still love the game, and can't wait to Plat it this week. Still a great offering for free on PSN+

edit

I am sorry, but if a 2070 Super can do 51 avg at Ultra, I don't understand why PS5 (and assuming XsX as well) can't do better than Low/Off/Lower than low at either 30 (with RT), or 60 (without RT). Should 16x AF and High textures really be out of reach on either console? I had my roommate boot the game up on his 3060 Ti and he is averaging around 70 FPS at 1440p/Ultra (no RT), native resolution. Yes, a 3060 Ti is better than XsX and PS5 GPU but by how much, like 15 percent maybe?

The shadow on the pipe on the ceiling and the background door basically looks the same, but the big turning thing has zero shadows(?). Literally zero.

 

[Jigsaah]

Settings aside, Control is a really good game. Though I prefer to play it on M&KB, playing it on a big screen has it's merits as well. I still think they should introduce different modes. Let the player choose RT on or off and adjust the output resolution at least. I prefer this at 1080p 120fps+.

 

[Negotiator101]

These consoles are starting to show their limitations it seems already. I'm lucky enough to have not jumped in just yet, and it's possible these consoles will start to improve dramatically when developers shift to next gen engines. At the moment though I very well may just build a new PC, 3060ti should outperform both these consoles readily.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

The only thing I find weird is texture quality and filtering. This surely can go higher than medium and low.

Alex on beyond3d forum:

"Texture quality in this game controls the streaming cache more or less. It is not affecting close up quality really."

 

[Fake]

Another example IMO why ray tracing is wasted on these consoles. I can run Control at max settings at 60fps. Granted i'm not using RT as i have a 980ti, but the 980ti is also only about 60% of PS5's gpu.

Disagree. I know RT is taxing, but is need to have optimization on console market, so is a matter of will be well implemented or not. In this case I believe is not.

 

[Tickle My Tendies]

Everyone knows that this game is a resources hog. But damn, settings are like limbo masters dancing under the lowest bar (settings) possible.

I have been thinking for a while that the PS5 would win by a nose on this one. Fuck me if true, what are the XsX settings gonna be

Alex mentions that Tom's comparison vid is dropping soon. Curious to see if the settings are the same on both

I very well may just build a new PC, 3060ti should outperform both these consoles readily.

3060 Ti is a pretty great value for 1080p and 1440p gaming, especially if you can still get one for 400 bucks. I am watching Control average 68-70ish FPS on 1440p Ultra and 49ish FPS on 1440p/Ultra/RT reflections on my roommates 3060 Ti. This is without DLSS and every other graphical setting maxed out

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Those 22fps are with all RT effects. PS5 only has reflections. imagine if it had all effects. 10-fps PS2 Shadow of the Colossus GOTY.

Side topic about Colossus.

Every website gave that game great marks. Absolute paid off BS.

I bought it, put in my PS2 and it ran so bad I thought my PS2 was overheating and bricking. Rebooted the game a few times thinking it's a glitch, but nope. The FPS was that bad. Must had been 20 fps tops. Maybe less.

 

[rodrigolfp]

thats why remedy is clever and chose settings that looks good and keep stable fps

Good, but still medium/low settings on last gen assets/effects. I am almost sure the PS5 could do much better for everything but the RT effects.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

Good, but still medium/low settings on last gen assets/effects. I am almost sure the PS5 could do much better for everything but the RT effects.

again, we see performance on 5700xt which is similar to ps5 perf without rt and its 40ish on higher settings in 1440p and remedy didn't want to target 40ish in performance mode, not hard to understand

 

[Stuart360]

Disagree. I know RT is taxing, but is need to have optimization on console market, so is a matter of will be well implemented or not. In this case I believe is not.

Well i actually said that post before watching the vid, i didnt even realize the RT mode was 30fps, i thought it was 60fps, which makes it even worse imo.
I mean would people really pick the 30fps RT mode over 60fps in this game?.

 

[kyliethicc]

Too early in the morning for me, shoulda waited until I posted in here. I stand by my thoughts, though. I am disappointed. I explain why. That's just me.

I never said PS5 should be able to run the game on Ultra, but Low/Off/Lower than low? I am sorry, I don't see why medium settings were out of the question, especially with textures and texture filtering

You likely would never even know which settings are on low or high until the dev tells you.

If you care that much, buy a high end PC. For most console gamers, its about value & simplicity, and fun.

 

[Fake]

Well i actually said that post before watching the vid, i didnt even realize the RT mode was 30fps, i thought it was 60fps, which makes it even worse imo.
I mean would people really pick the 30fps RT mode over 60fps in this game?.

I would pick 60fps, but I not against have options.

I still prefer a native 4k 30fps option over RT 30fps.


This really show how important for Microsoft and Sony to have a DLSS counterpart.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Disagree. I know RT is taxing, but is need to have optimization on console market, so is a matter of will be well implemented or not. In this case I believe is not.

It'll get better in the future like all console games get better in year 2 or 3. But I don't know if these PS5 and Xbox consoles at 10-12TF and 16gb of total ram is good enough to do awesome RT and visuals whether it's 30 or 60.

So far, all signs say RT at 30 is the going rate on consoles. As long as they give options for 30/60 RT/no-RT I'm good with that. I'll probably do 60/no-RT.

 

[Fake]

It'll get etter in the future like all console games get better in year 2 or 3. But I don't know if these PS5 and Xbox consoles at 10-12TF and 16gb of total ram is good enough to do awesome RT and visuals whether it's 30 or 60.

So far, all signs say RT at 30 is the going rate on consoles.

They are good to go. GT trailer showed that you can even use dynamic ray tracing solution, pretty much how consoles treat resolution with their dynamic scaler.

Asking too much from a console is like asking for a new PC. We need to filter who is doing a good job or not.

 

[MrLove]

Spider-Man with raytracing looks twice as good as Control, even the remastered version

 

[rodrigolfp]

again, we see performance on 5700xt which is similar to ps5 perf without rt and its 40ish on higher settings in 1440p and remedy didn't want to target 40ish in performance mode, not hard to understand

PS5 GPU should be significantly faster than a 5700xt. Plus higher settings mean stuff like MSAA turned on, thing that PS5 doesn't dream for Control to compare.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Another example of some fine console "optimization" here. Directly from Remedy. No guess work involved.

These consoles are not ready for good raytracing with no DLSS to lean on

 

[t0rment]

at least is going to be free on ps plus, otherwise i wouldn't have paid even 10 bucks for this.

a last gen game, that already ran at 1440p 30 on XBONEX, with no pratical improvements besides fps for next gen? that's just blatant disregard on part of the dev team for these ports.

 

[DustQueen]

We need different approach to how Ray Tracing works. It is clearly eating up all of the fucking performance to the point of me having to ask...why not do reflections old fation style then? Like in Hitman.

 

[SlimySnake]

If a 2070 Super can do 51.1 avg with settings maxed, I would have thought the PS5/XsX could do 1440/medium/60 (or at least higher settings in the 30 mode, even with RT). I didn't expect Low/Off/Lower than low

my rtx 2080 could only get 60 fps with RT at 960p. i had to use DLSS to get 1440p. these benchmarks must be without RT.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

PS5 GPU should be significantly faster than a 5700xt. Plus higher settings mean stuff like MSAA turned on, thing that PS5 doesn't dream for Control to compare.

nah, 5700xt has clocks on avarage making it around 9.7tf so very close to ps5 gpu also it has bandwidth advantage as its not sharing it with cpu, it's similar level of performance (without rt ofcourse)

 

[SlimySnake]

Spider-Man with raytracing looks twice as good as Control, even the remastered version

spiderman doesnt have the destruction or physics of Control. its a very basic game compared to Control when it comes to physics.

 

[rodrigolfp]

nah, 5700xt has closks on avarage making it around 9.7tf so very close to ps5 gpu also it has bandwidth advantage is its not sharing it with cpu, it's similar level of performance

Don't compare flops between 2 architectures, please?

 

[Rikkori]

RT looks good when you stop, stare and record it. But are you even going to notice in fast space gameplay? Probably not still a huge waste of resources. Until they can implement it with zero cost I’ll pass.

100% correct, at least for this game. I can max it on PC & keep 60 but what struck me the most is how quickly it gets lost during actual gameplay. It's a way better tech for open world games where you're traveling a lot or where the fights are more methodical. That's why it's so ace in Metro Exodus, but so uninteresting ultimately for Control. Looks great in screenshots but good luck picking out what's ray traced when you're playing the game like this:

 

[Neo_game]

Another example of some fine console "optimization" here. Directly from Remedy. No guess work involved.

This is called a port not optimization. Does not seems they put much effort in it. Probably busy CrossfireX and other unannounced title ? Having said that I do not think people had much expectation from it.