• 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.

VG Tech: Far Cry 6 PS5 & Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Test

Sep 30, 2021
83
86
280
Texas
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods

As I am happy with the S, as soon as I can upgrade with a retail grab/trade, I'm doing it.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,069
12,582
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
As I am happy with the S, as soon as I can upgrade with a retail grab/trade, I'm doing it.

It is a fun game. I bet it will run/look just fine on your XSS.

I'm playing it on PC with Ubisoft+. I do find it a bit funny though with all this resolution talk and here I am lowering my resolution on PC to 1440p so I can get 100+ FPS.
 

SlimySnake

Member
Feb 5, 2013
12,680
35,966
1,260
Game looks kinda shit, and that AI walking in the first 10 seconds... 2006 NPCs.
Series X takes this one with the higher res (though I think there are a few settings that are a bit higher on PS5?).
Fuck screen tearing.
It looks abysmal next to Battlefield. The lighting and foliage is from the PS3 era. It's that bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

ANDS

Thinks gaf is racist. That's why I post here. I think I'm among friends.
Jan 18, 2012
3,581
737
865
I think the problem is with the cutscenes being 30FPS and having stuttering issues that people are picking up on.

There must have been some update. . .because my cutscenes on PS5 are definitely not at 30 frames.
 

rushgore

Member
Aug 25, 2021
71
128
245
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods
I’m pretty sure I can easily tell the difference but no one in their right mind would get the game on both consoles and run them at the same time on two identical panels, so it doesn’t matter at all.
 
Mar 16, 2014
1,342
1,271
780
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods
I think both versions are equally bad. Screen tearing and really dated looking graphics. It somehow looks worse than FC5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,069
12,582
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
I’m pretty sure I can easily tell the difference but no one in their right mind would get the game on both consoles and run them at the same time on two identical panels, so it doesn’t matter at all.

I don't know, man. That resolution is dynamically adjusting all the time. We are really only talking about the edge cases. There is a reason why we have to folks like DF and VG Tech tell us what the resolutions are. We simply wouldn't know otherwise. DF has even questioned if all this pixel counting is worth the effort.

But yeah, like you said, no one is going to have the games running simultaneously anyway so....

Seinfeld Whatever GIF by MOODMAN
 
  • Like
Reactions: Md Ray

DForce

Member
Nov 23, 2017
5,386
10,618
615
1908p vs 2160p may seem a small difference (and actually mathematically small) but a 2160p framebuffer will result in a 1:1 pixel match. That’s what creates this noticeable difference when both consoles render at their possible highest resolutions.
99.9% of the people on this forum or in the comment section of DF videos wouldn't be able to tell when DRS is active or what current resolution is running at without help.
 

SenjutsuSage

Member
Jan 23, 2010
12,000
7,611
1,295
Alright so, 8% resolution advantage at minimum for Series X, the only console that reaches 4K in this game, and at best it holds a 28% resolution edge over PS5 while also demonstrating better framerate by about 2%.

The Series X version of the game tears just 2% of the time in the frames tested. The PS5 version of the game tears just 4% of the time in the frames tested.

And I'm going to be fair and consistent and not act like a fanboy on this one.

NONE of these consoles have bad performance. Not one. Would we maybe like to see some improvements if possible, especially in those cutscenes? Certainly, but what we have here is the PS5 maintaining 60fps 95% of the time while going no lower than a resolution in the range of 2944x1656p and as high as 3392x1908. THAT IS AN EXCELLENT SHOWING IN THIS GAME! This is a demanding game. This isn't shit performance. Anyone suggesting it is is trolling.

Series X is doing its damn thing here also. 97% of the time Series X is maintaining 60fps while delivering a full 3840x2160 at best and around 3072x1728 at worst. This is fucking fantastic in this game looking like it does, doing what it does during gameplay, and the way the player can interact with the world.

This is a great fucking sign for both of these consoles for where we are headed in this gen.

And what do we have here... little man Series S in my eyes meeting its promise as an entry level next gen console with flying fucking colors. Topping out at 1440p and only dropping to around 1080p while delivering superior 60fps performance 99% of the time compared to both consoles, and does so with only 0.15% tearing compared to PS5's 4% and Series X's 2%.

I don't wanna hear anyone else tell me Series S doesn't belong. If you target this thing correctly it will perform!

Ubisoft did not do a bad job here. Just clean up them cutscenes plz.
 
Last edited:
Mar 16, 2014
1,342
1,271
780
99.9% of the people on this forum or in the comment section of DF videos wouldn't be able to tell when DRS is active or what current resolution is running at without help.
Depends on how often the resolution is that low. I would totally be able to tell the game isn't running at an optimal resolution if it constantly looks soft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris_Rivera
Oct 26, 2018
22,524
31,669
885
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.

Looking at it from a production issue, you're giving a lot of attention to a bunch of guys who are making a living spending all day testing video game pixel and frame rate counts. And it's not even them counting it. They got software to do the analysis. All they are doing is writing an article based on the results.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Member
Feb 28, 2021
2,493
4,483
385
It is a fun game. I bet it will run/look just fine on your XSS.

I'm playing it on PC with Ubisoft+. I do find it a bit funny though with all this resolution talk and here I am lowering my resolution on PC to 1440p so I can get 100+ FPS.
This so much!

Drop that res, max that framerate and then bump those settings if you have headroom!
 
  • Strength
Reactions: Topher

SenjutsuSage

Member
Jan 23, 2010
12,000
7,611
1,295
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.

Looking at it from a production issue, you're giving a lot of attention to a bunch of guys who are making a living spending all day testing video game pixel and frame rate counts. And it's not even them counting it. They got software to do the analysis. All they are doing is writing an article based on the results.

I respect your post, but they're definitely doing analysis of the frames manually cause there's no easy way to do that automatically. They're putting in some work for us, gotta give them their props for that. Yes, this stuff is mostly used for console wars nonsense, and I won't say I'm completely innocent of that because I'll be honest I went and rubbed the 4K texture pack stuff in some people's faces on twitter after these results in my pettiest way possible, but I was just having fun. Other than that, I think all three consoles did a fantastic job on this game. I feel Ubisoft made an excellent decision with this game's performance and opted to not go with Ray Tracing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riky
Oct 26, 2018
22,524
31,669
885
I respect your post, but they're definitely doing analysis of the frames manually cause there's no easy way to do that automatically. They're putting in some work for us, gotta give them their props for that. Yes, this stuff is mostly used for console wars nonsense, and I won't say I'm completely innocent of that because I'll be honest I went and rubbed the 4K texture pack stuff in some people's faces on twitter after these results in my pettiest way possible, but I was just having fun. Other than that, I think all three consoles did a fantastic job on this game. I feel Ubisoft made an excellent decision with this game's performance and opted to not go with Ray Tracing.
Fair point. Maybe it's not as automated as I think, but still a weird way to try to make a living. Its not like they are doing it for free for shits and giggles after dinner.

As for RT, they might add it in with a patch. What they could had done is add an RT mode right off the bat. I dont follow UBI games, so I dont know their track record of recent games regarding RT in or not, and RT patched in or not.
 
Last edited:

thatJohann

Member
Jun 26, 2007
2,281
741
1,420
Brooklyn, NY
Impressions after 1.5 hours of gameplay on Xbox Series X:

PROS
  • Game looks gorgeous, (much better than I thought it would!); the colorful environments of Yara look stunning on Dolby Vision.
  • Framerate has been silky smooth and locked to 60fps, no slowdowns so far or screen tearing.
  • Loading times are fast - from main menu (or fast travel) to gameplay in ~5 seconds.
  • Game supports Quick Resume (pleasant surprise given the lack of QR support lately in new games)
  • Tons of accessibility options - from larger text sizes to highlighting enemies and/or items that can be picked-up.
  • Story is interesting so far, cut scenes are well made, nice voice acting so far.
  • Controls are tight and responsive.
CONS
  • No FOV slider; current FOV is locked to 75 with no option to increase; not a dealbreaker but I wish I could see more.
  • The confusion and misinformation around the HD texture pack and whether it's already included in the digital download really annoyed me this AM.
 
Last edited:

avin

Neo Member
May 19, 2021
39
48
110
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.

I agree, who cares who won. The differences are small, they won't matter for most of us. But at least some of us can have other motivations. For myself, I like to understand things as I'm able, and have things make sense.

The results on this game do make sense. That's actually pretty cool.

avin
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Member
Feb 28, 2021
2,493
4,483
385
I think its pretty cool that this game is performing exactly how most of us thought these generation of consoles should perform. I wonder if this is potentially the point that we will see this as standard throughout the gen......

....Who the fuck am I kidding we will still get outliers acting strange on each platform and the wars will rage on!

haha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riky

Md Ray

Member
Nov 12, 2016
4,118
13,268
785
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728


XSS:

Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080


The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656


Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
 
Last edited:

Corndog

Member
Apr 17, 2020
1,042
1,042
335
Love the 60FPS trend for new consoles, I hope this lasts all generation (at least as an option).
It won’t. Developers will push the bleeding edge and the easiest way to get there is double the processing per frame.
 

SenjutsuSage

Member
Jan 23, 2010
12,000
7,611
1,295
I agree, who cares who won. The differences are small, they won't matter for most of us. But at least some of us can have other motivations. For myself, I like to understand things as I'm able, and have things make sense.

The results on this game do make sense. That's actually pretty cool.

avin

Yea, ultimately it doesn't matter, both platform owners are well served, and this does seem, to me at least, one of the more interesting far cry games recently. We do know, however, if ever the results were the opposite this would be an entirely, entirely different type of thread. :p
 
Jun 1, 2016
2,814
3,706
795
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728


XSS:

Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080


The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656


Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
I would assume max res is 2160 but just very rare.
 

Arias05

Banned
Oct 14, 2016
80
251
390
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728


XSS:

Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080


The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656


Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.

ps5 has worse FPS and torn twice as much as XSX shows ps5 needs to be downscale some more
 

Bogroll

Likes moldy games
Jan 25, 2018
2,043
1,856
555
England
I played this yesterday on my Series X and I didn't think it was near 4k at all. I was thinking it was around 1440p (which I was happy with)
I will check it out again later.
 

ABrokenToy

Member
Apr 1, 2017
273
352
370
I played this yesterday on my Series X and I didn't think it was near 4k at all. I was thinking it was around 1440p (which I was happy with)
I will check it out again later.
Looked 4K to me. It may be the form of anti-aliasing they're using that may give it a "softer" appearance, but I quite like it. Looks really organic. I DO wish all games had a letterboxed ultra-wide mode like Death Stranding Def. Edition on PS5. It's sooooo good.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Gideon_128

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,152
44,909
1,310
39
Brazil
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728


XSS:

Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080


The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656


Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
I’m sure the DRS is set for 2160p on PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenchDeckard

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,152
44,909
1,310
39
Brazil
Did you not see the video? It's not 2160p on PS5.
That is not what I said.

The DRS is set for 2160p in this game… that is how DRS works… you set a target resolution (2160p) and how aggressive it will be… after that the resolution is dynamic choose by runtime based in how much the GPU can do to reach the target framerate.

That doesn’t means the target resolution will be reached… the GPU can stay below that making you think the highest resolution is lower than target resolution.
 
Last edited:

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
2,304
3,339
355
That is not what I said.

The DRS is set for 2160p in this game… that is how DRS works… you set a target resolution (2160p) and how aggressive it will be… after that the resolution is dynamic choose by runtime based in how much the GPU can do to reach the target framerate.
That would mean the PS5's highest resolution is 2160p but VG tech only found 3392x1908 as the highest resolution, so where are you getting the 2160p from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris_Rivera

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,152
44,909
1,310
39
Brazil
That would mean the PS5's highest resolution is 2160p but VG tech only found 3392x1908 as the highest resolution, so where are you getting the 2160p from?
Both are unrelated.

The DRS is set to 2160p and the max resolution depends how much the GPU can do… so it can even be way lower than 1908p.

The fact the max resolution he found was 1908p already tells you the DRS is set to 2160p… it it max was below 1800p I could be doubt between 1800p or 2160p but he already found resolution way higher than 1800p so 2160p is the right guess.

Hugest resolution found has nothing to do with how the DRS is set.
 
Last edited: