• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Outriders Demo - PS5 and Series X graphics and performance comparison

muteZX

Banned
Jul 11, 2019
314
408
290
If a developer truely catered for VRR, they would push the settings to the point where the fps fluctuates in perpetuity at the expense of any stability.

So yeah, I guess that’s kind of what they are doing on XSX.


It's interesting to me that in a situation where the XSX drops to 51fps and the PS5 is probably holding above 65 fps, the developer will leave it at the mercy of the VRR and the job is done. It seems more to me like a sloppy game profiling. A rush job.
 

WildBoy

Member
Jun 13, 2019
237
266
265
This isn't about the average consumer. The average consumer plays FIFA and COD on a 7 year old 42 inch TV and doesn't give a shit about anything.
So playstation fanboys? No wonder Sony don't care bout VRR. Average Joe playing on a potato.
 

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Please, read the article. It´s reviewed by doctors. Our eye vision has limitations.

Or you can just take a 120 hz monitor/TV and use your eyes to see that it's a bullshit claim.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

muteZX

Banned
Jul 11, 2019
314
408
290
Last edited:

muteZX

Banned
Jul 11, 2019
314
408
290
How so? Simple math says XSX is outperforming the PS5. Numbers don't lie.

 

Elios83

Member
Jun 30, 2004
15,101
1,690
1,770
No, the XSX version is performing clearly better than the PS5 version.

Maybe it's time to stop deluding yourself?
XSX has worse framerate, worse texture filtering and just a higher absolute upper bound in the dynamic res range which tells nothing about how much time it manifests and is sustained in actual gameplay situations.

XSX isn't performing better unless you only see what you want to see and even in this case it's just an other title where the two consoles end up doing the same for all practical purposes, which is a big defeat for the narrative that Microsoft wanted to create last year and fans like you wanted to believe.
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Maybe it's time to stop deluding yourself?
XSX has worse framerate, worse texture filtering and just a higher absolute upper bound in the dynamic res range which tells nothing about how much time it manifests and is sustained in actual gameplay situations.

XSX isn't performing better unless you only see what you want to see and even in this case given it's just an other title where the two consoles end up doing the same for all pratical purposes, which is a big defeat for the narrative that Microsoft wanted to create and fans like you wanted to believe.
Again, numbers don't lie. 23% more resolution on average while pushing 5% less fps on average. That's just how it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
Maybe it's time to stop deluding yourself?
XSX has worse framerate, worse texture filtering and just a higher absolute upper bound in the dynamic res range which tells nothing about how much time it manifests and is sustained in actual gameplay situations.

XSX isn't performing better unless you only see what you want to see and even in this case it's just an other title where the two consoles end up doing the same for all pratical purposes, which is a big defeat for the narrative that Microsoft wanted to create last year and fans like you wanted to believe.
Kinda said, I wouldn't be surprised if ps5 will offer smoother/stable perfomance more often but maybe at lower resolution. Higher frequency helps immensely imo at lower resolution in perfomance. That why such choice in the hardware design is it smarter than someone can think.
 
Last edited:

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
Again, numbers don't lie. 23% more resolution on average while pushing 5% less fps on average. That's just how it is.
Why you care so much to have higher resolution with such perfomance? I don't get it. Because it's higher of the ps5? Higher dynamic resolution it's very deceiving. VGTECH said there isn't an average resolution, it's extremely dynamic on both. No one would notice a shit. More easily they will feel the FPS difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Why you care so much to have higher resolution with such perfomance? I don't get it. Because it's higher of the ps5? Higher dynamic resolution it's very deceiving. VGTECH said there isn't an average resolution, it's extremely dynamic on both. No one would notice a shit. More easily they will feel the FPS difference.
Because pixels per second is the only way to compare the power of the consoles. Comparing just resolution or just fps is nonsense. Also no FPS difference with a VRR capable TV. Silky smooth gaming here (outside of cutscenes of course).
 

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,460
12,408
805
Even the latest one with the latest update didn't get 100% breakdown from neutral sources like VGTech. So we don't really know about if XSX has reached parity or not. DF is more generalizing and talking a lot than needed. VGTech shows side by side comparisons with zero comments on the video.

Well, this is the current state of the game, many were touting DX12 Ultimate that will make games have much more gains vs PS5's API, and here's reality again:

This demo and the game engine is on DX11 not DX12. It also has inconsistent FPS drops when you have a lot of overdraw in the scene with transparencies. The camp where smoke is used a lot in that area tanks my 3090 from 90FPS down to in the 30s.
 

Elios83

Member
Jun 30, 2004
15,101
1,690
1,770
Again, numbers don't lie. 23% more resolution on average while pushing 5% less fps on average. That's just how it is.

You're lying to delude yourself.
Because you're treating a dynamic res range as a static situation and you're ignoring all the rest including texture filtering.
In this comparison it is not stated how much time the console spends at the higher bound of its dynamic range and there's no comparison between the two consoles under this metric.
You're conveniently taking and treating the upper bounds as static resolutions which is obviously wrong and false.

In any case the worst thing for fans like you is that you were promised the moon last year and now you're battling for meaningless and not perceptible differences and that's the biggest defeat you could have.
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
The camp where smoke is used a lot in that area tanks my 3090 from 90FPS down to in the 30s.
Damn that's horrible. I assume you game at 4K? Transparancies decrease the performance exponentially the higher you go with resolution.
 

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
Because pixels per second is the only way to compare the power of the consoles. Comparing just resolution or just fps is nonsense. Also no FPS difference with a VRR capable TV. Silky smooth gaming here (outside of cutscenes of course).
Like no. If higher res means unstable perfomance who gives a fuck. DLSS should tell you enough. And fuck VRR. FPS is more important, VRR shouldn't give the excuse to release game with less stable FPS. It's clear as the daylight such higher resolution it's meaningless on series X.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray and jroc74

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,460
12,408
805
Damn that's horrible. I assume you game at 4K? Transparancies decrease the performance exponentially the higher you go with resolution.
Yes, I'm running Ultra everything. Keep in mind, it's only in that camp that I know of for now. On the whole, the FPS is pretty high most of the time.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Jun 1, 2013
8,960
3,913
850
You're bragging about higher pixels, yet that's what's causing it to drop so many frames.

This means Xbox Series X likely needs to *lower* its resolution to maintain a stable frame-rate.



It doesn't use the full power.

Seriously. Why don't you take the time to look things up because you clearly don't know what you're even talking about? :messenger_tears_of_joy:




I cant wait for the response to the devs doing that and the resolution is a lil lower, the same, a lil higher than PS5. If its a lil lower or the same....oh boy.

MS has fps boosts, doubling the frame rate for BC games....its celebrated by many Xbox fans. And rightfully so.

But then you come to this topic.....and now fps dont matter? During the speculation phase before the consoles came out, I think many ppl settled on higher, better frame rates and lower resolution. The UE5 demo sealed that opinion.

Some were legit pissed at that first Sony games showcase and native 4K was mentioned for some games. Now that we can see it doesnt really matter since both consoles are doing a mix for the same games, same types of games, both doing upscaled/reconstructed....you would think higher, better fps would be wanted more now.

Naw, gotta pick something to hold on to for console wars.
Most People are mistaking power with performance, I think the main issue lies here. Xbox series X is more TF powerful than PS5, it’s a fact, now the real question is : is XseriesX more efficient ?
Agree.

If the PS5 is doing more with less, as far as tf, ....then whats the point about boasting about "more powerful"?

Even the XSX ram situation isnt so clear cut. IMO, thats like mixing ram timings on PC. 16GB mixed specs is not the same as 16GB all the same specs. The mixed might perform worse. Might also be like the PS3 ram situation.
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
16,153
75,430
965
35
Salalah, Oman
This demo and the game engine is on DX11 not DX12. It also has inconsistent FPS drops when you have a lot of overdraw in the scene with transparencies. The camp where smoke is used a lot in that area tanks my 3090 from 90FPS down to in the 30s.

So in summery PS5's API is vastly superior to DX11, at least?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ErRor88

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
You're lying to delude yourself.
Because you're treating a dynamic res range as a static situation and you're ignoring all the rest including texture filtering.
In this comparison it is not stated how much time the console spends at the higher bound of its dynamic range and there's no comparison between the two consoles under this metric.
You're conveniently taking and treating the upper bounds as static resolutions which is obviously wrong and false.
I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.
In any case the worst thing for fans like you is that you were promised the moon last year and now you're battling for meaningless and not perceptible differences and that's the biggest defeat you could had.
I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay :messenger_winking:
 

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Like no. If higher res means unstable perfomance who gives a fuck. DLSS should tell you enough. And fuck VRR. FPS is more important, VRR shouldn't give the excuse to release game with less stable FPS. It's clear as the daylight such higher resolution it's meaningless on series X.
Just comparing the FPS would mean that the console with the lowest resolution possible wins. That's obviously nonsense.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.

I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay :messenger_winking:
Uh no. On console textures filtering has a significant impact. It's quite notorious.
 

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Uh no. On console textures filtering has a significant impact. It's quite notorious.
On last gen consoles maybe. The new ones are like modern PCs, and on PC the texture filtering setting does basically nothing to performance.
 

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
Just comparing the FPS would mean that the console with the lowest resolution possible wins. That's obviously nonsense.
Not true at all. Frequency are still higher on ps5, not necessarily on series X lower resolution give the same benefit. Even cpu play a role. If on ps5 is more efficient (hypothetical eh) lower resolution has still more benefit.
It would explain why some developers prefers higher resolution on series X. Probably lowering the res there doesn't gives a worth boost in performance but the higher res which cans offer is more significant than the FPS improvement possible. Just a personal guess. It happened sometimes on PS3 too in the past.
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
You should ask to you why there isn't a single game with better texture filtering on series X. From what I know at least.
The XSX literally has a function built in to deliver 16x AF in all BC games. It's not taxing at all.
 

Elios83

Member
Jun 30, 2004
15,101
1,690
1,770
I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.

I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay :messenger_winking:

It's safe to assume things that are not stated in the comparison because that's what you want to believe? LOL.
You're taking the upper bounds as static resolutions, you're doing percentages calculations using the upper bounds as static even if the same percentages are different using the lower bounds and you're posting all day in this thread.
Seems like you're hurting a lot to find victories that do not exist.
You can go ahead and I won't lose extra time, it won't change the reality of the major letdown that all these comparisons have been for Xbox fans,you can confess you're disappointed with these meaningless differences ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray and jroc74

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
Now you starting to be a little obtuse. BC games are not absolutely taxing for series X hardware. 16xAF here means nothing
16x AF never means anything on somewhat modern systems. On PC it hasn't been a performance factor for the past 10 years or so. Last gen consoles had bottlenecks all over the place which made texture filtering an issue. The new consoles don't have this issue anymore.
 

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
You're taking the upper bounds as static resolutions, you're doing percentages calculations using the upper bounds as static
I know your brain is in fight or flight mode right now since you haven't been able to process the defeat, but this is still kinda insane tbh.
 

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
16x AF never means anything on somewhat modern systems. On PC it hasn't been a performance factor for the past 10 years or so. Last gen consoles had bottlenecks all over the place which made texture filtering an issue. The new consoles don't have this issue anymore.
So why series X doesn't uses 16 AF in the native games and more than a time has a lower texture filter of the ps5 counterpart?
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,365
690
So why series X doesn't use 16 AF in the native games and more than a time as lower filter of the ps5 counterpart?
Feel free to list the games where the XSX has worse texture filtering than the PS5. I can't think of any. Dirt 5 got fixed, and other than this demo I can't remember any other instances.
 

Mr Moose

Member
Sep 10, 2013
5,784
12,526
865
England
16x AF never means anything on somewhat modern systems. On PC it hasn't been a performance factor for the past 10 years or so. Last gen consoles had bottlenecks all over the place which made texture filtering an issue. The new consoles don't have this issue anymore.
Correct me if I am wrong, but with consoles 16x AF is more taxing than on PC because of memory bandwidth shared on the APU ( VFXVeteran VFXVeteran ?)

Feel free to list the games where the XSX has worse texture filtering than the PS5. I can't think of any. Dirt 5 got fixed, and other than this demo I can't remember any other instances.

Watch_Dogs Legion. This demo. DiRT 5 still.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Physiognomonics

assurdum

Member
Aug 14, 2020
2,818
4,827
485
Feel free to list the games where the XSX has worse texture filtering than the PS5. I can't think of any. Dirt 5 got fixed, and other than this demo I can't remember any other instances.
Dirt 5 has still worse texture filtering even after the patch. WD too. I don't remind all, but I could swear there is another couple of games on ps5 but anyway 16XAF it's not absolutely the texture filter most used on console.
 
Feb 13, 2019
133
135
240
I remember Microsoft saying they are investigating why PS5 runs a little bit better. After that they never mentioned the result. Probably the verdict was “Cerny”.
Perhaps next time instead of a studio they will “buy” Cerny for the XBOX Series C.