• 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

Sosokrates

Gold Member
 
VGtech said the lower bound is rare and it's only on one axis anyway. Probably need the DRS for the heavier mods and it's not a native app.
The lower bond is rare. But the middle bond (if you will) seems to be the majority of play on XSX as DF said:
this takes us to 3840 by 2160 at best, looking at the sky, right down to 2560 by 2160 in taxing moments
To me this is really surprising as it was native 4k with a solid 60fps before (so when exploring etc).

Why can't it sustain native 4K while simply exploring now with DRS? The XSX is now technically the most disappointing version among the 3. While XSS got a resolution boost most of the time, PS5 got 60fps and ~2 seconds loadings (about half quicker than on Xbox, that seems to be a trend now) et XSX actually has a resolution downgrade most of the time.

By the was compared to the next-gen "patch" only PS5 got loading times improvements, here the BC patch loading times compared.
 

assurdum

Member
If you have the 60fps mod, yeah. No idea if they've updated the PS4 version for 60fps on PS5.
I played it on my external HDD and I could swear it runs at 60 FPS (though with I/O issue which cause FPS stutter here and there). That's why I doubt it's a native ps5 port. Many games enhanced on ps5 still run in BC.
What the hell I have said of funny :messenger_confused:
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
The lower bond is rare. But the middle bond (if you will) seems to be the majority of play on XSX as DF said:

To me this is really surprising as it was native 4k with a solid 60fps before (so when exploring etc).

Why can't it sustain native 4K while simply exploring now with DRS? The XSX is now technically the most disappointing version among the 3. While XSS got a resolution boost most of the time, PS5 got 60fps and ~2 seconds loadings (about half quicker than on Xbox, that seems to be a trend now) et XSX actually has a resolution downgrade most of the time.

By the was compared to the next-gen "patch" only PS5 got loading times improvements, here the BC patch loading times compared.
It's apparently still a BC game on Series consoles, though they do seem to get better loading even with BC games compared to last gen.
 

assurdum

Member
PS4Pro version running via PS5 BC is now also 60 fps. It's still a different version. PS5 has a native version, the loading times kinda prove it.
I don't understand. So ps5 can run the game at 60 FPS even via BC? Because on PS4 pro this game not runs absolutely at 60 FPS. Oh lol. Seems Bethesda has enhanced at 60 FPS via BC also early.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
I played it on my external HDD and I could swear it runs at 60 FPS (though with I/O issue which cause FPS stutter here and there). That's why I doubt it's a native ps5 port. Many games enhanced on ps5 still run in BC.
What the hell I have said of funny :messenger_confused:
I have two versions, PS4 and PS5. PS5 version is tiny compared to PS4 (49.25GB v 16.32GB).

Edit: Saves transfer, too.
 
Last edited:

Dr.D00p

Member
You have to ask whether a video on a near 11yr old game, really is the best use of limited DF resources, particularly at this time year, in the release avalanche that is Christmas. I can think of 50 other things I'd rather see them looking at, TBH.
 
So before the patch the game on XSX was running mostly at native 4K and it's surprisingly not the case anymore as it's now usually upscaled from a lower resolution which is a shame as native resolution brings you a very sharp and clean image compared to any upscaled resolution. This is even more surprising as with VRR available on Xbox consoles, those dropped frames were mostly not noticeable on the unpatched version running at native 4K. That native 4K image was a big bonus in a rather slow game like this one with a lot of exploration and slow scenes.

So I think this patched version on XSX is a big downgrade. Why this is not making people asking questions?

I remember previously when something similar happened on TLOU on Pro version people noticed it and DF made a whole video mainly talking about it. We actually learned later the Pro game performed better in others scenes but they wanted to focus only on the downgraded scenes (as the game was running slower in those scenes but at a much higher resolution all the time). But anyways those couple of frames dropped were very important for DF and some others outlet like Polygon. This was their article title, not a hidden comment:
The Last of Us Remastered runs worse on PS4 Pro than standard PS4 at 60 fps

People were angry and were relentlessly talking about it in forums.

DF actually started a narrative about Pro games running worse than PS4 games using a handfull of games as a reference (which were mostly patched, including TLOU, so they quickly stopped with that narrative and almost never talked about it later).
 
Last edited:

bender

What time is it?
You have to ask whether a video on a near 11yr old game, really is the best use of limited DF resources, particularly at this time year, in the release avalanche that is Christmas. I can think of 50 other things I'd rather see them looking at, TBH.

Skyrim probably pulls in a ton of views.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
So I think this patched version on XSX is a big downgrade. Why this is not making people asking questions?
I'm playing it on PS5, but I'd argue the massive reduction in load times is a way bigger benefit than a few extra pixels here and there (I mean, it's Skyrim, it looks nice in 4K but, let's be honest, it's hardly the game you boot up to show off 4K to a friend).
 
So I think this patched version on XSX is a big downgrade. Why this is not making people asking questions?
Because it's in no way a big downgrade. During stressful scenes, it performs much better. During normal scenes, it runs mostly similar. And the DRS allows for graphics mods which would previously tank the performance a lot. And the patched version has much better loading times. I don't see the "big downgrade".
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
You have to ask whether a video on a near 11yr old game, really is the best use of limited DF resources, particularly at this time year, in the release avalanche that is Christmas. I can think of 50 other things I'd rather see them looking at, TBH.

What big games are there that they haven't covered?
 

FritzJ92

Member
Because it's in no way a big downgrade. During stressful scenes, it performs much better. During normal scenes, it runs mostly similar. And the DRS allows for graphics mods which would previously tank the performance a lot. And the patched version has much better loading times. I don't see the "big downgrade".
The loading time from the patch and BC on Xbox are the same aren’t they?
 

Darius87

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.
you clearly have no idea about rendering i'm sorry i could expand on this but at this point it would be like talking with child pretending to know something it's just comedy at this point. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
you clearly have no idea about rendering i'm sorry i could expand on this but at this point it would be like talking with child pretending to know something it's just comedy at this point. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Really constructive post here..

You clearly know nothing on the subject because your only contribution is to barf out some dull witted Ad hominem attack at me.
 
Last edited:

Neo_game

Member
I have two versions, PS4 and PS5. PS5 version is tiny compared to PS4 (49.25GB v 16.32GB).

Edit: Saves transfer, too.


Thanks for the info. This is big deal IMO and this is definitely a next gen feature. I am sure it is possible, devs just do not care much. I never understood why COD takes so much space even though they give options for SP and MP version. It is a big turn off for me if a game takes lot of space. I do not know about remastered version but if I remember correctly Crysis3 does not take much space on PC and still looks better than most games even today.
 

Tripolygon

Member
Smaller game sizes is a nice QoL improvement, but not something of great significance for a gaming console.
For a console with 667GB of usable storage space, it is nice to be able to fit near 2x worth of compressed games. More if you expand with more storage in the expansion bay. For people with data caps. I remember telling people before the console launched that games sizes won't be as big as people expect even with increased asset and texture resolution.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
For a console with 667GB of usable storage space, it is nice to be able to fit near 2x worth of compressed games. More if you expand with more storage in the expansion bay. For people with data caps. I remember telling people before the console launched that games sizes won't be as big as people expect even with increased asset and texture resolution.
I agree, its a smart design.
 

Tripolygon

Member
I agree, its a smart design.
Indeed, to be honest, I expected games will remain largely the same size as last-gen or slightly smaller but nope we are seeing a 3:1 compression ratio in some games which is pretty crazy. Devs are just scratching the surface for what they can do. Based on what Mark Cerny said devs don't really have to put in work, just run their game through the PlayStation packaging tool and it will automatically create a smaller compressed package for PS5.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
God this game aged so poorly.
Nah, it's absolutely seminal and while the graphics and modelling don't hold a candle to modern blockbusters, it holds its own on a design front. Little wonder it become so influential: it is probably the game most responsible for popularising the stealth-action open world RPGs that have dominated the past decade.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom