Didn't know it had a good CB method. Most of the time CBR looks pretty bad but it looks fine in this one.
The cb was visible for me. Series x looks like the way to go.
hes been alternating between doing videos for IGN and his own channel.I missed a step, he fell out with IGN?
For IGN he just did an amazing Flight Sim through the years on actual hardware of the time. Man, that must take so much time and dedication.I missed a step, he fell out with IGN?
Other than the hair in this case, it’s hardly call it obvious.Checkerboard rendering obviously doesn't look as good as 4K
I'll go watch that! I always liked flight simulators (in general).For IGN he just did an amazing Flight Sim through the years on actual hardware of the time. Man, that must take so much time and dedication.
IGN is lucky to have his talent on board.
One x is more capable in its gpu and ram capacity. One x for graphics, and series s is better in game logic (cpu) and loading.My problem with his analysis pops up within the first 1 minute and 29 seconds of the video. What's this nonsense about the Series S not having the GPU horsepower to achieve Xbox One X levels of performance, when in fact it can easily achieve, even exceed, that if it wasn't a BC game locked to the Xbox One S code and was instead properly made for the Series S?
Series S is not only capable of what an Xbox One S can do. So if it's locked to Xbox One S code, no amount of GPU power is going to get you Xbox One X levels of performance or visual quality. You listen a little longer, and he literally calls the Series S a console only capable of last gen performance. This is why I don't take this guy's work seriously.
Are you implying I suggested the visible difference is obvious? I said obviously native 4K looks better than checkerboard rendering because this is always the case (no matter how big or small the difference is). I did not say the visible difference is obvious. Just to clarify.Other than the hair in this case, it’s hardly call it obvious.
Wouldn’t it beg to reason if series S could run One X Fidelity at double the frame rate, it would be enabled?My problem with his analysis pops up within the first 1 minute and 29 seconds of the video. What's this nonsense about the Series S not having the GPU horsepower to achieve Xbox One X levels of performance, when in fact it can easily achieve, even exceed, that if it wasn't a BC game locked to the Xbox One S code and was instead properly made for the Series S?
Series S is not only capable of what an Xbox One S can do. So if it's locked to Xbox One S code, no amount of GPU power is going to get you Xbox One X levels of performance or visual quality. You listen a little longer, and he literally calls the Series S a console only capable of last gen performance. This is why I don't take this guy's work seriously.
One x is more capable in its gpu and ram capacity. One x for graphics, and series s is better in game logic (cpu) and loading.
Wouldn’t it beg to reason if series S could run One X Fidelity at double the frame rate, it would be enabled?
Im not quite sure the issue here?
Not sure what to tell you if you think less is more. New architecture can help with new techniques but it's not going to help old games much. 8gb @ 224gb/s, 2gb @56gb/s vs 12gb @ 336gb/s. 6 vs. 4tf. Big difference in favor of one x. Go read up on the stuff. Series S i'm betting would be incapable of running forza horizon 4 with 4k one x settings.One X GPU is by no means more capable than what's inside the Series S. Series S GPU is a much more capable/advanced piece of hardware. Games properly designed around it despite having less RAM, less memory bandwidth and less TFLOPS will easily outclass what can be done on Xbox One X on both a performance and visual level.
Not sure what to tell you if you think less is more. New architecture can help with new techniques but it's not going to help old games much. 8gb @ 224gb/s, 2gb @56gb/s vs 12gb @ 336gb/s. 6 vs. 4tf. Big difference in favor of one x. Go read up on the stuff. Series S i'm betting would be incapable of running forza horizon 4 with 4k one x settings.
Despite having enhanced features, are we sure the computational TF comparison between the 2 is not close? How many % TF efficiency does RDNA2 add over the past gen? It would have to be 30% at the minimum to match the computational capability.One X GPU is by no means more capable than what's inside the Series S. Series S GPU is a much more capable/advanced piece of hardware. Games properly designed around it despite having less RAM, less memory bandwidth and less TFLOPS will easily outclass what can be done on Xbox One X on both a performance and visual level.
Most of the benefits seen today come from past gen lacking CPU to feed the GPU fast enough for fast framerates.Series S can run Psychonauts 2 at 2880 x 1620 at 60fps. Or do 1080p at 120fps. In other words, there's plenty of performance headroom to outperform Xbox One X.
My problem with his analysis pops up within the first 1 minute and 29 seconds of the video. What's this nonsense about the Series S not having the GPU horsepower to achieve Xbox One X levels of performance, when in fact it can easily achieve, even exceed, that if it wasn't a BC game locked to the Xbox One S code and was instead properly made for the Series S?
Series S is not only capable of what an Xbox One S can do. So if it's locked to Xbox One S code, no amount of GPU power is going to get you Xbox One X levels of performance or visual quality. You listen a little longer, and he literally calls the Series S a console only capable of last gen performance. This is why I don't take this guy's work seriously.
59.6 to 58.8 on average omfg such huge difference. Omg omg.PS5 CB is very good on this game, but XSX 2016p native resolution sounds a bit better.
But PS5 has smoother FPS on stress points. Average performance is 59.6 on PS5 and 58.8 on XSX.
For me it's a trade-off, both have bit advantagens in different points.
Series S GPU is two entire generations newer than what’s in the One X, and it’s mated to a significantly more capable CPU while targeting 1080p and 1440p. It’s not really comparable.Despite having enhanced features, are we sure the computational TF comparison between the 2 is not close? How many % TF efficiency does RDNA2 add over the past gen? It would have to be 30% at the minimum to match the computational capability.
Not to be a meme here, but VRR offsets that advantage and makes the .8 frame performance invalid.PS5 CB is very good on this game, but XSX 2016p native resolution sounds a bit better.
But PS5 has smoother FPS on stress points. Average performance is 59.6 on PS5 and 58.8 on XSX.
For me it's a trade-off, both have bit advantagens in different points.
I think NX dropped the ball here doing an avg over a too long a session.59.6 to 58.8 on average omfg such huge difference. Omg omg.
Native 4k with minor 2 fps drop ftw.
So pkaying the game as intended skews the result now?I think NX dropped the ball here doing an avg over a too long a session.
Traversing the forest without anything happening hits 60 easily skewing the result.
During battles the framerate is almost 15-20fps higher on PS5, these are the stress points that affect the gameplay being combat heavy.
Is it though?During battles the framerate is almost 15-20fps higher on PS5
So during the combat sections you don’t care about the performance delta?So pkaying the game as intended skews the result now?
OK I think I've heard just about everything now.
Despite having enhanced features, are we sure the computational TF comparison between the 2 is not close? How many % TF efficiency does RDNA2 add over the past gen? It would have to be 30% at the minimum to match the computational capability.
What do you mean? The video is right there.Is it though?
(no it's not)
Yes, I recognise that. But this or other games are not built around those performance saving features. A game that does all that is unlikely to see the light of day on last gen.Series S's advantages go well beyond computational capability. It also has a features like Mesh Shaders and Sampler Feedback Streaming that will absolutely blow Xbox One X out of the water. Sampler Feedback Streaming eliminates entirely the one real advantage Xbox One X had, which was the RAM capacity advantage for games.
It‘s a good mix between 1+2. I personally didn‘t like it as much as the Reboot but thought it was much better than Rise.Glad I held off on playing it. As a fan of the Rise, how does this one compare?
Yeah. During most of the combat the fps is only slightly below 60. During one alpha heavy segment it drops much lower, but the comparison is not like for like at all. So saying "in combat PS5 has 20 more fps" is nonsense.What do you mean? The video is right there.
Thank you. His reviews always derail from pure technological objective information to some unnecessary fanboy or bias crap that throws it off or me. DF remains the supreme benchmark of benchmarking console performance.My problem with his analysis pops up within the first 1 minute and 29 seconds of the video. What's this nonsense about the Series S not having the GPU horsepower to achieve Xbox One X levels of performance, when in fact it can easily achieve, even exceed, that if it wasn't a BC game locked to the Xbox One S code and was instead properly made for the Series S?
Series S is not only capable of what an Xbox One S can do. So if it's locked to Xbox One S code, no amount of GPU power is going to get you Xbox One X levels of performance or visual quality. You listen a little longer, and he literally calls the Series S a console only capable of last gen performance. This is why I don't take this guy's work seriously.
NX gamer deliberately went and re did the section to be as like for like as reasonably possible just for that reason, also in the video.Yeah. During most of the combat the fps is only slightly below 60. During one alpha heavy segment it drops much lower, but the comparison is not like for like at all. So saying "in combat PS5 has 20 more fps" is nonsense.