• 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

Bernd Lauert

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,838
11,364
690
That's the maximum resolution used. But the XSX advantage is only 9% using the minimum resolutions. Do you think the game is spending most of the time in the higher resolutions, notably when the game usually runs at 55fps on XSX and usually 60fps on PS5?
I now understand why SonyGAF is always celebrating wins. You guys truly suck at math lmao.
 
Last edited:

CitizenKratos

Neo Member
Feb 14, 2021
30
35
110
That's the maximum resolution used. But the XSX advantage is only 9% using the minimum resolutions. Do you think the game is spending most of the time in the higher resolutions, notably when the game usually runs at 55fps on XSX and usually 60fps on PS5?
I am calculating based on minimum resolution. Because we don't have average resolution (and XSX is not using a good resolution scaler profile) I would imagine that the minimum is the closest number to what the difference is under load.
 
Last edited:

Fredrik

Member
Jun 27, 2005
9,185
2,704
1,650
Seriously, would anybody wilfully buy this game on Xbox if the current state doesn’t change?

I do suspect it will be patched, the poor performance is simply too obvious for the devs to brush away, but again fans need to express their disdain. If you support shoddy outcomes, you’ll just get more in the future.
Agreed. Until I actually have a VRR TV I want a rock solid framerate. This is just a demo but the almost-reaching-the-target mentality is way too common elsewhere too. It’s getting annoying.

Just for fun, can’t somebody here with an equivalent AMD graphics card try how much they have to drop the res to lock the framerate at 60?
 
Last edited:

CitizenKratos

Neo Member
Feb 14, 2021
30
35
110
Agreed. Until I actually have a VRR TV I want a rock solid framerate. This is just a demo but the almost-reaching-the-target mentality is way too common elsewhere too. It’s getting annoying.

Just for fun, can’t somebody here with an equivalent AMD graphics card try how much they have to drop the res to lock the framerate at 60?
Yup. If you have 14% more pixels you probably could never notice the extra sharpness. If you have an 11% increase in FPS and a VRR monitor, again you won't notice that difference in fluidity or responsiveness because the difference is once again, too small. However the vast majority of us will run this game on a 60 hz TV and then the drop in fluidity and responsiveness is not 11% but 50%. From 16.6 ms all the way down to 33.3 ms for each frame drop. That's extremely noticeable in the XSX footage. The texture filtering is another factor in PS5s favor.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
9,087
21,079
775
Agreed. Until I actually have a VRR TV I want a rock solid framerate. This is just a demo but the almost-reaching-the-target mentality is way too common elsewhere too. It’s getting annoying.

Just for fun, can’t somebody here with an equivalent AMD graphics card try how much they have to drop the res to lock the framerate at 60?
Games should always be targeting a solid 60 as a baseline. VRR should only be relied upon for 120fps modes that fluctuate +/- 15%.

Using a crutch as an excuse for lack of optimisation & throwing the majority of users under the bus is not something that should be supported.
 
Last edited:
Jan 11, 2019
1,681
5,448
545
Zeus’ butthole
CEASE FIRE CEASE FIRE

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

AAAAAGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

scared war GIF
 
  • Like
  • LOL
Reactions: AgentP and Mr.ODST

Fredrik

Member
Jun 27, 2005
9,185
2,704
1,650
I played game boy which dropped frames all the time .
I played C64 which had 16 individual colors and usually a 160x200 resolution.
Best case scenario games ran at 25 frames per second or 50 interlaced fields per second, but usually much much lower.

:p

Games should always be targeting a solid 60 as a baseline. VRR should only be relied upon for 120fps modes that fluctuate +/- 15%.

Using a crutch as an excuse for lack of optimisation & throwing the majority of users under the bus is not something that should be supported.
Agreed again. VRR is awesome and we’ll all say - Riky you were right all along! - once we have a capable TV, but at this point it’s simply too early to depend on that tech.

I bought my 65” 4K TV in 2017, it cost $2000+ and it’s honestly pretty awesome. I don’t want to upgrade yet. I could somewhat excuse the previous upgrade by claiming I needed it for 4K blurays. But upgrading again now would 100% be about getting VRR and 120hz for consoles. Which would literally push console gaming ahead of PC gaming in cost since I don’t need VRR and 120hz for anything else.

I want graphics settings so I can fix whatever strange priority the devs have. It’s kinda embarrassing that my nothing special PC with a 4yo 1080ti doubles the framerate at ultra compared to Series X at mid or whatever just because I’m using 1080p screens. The power is constantly used the wrong way - in my opinion. Graphics settings are scaled back, resolution is scaled up, unstable fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shmunter

RoadHazard

Member
Dec 9, 2008
19,951
2,651
1,245
Gothenburg, Sweden
Still no tools huh?

Anyway, this games looks terrible on both consoles. Like a low budget last gen game, or even a PS360 title. Sure, it runs at 4K60, but what good is that when all those pixels look like crap.
 

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
5,000
2,718
1,435
I played C64 which had 16 individual colors and usually a 160x200 resolution.
Best case scenario games ran at 25 frames per second or 50 interlaced fields per second, but usually much much lower.

:p


Agreed again. VRR is awesome and we’ll all say - Riky you were right all along! - once we have a capable TV, but at this point it’s simply too early to depend on that tech.

I bought my 65” 4K TV in 2017, it cost $2000+ and it’s honestly pretty awesome. I don’t want to upgrade yet. I could somewhat excuse the previous upgrade by claiming I needed it for 4K blurays. But upgrading again now would 100% be about getting VRR and 120hz for consoles. Which would literally push console gaming ahead of PC gaming in cost since I don’t need VRR and 120hz for anything else.

I want graphics settings so I can fix whatever strange priority the devs have. It’s kinda embarrassing that my nothing special PC with a 4yo 1080ti doubles the framerate at ultra compared to Series X at mid or whatever just because I’m using 1080p screens. The power is constantly used the wrong way - in my opinion. Graphics settings are scaled back, resolution is scaled up, unstable fps.
I didn’t have a C64, we did have a Atari. ☺️