• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[DF] Skyrim Anniversary Edition: PS5 vs Xbox Series X/S Upgrades Tested

Meh, resolution difference isn't that noticeable unless your sitting close to the TV or you zoom in. The Fps difference is equivalent to a rounding error. The only substantial difference from an end user perspective is the load times. Spending roughly half the time loading over the course of the game should be a consideration when deciding which system to play on.
 

On Demand

Member
Xbox studio or not MS still put out a native version of this title for PlayStation 5 so that is pretty cool in itself.

MS didn’t do anything. Bethesda obviously had this game in development coming to consoles way before MS bought them.

Just like they have nothing to do with Deathloop exclusive PS5 deal still being in place despite them saying “we’ll honer the deal.” The deal was before the purchase so they have no say in that contract from Sony and Bethesda. That comment was nothing but PR for made for fanboys.

Y’all have to stop giving MS these imaginary good guy points. Cause the real MS is them not letting Redfall and Starfield on PlayStation.
 

tommib

Member
September 23rd, 2031: "Hi, Tom here from Digital Foundry, taking another look Bethesda's Second Anniversary Special Edition of their beloved RPG Skyrim. While textures, assets and draw distance are a match for PS5, Sony's 34 Teraflop next-gen machine is now doubling pixel counts to a native 8K. Meanwhile, volumetrics and texture filtering also see a slight boost, matching PC's highest settings. There is a catch, however: while image quality is pin-sharp here, you'll still see drops into the low fifties during alpha-heavy sections like dragon battles. The exciting news is that Bethesda has stated on Twitter this week they'll be adding raytracing support to the Second Anniversary Special Edition in a later patch. We'll be back to test the results in the new year, though it remains unclear whether or not the recently announced Elder Scrolls VI will ship with raytracing when it launches in late 2032."
We all know that’s precisely what they’ll write. Screenshot taken so that I can come back to this thread in 10 years.
 

Lysandros

Member
Meh, resolution difference isn't that noticeable unless your sitting close to the TV or you zoom in. The Fps difference is equivalent to a rounding error. The only substantial difference from an end user perspective is the load times. Spending roughly half the time loading over the course of the game should be a consideration when deciding which system to play on.
Nearly x3 smaller file size on PS5 is also significant i would say.
 

Flintty

Member
Wait for PS6 version. As you can see from this thread, no one’s happy with the performance yet.

Or get it for the Switch, come and tell us, and watch all the tech-nerds foaming at the mouth with your 720p 30fps version.
I’m a green rat so perhaps I’ll wait for the Series Y version’
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
7.5 bilions for fucking nothing.

It's not like I would play this game, but situation when you release BC version as new, 1 FUCKING YEAR after launch.

It's starts to really fucking annoy me. And this is MS 1st party, which is..... unbelievable.
 

Hunnybun

Member
So basically the results are more of less identical to what we saw with the 60 FPS mod. PS5 performs better after the official patch too.

I am starting to become convinced that they extra CUs in the shader arrays are bandwidth starved somehow.

P.s utterly awful video from Tom. The voice over doesn’t match what’s on screen. The comparison scenes are different for both the ps5 and xsx. This is the third straight video where they have done this. Bring back Alex Baklava.

The worst thing about Tom is he's absolutely terrible at reading aloud. He put the wrong stress on virtually every word, it's pathetic. Could he not practice his lines or something? It's not like he has to speak live.
 

Zathalus

Member
So basically the results are more of less identical to what we saw with the 60 FPS mod. PS5 performs better after the official patch too.

I am starting to become convinced that they extra CUs in the shader arrays are bandwidth starved somehow.

P.s utterly awful video from Tom. The voice over doesn’t match what’s on screen. The comparison scenes are different for both the ps5 and xsx. This is the third straight video where they have done this. Bring back Alex Baklava.
Native vs non-native version of a 10 year old game.
 

onQ123

Member
25GB vs 16GB.
You take that 25 GB & you multiple it by 2 Xbox Series consoles you get 50 GB then you divide that by only 16GB for the PS5 which only need 1 game & you get 3.125 which = 3X smaller on PS5.

 

MasterCornholio

Gold Member
A lot of panties getting bunched here for a 10 year old game. XSX version is clearly just a rebadged XOX version?

Some people think it doesn't matter if it's native or not.

I believe that native apps on each system take advantage of the hardware better but that's just me.
 

Tripolygon

Member
A lot of panties getting bunched here for a 10 year old game. XSX version is clearly just a rebadged XOX version?
They're all rebadged last gen versions, but now native apps for each console. PS5 version is the same as PS4 version but with faster loading time. XSX version is XBO version with dynamic resolution enabled. There is nothing special about any of the platforms.
 

BigLee74

Banned
They're all rebadged last gen versions, but now native apps for each console. PS5 version is the same as PS4 version but with faster loading time. XSX version is XBO version with dynamic resolution enabled. There is nothing special about any of the platforms.
That’s all I needed to know. Nothing really new here for the XSX.

Skyrim bugs my tits anyway. Start going down one quest line, and 10 minutes later you have opened another 20!

Maybe I’ll try it again one day when I’m in the mood for self inflicting some pain.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Means twice the asset streaming potential in the future 👍🏻

Depends if the CPU + GPU can draw and render it.

Its all very well the ssd/io being able to stream 4gb in 0.5 seconds but UE5 is already taxing the current gen machines from a GPU perspective.

Its rather telling Cerny could not at least show a demo showing the advantage of the PS5s SSD over a 2gb/sec one.

You know what they say, talk is cheap.

Its something both platforms are guilty of, not doing a great job at demonstrating why all this new tech will make our games better.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Gold Member
Depends if the CPU + GPU can draw and render it.

Its all very well the ssd/io being able to stream 4gb in 0.5 seconds but UE5 is already taxing the current gen machines from a GPU perspective.

Its rather telling Cerny could not at least show a demo showing the advantage of the PS5s SSD over a 2gb/sec one.

You know what they say, talk is cheap.

Its something both platforms are guilty of, not doing a great job at demonstrating why all this new tech will make our games better.
It’s not about rendering, it’s about memory
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
It’s not about rendering, it’s about memory
Yes but whatever you fill the memory with still has to be processed and rendered with the CPU + GPU.

Cerny said that streaming was a main reason for the 5.5gb SSD and he said what if you can load textures in that 1/2 second, he then goes on to say thats 4gb of compressed data you can load, which would Free up RAM space.

But ultimately somthing is going to bottleneck first, if you can have 4gb of textures in a scene stream from the SSD and fill the ram with, geometry, lighting calculations, sound, Ai etc then with your going to reach a limit with the memory you have, what the GPU can render or what the CPU can draw.

Judging by what we have seen so far its not hard to fully utilise bthe GPU.

Some examples from the platforms of there approaches would of been nice, the best one Ive seen is the SFS demo from Microsoft, even though it has simplistic geometry and lighting it does demonstrate how the size of textures can be greatly reduced.
 

Shmunter

Gold Member
Yes but whatever you fill the memory with still has to be processed and rendered with the CPU + GPU.

Cerny said that streaming was a main reason for the 5.5gb SSD and he said what if you can load textures in that 1/2 second, he then goes on to say thats 4gb of compressed data you can load, which would Free up RAM space.

But ultimately somthing is going to bottleneck first, if you can have 4gb of textures in a scene stream from the SSD and fill the ram with, geometry, lighting calculations, sound, Ai etc then with your going to reach a limit with the memory you have, what the GPU can render or what the CPU can draw.

Judging by what we have seen so far its not hard to fully utilise bthe GPU.

Some examples from the platforms of there approaches would of been nice, the best one Ive seen is the SFS demo from Microsoft, even though it has simplistic geometry and lighting it does demonstrate how the size of textures can be greatly reduced.
Common misconception is that scene variety is married to scene complexity. This conflates unrelated parts of the system.

A scene can still have an X polygon budget no mater how much memory is accessible,

Whether a game zooms in on an asset that gets swapped into higher detailed model in an instant or has more variety in the plant life because smaller memory reserves are needed for what’s off screen - the amount of polygons etc within the visible frame are still appropriate for the relative GPU power.

It’s no different to having 8gig of ram vs 32gig. Unrelated to cpu/GPU performance - it’s just more available to act on.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Common misconception is that scene variety is married to scene complexity. This conflates unrelated parts of the system.

A scene can still have an X polygon budget no mater how much memory is accessible,

Whether a game zooms in on an asset that gets swapped into higher detailed model in an instant or has more variety in the plant life because smaller memory reserves are needed for what’s off screen - the amount of polygons etc within the visible frame are still appropriate for the relative GPU power.

It’s no different to having 8gig of ram vs 32gig. Unrelated to cpu/GPU performance - it’s just more available to act on.
Nothing I said is denying this, there is still a limit on what a GPU can render, its why comprimises need to be made e.g the RT performance mode in spiderman will reduce the reflection resolution, the animation quality in the reflection, lower over resolution etc etc.
 

Shmunter

Gold Member
Nothing I said is denying this, there is still a limit on what a GPU can render, its why comprimises need to be made e.g the RT performance mode in spiderman will reduce the reflection resolution, the animation quality in the reflection, lower over resolution etc etc.
That’s fine, but again why point out what’s unrelated. Better way to look at it would be the ability to zoom in on Mary Janes ass and seeing as much detail in her butt cheeks as the entire world takes up; because her super detailed model was loaded in seamlessly in real-time on demand.
 

DarkMage619

Member
MS didn’t do anything. Bethesda obviously had this game in development coming to consoles way before MS bought them.

Just like they have nothing to do with Deathloop exclusive PS5 deal still being in place despite them saying “we’ll honer the deal.” The deal was before the purchase so they have no say in that contract from Sony and Bethesda. That comment was nothing but PR for made for fanboys.

Y’all have to stop giving MS these imaginary good guy points. Cause the real MS is them not letting Redfall and Starfield on PlayStation.
MS didn't have to do squat for the PlayStation but they put out a native version of this game for PS5 regardless. I'd say that's more of a 'good guy' move than paying 3rd parties to keep games off of the Xbox which I've see elsewhere. I highly doubt there was a specific deal signed to make this title regardless.

Sony doesn't need Redfall or Starfield because they have Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo games MS most likely could have paid to get out of the contracts. Again instead of paying to keep something off a platform they let it proceed. Nothing imaginary about that at all.
 
Last edited:

zaanan

Banned
The one kind of shit that happens is your trouble understanding and your lack of knowledge.

The improvement in load times in XSeries is not reduced to the gain that you can achieve only for the effects of playing on SSDs. The BC in XS includes specific software at system level to improve those load times beyond what SSD. It is, alongside automatic HDR and AFx16, BC enhancement software. That's why XBO games on XSeries see a dramatically greater improvement in load times than PS4 games on PS5 Even though the SSD on PS5 is faster.
Watch Out Badass GIF
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
That’s fine, but again why point out what’s unrelated. Better way to look at it would be the ability to zoom in on Mary Janes ass and seeing as much detail in her butt cheeks as the entire world takes up; because her super detailed model was loaded in seamlessly in real-time on demand.

I suppose it is a seperate subject.

However the reason for the SSD on both the sony and Microsoft machines is to make up for there relatively low RAM size weather sonys approach produces double the streaming data remains to be seen.

Devs wanted a minimum of 1gb/second. Microsoft would not of created an SSD/io soultion which would be a bottleneck. Microsoft have wanted to use flash memory to replace RAM since the 360 days.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom