Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

​

One of the most fantastic games of the year, Baldur's Gate 3 has finally arrived on Xbox Series consoles. In this video, Oliver Mackenzie revisits the PlayStation 5 version of the game to revisit visuals and performance, before stacking up the revised code against the newly released Xbox version. It's all here.

00:00 Overview
00:54 PS5 update
04:22 Series X
08:03 Series S
10:50 Analysis and conclusion

 

[Radical_3d]

Came for the meme. Left disappointed.

Edit: superb job made on the S machine. Arguably the most popular Xbox and therefore the most important one.

 

[AnotherOne]

 

[Vergil1992]

Summary:

Between PS5/XSX

- The game on PS5 has improved its performance since its launch.

- Quality mode at 1440p on PS5/XSX and 1080p in performance mode (as a curiosity, the XSX HUD has a lower resolution)

- Visually there are few differences. For example, in the XSX version the characters are on surfaces in a more realistic way; On PS5 they seem to "float", but the geometry is very similar. The XSX version has worse texture filtering. The water also looks slightly different, which they believe is because they've tried to make it look more realistic, but up close they look identical.

- Performance is similar, but in CPU-limited areas like the third act, PS5 performs better. It should be mentioned that PS5 has improved performance since its launch.


XSS:


- The quality of shadows is lower than that of XSX. There are no more visual differences apparently, the texture filtering for example is identical.

- 1080p native.

- 30fps, performance is the same as Xbox Series X.

 

[adamsapple]

- PS5 update history
- Shadows appear more diffused and blood decal and shadow specular updated.
- Not much else changed visually and IQ.
- DRS has been added. Quality 1440p. Performance 1080p.
- CPU bound performance that went to low 20s has been improved. Same areas are generally hovering in mid 30's in Performance mode and Quality sticks generally at or close to 30 with drops to mid 20s in Act 3.

- Series X:
- Visually very close.
- Ground surface is slightly 'higher' and character feet seem better grounded (less flaoty) while the detail seems similar.
- Anisotropic filtering is lower on Series X
- Distance water has hazy filter attempting a more natural sky reflection, closer quality is similar.
- Act 3 has more drops than PS5 in Quality mode.
- Performance mode also has drops a bit lower than PS5.
- Less tearing compared to PS5 (Xbox tears on top, PS5 tears on top and bottom)
- Co-op mode works more or less the same as the PS5

- Series S:
- Lower shadow quality and resolve, LoD is simplified in long distances
- Visual setting differences are subtle and not visually obvious
- Resolution drops to 1080p, softer with more visible aliasing compared to other versions
- Targets a single 30 FPS mode, with even frame pacing, locked to target in general play.
- Act 3 holds about the same as the other consoles with similar drops
- Co-op is not present in this version only.

Conclusion:
- Comes in more or less as expected, a very similar experience with some odd visual differences and performance delta in favor of PS5 at the moment.
- DF thinks Quality mode should have targeted higher resolution, they don't think the Quality mode is worth it as it is. Stick to Performance mode.

- Xbox version had a save issue at the time of recording (adam's note: the issue has been fixed since then)

 

[Beer Baelly]

 

[Gaiff]

Big oof at the AF Quality on the Series X. It already looks ugly as fuck on PS5 but this looks like trilinear filtering on Series X lol.

The ground looks like a single texture lmao.

 

[Bojji]

AF differences:

PS5 looks and runs better in this one.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Pretty much a tie IMO. I really have to play this one at some point.

Guess the only big difference is the lack of splitscreen on the Series X.

 

[lh032]

ps5 seems to perform better than X based on the video and summary lol?
Theres a comparison pic above as well.

 

[mejin]

First and better.

 

[Gaiff]

Pretty much a tie IMO. I really have to play this one at some point.

Guess the only big difference is the lack of splitscreen on the Series X.

I wouldn't call this a tie. They both suffer immensely in Baldur's Gate but PS5 runs up 3-5fps faster. It usually doesn't make a difference but when your fps tanks to the 20s, 27 vs 30fps is a noticeable difference. That AF on SX is also unsightly.

Bottom line is: Play this on PC.

 

[MasterCornholio]

ps5 seems to perform better than X based on the video and summary lol?

I think he means the timed exclusivity period due to the issued with the Series S.

I mean sure it was dumb the Xbox version was delayed but it didn't take them long to bring it to the platform.

 

[Horseganador]

The goty on PS5 is much better, the framerate is better and the worse texture filtering on Xbox is very noticeable and makes the image worse.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I wouldn't call this a tie. They both suffer immensely in Baldur's Gate but PS5 runs up 3-5fps faster. It usually doesn't make a difference but when your fps tanks to the 20s, 27 vs 30fps is a noticeable difference. That AF on SX is also unsightly.

Bottom line is: Play this on PC.

Well that's close enough for me. I wouldn't say either version is massively better than the other. But sure PC is definitely the place to play this if your system can handle it.

 

[lh032]

I guess ill wait for a few more patches, perhaps they can improve the frame rate further on ps5.

 

[Soltype]

Why is the res so low for performance mode, I feel like the gpus in these systems should be able to handle 1440p 60.

 

[SimTourist]

Wondered what's the fuss is all about, the game looks like a late xbox 360 game and somehow struggles to run on current consoles? Dafuq?

 

[jm89]

PS5 looks and runs better in this one.

 

[TheShocker]

I feel like the game should be 1440p/60 minimum on both machines. It’s not a super action packed game and it doesn’t seem like a very demanding one either. Hopefully Larian puts some good patch work in over the coming months.

 

[Insane Metal]

AF differences:

PS5 looks and runs better in this one.

- Series X:
- Visually very close.

Uh huh

 

[nowhat]

Why is the res so low for performance mode, I feel like the gpus in these systems should be able to handle 1440p 60.

The game (on current consoles) is definitely more CPU-bound than GPU-bound. Sure, the actual combat is turn-based, but gameplay outside combat is not, and when there's a lot of NPCs (like in act 3) the CPU is being hammered pretty hard.

 

[adamsapple]

Uh huh

The difference is in AF, not the texture quality or resolution.

 

[Bernoulli]

First and better.

 

[Vergil1992]

Uh huh

That's because the AF depending on the angle can be very noticeable or not noticeable at all. But what DF is referring to is that removing the texture filtering, they are otherwise visually identical.


I think that right now it is evident that it is better on PS5; more stable performance and better texture filtering (the lack of AF on Xbox Series is probably the biggest problem right now). But we have to be fair, when the game was released on PS5 it performed worse than the current version of XSX. The Xbox Series X version will probably also receive optimizations in these months.

These are also differences that DF highlights:

I have checked the appearance of the water in comparisons of the PC version, and it is definitely different between "low" and "ultra":


low:

ultra:

low:

ultra:

The difference is quite similar, although not as big (between PS5/XSX). Are we sure these are the same graphical settings here?

Can anyone check it? I don't have the game.




Edit: I have seen more examples and everything I see seems that on PS5 the water is seen with the equivalent of lower settings:

 

[Senua]

First and better.

Agreed

 

[Zuzu]

They've gotta fix the anistrophic filtering on Series X. I thought it looked blurrier playing it on my Series X compared to playing on my PS5.

 

[Cornbread78]

 

[Insane Metal]

That's because the AF depending on the angle can be very noticeable or not noticeable at all. But what DF is referring to is that removing the texture filtering, they are otherwise visually identical.


I think that right now it is evident that it is better on PS5; more stable performance and better texture filtering (the lack of AF on Xbox Series is probably the biggest problem right now). But we have to be fair, when the game was released on PS5 it performed worse than the current version of XSX. The Xbox Series X version will probably also receive optimizations in these months.

These are also differences that DF highlights:

I have checked the appearance of the water in comparisons of the PC version, and it is definitely different between "low" and "ultra":


low:

ultra:

low:

ultra:

The difference is quite similar, although not as big (between PS5/XSX). Are we sure these are the same graphical settings here?

Can anyone check it? I don't have the game.




Edit: I have seen more examples and everything I see seems that on PS5 the water is seen with the equivalent of lower settings:

That shadow looks pretty weird on PS5, like he's floating indeed

 

[Vergil1992]

That shadow looks pretty weird on PS5, like he's floating indeed

Yes, but the most disconcerting thing is the water in my opinion. DF doesn't seem to consider it relevant, but from what I'm seeing, PS5 seems to match here with low settings and the XSX version are something in between, not quite the Ultra look, but definitely closer than PS5.

Example:

PS5:

PC:

It's very similar to the difference we see here, although to a greater degree between PC/PS5, but PS5 looks exactly the same as "low", XSX looks like it doesn't look like Ultra, but closer.

If anyone can check it out to satisfy curiosity, that would be amazing! In my opinion, there is a different graphical setting here (DF in the video doesn't rule it out at all because it is a game with a lot of graphical differences between the different settings). It's like on PS5 it's on low and XSX is on something like medium-high, because Ultra looks better than XSX.

 

[Insane Metal]

Seems like different concessions for the game to run properly on either platform.

 

[skit_data]

Wierd with the "floaty" look on PS5, it's indeed better on Series X. I had to rewind several times because I thought he meant the settings on the ground texture seemed higher which I took as an outrageous take when looking at that picture.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

ps5 seems to perform better than X based on the video and summary lol?
Theres a comparison pic above as well.

the delusion train has left the reality station

 

[Vergil1992]

Seems like different concessions for the game to run properly on either platform.

I'm not sure that much of this is intentional. Probably just the XSS concessions are somewhat intentional. I think they have simply followed a very different optimization process; The fact that on PS5 the characters "float" after so many months... suggests that the problem is a bug that probably no one has seen and the developers haven't bothered to fix it and on Texture filtering generally has little effect on performance, PS4 often had worse texture filtering than Xbox One and was technologically better on almost all of them (except for a slightly slower cpu), and on XSS and XSX the AF is practically the same even in performance mode (that is, both versions running at 1080p).

What I PERSONALLY believe (not 100% sure) is that the water effect is a different graphical setting and is reduced on PS5. I have no idea what the impact is (maybe it doesn't even have an impact or it's just a few fps), but when you compare Baldur's Gate 3 Ultra vs Low, the PS5 water looks like low and the XSX water looks like ¿medium? ¿high?. intermediate between Low-Ultra. What DF says is that "they look the same up close", but on PC it also happens, up close the water looks the same in low and ultra, but in the distance exactly the same thing happens as in the PS5/XSX versions.

Probably after several patches the performance of XSX is better, games that are limited by the cpu often receive performance improvements, on PS5 it was much worse than on XSX at launch. But I think some graphical settings depend more on the different optimization process of each game, I don't think they are intentional concessions.

 

[DenchDeckard]

That anisotropic filtering!

A few patches should sort out all console versions.

 

[skyfinch]

Playsation is a goddamn beast! Even makes the seris S look like a fool.

 

[Kilau]

That anisotropic filtering!

A few patches should sort out all console versions.

It’s so weird because it’s always been worse on PS consoles when there is a difference, I think it was the Strider dev that said they just simply forgot to turn it on lol.

 

[Darsxx82]

It is evident that they have been versions made separately and at different times. There are too many specific/little differences in details for and against depending on the platform.

As seen in the video, the PS5 version has improved significantly compared to the launch thanks to the continuous patches received. It is true that DRS is in use now that was not there but time has been good for it.

In XSX, as mentioned, AF is the most relevant point. I don't know if it is another case of a defect inherited from XSS and it can be resolved in the following patches that LARIAN STUDIOS has already announced. Performance is significantly better than the PS5 in its launch version and is not far from the current one. It would be interesting to return in the future and see if they are able to improve it. I don't know if better water or shadows is subtracting some fps from XSX but I suppose they will detect that.

Finally XSS, a very very decent and well finished version beyond not having Coop in split screen.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Wierd with the "floaty" look on PS5, it's indeed better on Series X. I had to rewind several times because I thought he meant the settings on the ground texture seemed higher which I took as an outrageous take when looking at that picture.

Seems more like a problem with the shadow, because they are both floating. Crazy I spent over 100 hours on this game and never noticed it

 

[FrankWza]

Evangelists right now....

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Solid game=everyone eating good

 

[Gaiff]

Texture filtering generally has little effect on performance

On PC, sure. AF 16x has been free for over a decade. On consoles though? Texture filtering has a much larger impact due to their limited bandwidth. That's why you see low-tier cards on PC having no issues cranking up AF to the max but consoles still use 4x or at best 8x.

 

[Snake29]

lol

 

[Vergil1992]

On PC, sure. AF 16x has been free for over a decade. On consoles though? Texture filtering has a much larger impact due to their limited bandwidth. That's why you see low-tier cards on PC having no issues cranking up AF to the max but consoles still use 4x or at best 8x.

I'm not sure about that. Cross-platform games relatively often had better AF on Xbox One than PS4, even in games that both ran at the same resolution and graphics settings.


For example, DmC Definitive Edition:

There was no technical reason for this to happen, and yet it happened.

In this case (Baldur's Gate 3) it is easy to rule out that it is something related to the HW: the problem persists in both quality mode and performance mode. In performance mode, it runs at 1080p on XSX with graphical settings very similar to quality mode (in fact, DF literally says that quality mode is not even worth it), which runs at 1440p. Don't you think they would have plenty of room to implement AF?

Also, matching 1:1 with XSS is not going to be a coincidence; It's not something in between, it's practically as if it didn't have AF.



Separate topic, although I also think that PS5 is the winner here, we must recognize that there are a few nuances:

- PS5 improved its performance since launch and has been on the market for a long time, it is probably the most polished version right now and the XSS/XSX version has more room for improvement.

- In XSX there is less intrusive tearing, better (whether or not they have an impact on performance) water effects and the characters are better implemented in the terrain.


Taking into account that one version is known to have had serious development problems (XSS) and that PS5 has been updating for longer, the truth is that the game's performance is quite good, considering everything mentioned.

 

[Darsxx82]

Taking into account that one version is known to have had serious development problems (XSS) and that PS5 has been updating for longer, the truth is that the game's performance is quite good, considering everything mentioned.

The Xbox version is several patches away from being the final one according to Larian herself. We'll see if they resolve the AF issue.

 

[eNT1TY]

Wierd with the "floaty" look on PS5, it's indeed better on Series X. I had to rewind several times because I thought he meant the settings on the ground texture seemed higher which I took as an outrageous take when looking at that picture.

This is not a difference in AF only, this is straight up lower quality ground texture and lower quality specular highlights. That is too high an angle for AF alone to account for the degradation.
A difference in AF only would look like this specially so close to the screen:

Notice the bottom quarter of the screen, texture quality and sharpness remains identical and that's with AF toggled off, not even a lower AF setting. At this tighter lower angle the AF differences would be much more pronounced than in the BG3 shot.

 

[PropellerEar]

Look forward to the performance difference with the PS5.

Prob not what you expected

 

[nowhat]

Prob not what you were expected

But still technically correct. Which, as we know, is the best kind of correct.

 

[Bojji]

On PC, sure. AF 16x has been free for over a decade. On consoles though? Texture filtering has a much larger impact due to their limited bandwidth. That's why you see low-tier cards on PC having no issues cranking up AF to the max but consoles still use 4x or at best 8x.

I don't think ~450GB/s or over 500GB/s can be called "limited bandwidth", even sharing this with CPU consoles have more memory BW than many midrange GPUs (4060ti, 6700). And enabling AF on those GPUs is probably almost free.

AFx8 should be minimum forced by Sony and MS.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Prob not what you expected

What do you mean? I have no problem buying a third party game on the PS5, if that’s where it looks/performs better. Crazy to see the visual difference between launch and now on PS5. Makes me think I should wait a while longer.

Series S seems better than expectations.