Support NeoGAF

[Lunatic_Gamer]

The versions tested were 1.000.001 on PS5 and 1.01 on PS4 consoles.

Timestamps:
00:00 - Performance Mode (Prioritise Frame Rate Mode) and PS4
08:23 - Resolution Mode (Prioritise Resolution Mode)

Lens distortion and chromatic aberration were disabled for this test. These effects resolve to half horizontal resolution on PlayStation consoles using checkerboard rendering which results in noticeably degraded image quality.

PS5 and PS4 Pro have the option to either prioritise frame rate or resolution which are labelled as perf mode and res mode in the video.

PS5 has two additional options which are a toggle for ray tracing and a toggle for hair strands. The ray tracing toggle turns on ray traced reflections. The hair strands toggle enables improved hair rendering. The improved hair rendering reduces performance and at times it can look strangely bright http://bit.ly/3YQhAIm All of the performance data in the video and stats is with the hair strands option disabled.

PS5 in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a resolution of approximately 3435x1932 using what appears to be a form of checkerboard rendering.

PS4 Pro in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a native resolution of approximately 1717x966.

PS4 renders at a native resolution of 1600x900.

PS5 in Prioritise Resolution Mode renders at a resolution of 3840x2160 using what appears to be a form of checkerboard rendering.

PS4 Pro in Prioritise Resolution Mode renders at a resolution of 3840x2160 using what appears to be a form of checkerboard rendering.

PS5 and PS4 Pro in all modes render the UI at 3840x2160.

PS5 has some graphical improvements over the PS4 consoles such as: improvements to mesh quality, improved volumetric lighting quality, improvements to texture quality and additional dynamic shadows. PS5 also seems to have subsurface scattering, destructible small objects and terrain tessellation all of which don't appear to be present on the PS4 systems. On the PS4 consoles enemies can have a reduced animation rate which wasn't seen on PS5.

Platforms	PS5 Performance Mode RT On	PS5 Performance Mode RT Off	PS4 Pro Performance Mode	PS4
Frame Amounts
Game Frames	29784	30083	29314	23436
Video Frames	30100	30101	30101	30101
Frame Tearing Statistics
Total Torn Frames	0	0	0	0
Lowest Torn Line	-	-	-	-
Frame Height	2160	2160	2160	1080
Frame Time Statistics
Mean Frame Time	16.84ms	16.68ms	17.11ms	21.41ms
Median Frame Time	16.67ms	16.67ms	16.67ms	16.67ms
Maximum Frame Time	33.33ms	33.33ms	66.67ms	66.67ms
Minimum Frame Time	16.67ms	16.67ms	16.67ms	16.67ms
95th Percentile Frame Time	16.67ms	16.67ms	16.67ms	33.33ms
99th Percentile Frame Time	33.33ms	16.67ms	33.33ms	33.33ms
Frame Rate Statistics
Mean Frame Rate	59.37fps	59.96fps	58.43fps	46.72fps
Median Frame Rate	60fps	60fps	60fps	46fps
Maximum Frame Rate	60fps	60fps	60fps	60fps
Minimum Frame Rate	51fps	56fps	44fps	31fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate	56fps	60fps	51fps	35fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate	53fps	58fps	48fps	33fps
Frame Time Counts
16.67ms	29468 (98.94%)	30065 (99.94%)	28530 (97.33%)	16778 (71.59%)
33.33ms	316 (1.06%)	18 (0.06%)	782 (2.67%)	6653 (28.39%)
50ms	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0%)	3 (0.01%)
66.67ms	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0%)	2 (0.01%)

 

[jeffyjaixx]

Interesting, higher res than what DF counted

 

[DenchDeckard]

awesome performance!

Performance RT mode will be the way to go on this!

 

[Physiognomonics]

Very nice performance in the framerate mode and another confirmation that the resolution is quite high on PS5, around 1900p in the RT mode which is similar to elanalista numbers.

Also with VRR all the drops should be taken on care on PS5 in the performance mode as the framerate is always above 50fps according to that analysis. So drops under 48fps should be quite rare.

awesome performance!

Performance RT mode will be the way to go on this!

Indeed. And the RT has being fixed on PS5 with the day 1 patch.

 

[Mr Moose]

Interesting, higher res than what DF counted

Tom (and Alex).

awesome performance!

Performance RT mode will be the way to go on this!

It'll probably run better on all of them at launch, or at least on the big boys.

 

[Skifi28]

I'm now wondering how the ps4 pro version would run in resolution mode on PS5. Well, gotta earn that platinum twice so I'll see for myself at some point.

 

[Luipadre]

im going with performance mode on PS5. RT off, CA and hair off too. Looked great to me in the demo

 

[lh032]

RT performance seems to be PERFORMING WELL ; )

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Is this 2017!? Why tf are they using checkerboard rendering on PS5 when there's so much better up-scaling techniques available today??

 

[Horseganador]

DF: Performance mode Appears to use DRS. Similar location tested was 1440p on PS5 and 1728p on Series X.
VGTECH: PS5 in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a resolution of approximately 3435x1932.

It's funny how each analysis gives you different figures xDD

 

[Mr Moose]

DF: Performance mode Appears to use DRS. Similar location tested was 1440p on PS5 and 1728p on Series X.
VGTECH: PS5 in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a resolution of approximately 3435x1932.

It's funny how each analysis gives you different figures xDD

I'd trust VGTech over Tom any day.

 

[Thief1987]

DF: Performance mode Appears to use DRS. Similar location tested was 1440p on PS5 and 1728p on Series X.
VGTECH: PS5 in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a resolution of approximately 3435x1932.

It's funny how each analysis gives you different figures xDD

DF is absolutely unreliable in resolution measures, they have proven this many times.

 

[Zuzu]

Hopefully they can fix the image quality problems on the PS5 version and make it the same standard as the Series X version. I’d prefer to play it on my PS5

 

[Tripolygon]

Hopefully they can fix the image quality problems on the PS5 version and make it the same standard as the Series X version. I’d prefer to play it on my PS5

"Lens distortion and chromatic aberration were disabled for this test. These effects resolve to half horizontal resolution on PlayStation consoles using checkerboard rendering which results in noticeably degraded image quality."

 

[Badlucktroll]

I want to play with all the bells and whistles

 

[JackMcGunns]

DF is absolutely unreliable in resolution measures, they have proven this many times.

I mean, we could use this as a point of measure. Time will tell who's right, the real question is, if DF turns out to be right, will that change your mind about who's a better, more reliable source for analysis? I doubt it.

DF did bring receipts in their comparison, the PS5 version looks blurrier which could indicate that it's reconstructing from a lower resolution.

 

[Darsxx82]

VGTech says that PS4 and PRO use native resolution. NXG, elanalista and DF? They all stated that PS4/Pro are using reconstruction by CH.... It's really weird.

PS5 uses reconstruction and shows clearly far from what is expected of a 4K resolution (even disabling AC). I am interested to know how VGTECH explains the clear IQ difference in favor of XSX. If the resolution counts are similar, the only explanation is that they are using a different reconstruction method and in XSX it is being better but more expensive in fps?.

All REngine games so far were 1:1 IQ between XSX and PS5 and very similar framerate (slight advantage for XSX). This RE4 remake shows many differences. It seems made by different Studio and teams for each version.

 

[01011001]

DF is absolutely unreliable in resolution measures, they have proven this many times.

how do you know? have you taken multiple screenshots at different points and then counted the pixels?

unless you do that yourself and then compare, you are basically just arbitrarily deciding who is right based in your biases.

so go ahead, play the demo. at points where you can easily do a pixel count take a screenshot and count it yourself.

I for example had a shot that came back as ~1800p on PS5 in another thread, but that was right at the beginning at the first gate into the woods. and I demonstrated where I did my counting.

 

[Thief1987]

VGTech says that PS4 and PRO use native resolution.

PS4 Pro in resolution mode using CBR.

 

[Mr Moose]

how do you know? have you taken multiple screenshots at different points and then counted the pixels?

unless you do that yourself and then compare, you are basically just arbitrarily deciding who is right based in your biases.

so go ahead, play the demo. at points where you can easily do a pixel count take a screenshot and count it yourself.

I for example had a shot that came back as ~1800p on PS5 in another thread, but that was right at the beginning at the first gate into the woods. and I demonstrated where I did my counting.

It was Tom (and Alex) doing the pixel counts, Tom is very unreliable.

Perf Mode - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Res Mode - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[01011001]

It was Tom (and Alex) doing the pixel counts, Tom is very unreliable.

Perf Mode - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Res Mode - Google Drive

drive.google.com

yeah well, I did a pixel count on one of the screenshots they provided and I came away with 1872p or 1908p depending on the ruler size I use. while they only mention the single 1932p number and no mention of dynamic res.

I used this image

 

[Mr Moose]

yeah well, I did a pixel count on one of the screenshots they provided and I came away with 1872p or 1908p depending on the ruler size I use. while they only mention the single 1932p number and no mention of dynamic res.

I used this image

Maybe he uses a bigger ruler. I don't know how to count pixels lol.

 

[Physiognomonics]

yeah well, I did a pixel count on one of the screenshots they provided and I came away with 1872p or 1908p depending on the ruler size I use. while they only mention the single 1932p number and no mention of dynamic res.

I used this image

It's within margin error. Pixel counting on a TAAed image can give you that variance.

 

[01011001]

Maybe he uses a bigger ruler. I don't know how to count pixels lol.

you make a ruler of a certain height, I used one with a height of 30 pixels on the right and one of 60 pixels on the left.
you then draw a line from above the ruler to the side until you hit a pixel step dead-on.

then you count the amount of clearly discernable stairsteps upwards from where you started.
you then take the number you counted, in my case 53, divide it by the ruler size, in my case 60, and then multiply it by the target/output resolution, in this case 2160p.

 

[DenchDeckard]

you make a ruler of a certain height, I used one with a heightof 30 pixels on the right and one of 60 pixels on the left.
you then draw a line from above the ruler to the side until you hit a pixel step dead-on.

then you count the amount of clearly discernable stairsteps upwards from where you started.
you then take the number you counted, in my case 53, divide it by the ruler size, in my case 60, and then multiply it by the target/output resolution, in this case 2160p.

The "professional" Tom talks us through it here.

 

[01011001]

It's within margin error. Pixel counting on a TAAed image can give you that variance.

well from the ones I counted it was pretty clean to count it in that image.

but other images they apparently used I don't get how they pixelcounted those at all. like look at this one:

every edge in this image is a blurry mess with CBR artifacting everywhere. how the hell they pixelcounted anywhere here is beyond me.
it would help if they actually also marked where they counted the pixels

edit: so I TRIED to count this one, and it comes back as 1440p...
maybe someone else can find a better edge to count, but this, at the fence on the left, is the only one I found that was reasonably clean in this whole image

30 / 20 = 0.6666666666666667
0,6666666666666667 x 2160 = 1440

 

[Mr Moose]

you make a ruler of a certain height, I used one with a height of 30 pixels on the right and one of 60 pixels on the left.
you then draw a line from above the ruler to the side until you hit a pixel step dead-on.

then you count the amount of clearly discernable stairsteps upwards from where you started.
you then take the number you counted, in my case 53, divide it by the ruler size, in my case 60, and then multiply it by the target/output resolution, in this case 2160p.

No idea if I did it right but I got 1872.

 

[01011001]

No idea if I did it right but I got 1872.

it's really hard to count in this game. like the whole image is just ridiculously soft. there is a high margin of error in this. could be 1800p, could be 1872p

but in the post above one image seems to be 1440p to me... but that one is WAY harder to count than even the first one

 

[Mr Moose]

it's really hard to count in this game. like the whole image is just ridiculously soft. there is a high margin of error in this. could be 1800p, could be 1872p

but in the post above one image seems to be 1440p to me... but that one is WAY harder to count than even the first one

Could it be because it's a cutscene? They might be 1440p on PS5, on PC it was default 4k for me until I lowered it. I might be thinking of something else though, going to load it up and check.
Edit: Pre-rendered cinematics

 

[01011001]

Could it be because it's a cutscene? They might be 1440p on PS5, on PC it was default 4k for me until I lowered it. I might be thinking of something else though, going to load it up and check.

it could be that cutscenes are locked at 1440p yeah.

but if they are, I wonder why VG Tech didn't mention this and why they have an image in their pixel count folder that doesn't match the number they mention in their description.

it's weird.
but then again, maybe my count is wrong, like that image really is just a vaseline smeared blur fest

 

[kingyala]

DF: Performance mode Appears to use DRS. Similar location tested was 1440p on PS5 and 1728p on Series X.
VGTECH: PS5 in Prioritise Frame Rate Mode renders at a resolution of approximately 3435x1932.

It's funny how each analysis gives you different figures xDD

be careful of alex analysis he always doctors his videos to claim series x is better simply because he cant he wrongly assumed series x will outperform ps5 and also assumed ssds wont improve graphics.. so ever since hes been looking for ways to discredit ps5 anyway he can to save his face

 

[kingyala]

Is this 2017!? Why tf are they using checkerboard rendering on PS5 when there's so much better up-scaling techniques available today??

checkerboarding isnt bad infact most upscaling techniques also use a from of checkerboarding, its the implementation that matters ea checkerboarding and some sony exclusive games use better checkeboarding techniques.. its like dlss and fsr you have 3 versions and the same to checkerboarding techniques

 

[Zuzu]

"Lens distortion and chromatic aberration were disabled for this test. These effects resolve to half horizontal resolution on PlayStation consoles using checkerboard rendering which results in noticeably degraded image quality."

While that helps, the image quality is still worse than the Series X version. I have the demo on my Series X and my PS5. The PS5 version using the resolution/ray-tracing/hair-effects mode has textures which have more noisiness/grain to them than on Series X and the image is less sharp than Series X.

Digital Foundry demonstrated that the Series X has better image quality in the resolution/ray-tracing mode in their recently video. It’s got nothing to do with the resolution they’re running at but rather seems to be an issue with the reconstruction or AA technique they’re using on PS5. Hopefully it will be fixed, coz I want it on PS5.

 

[01011001]

be careful of alex analysis he always doctors his videos to claim series x is better simply because he cant he wrongly assumed series x will outperform ps5 and also assumed ssds wont improve graphics.. so ever since hes been looking for ways to discredit ps5 anyway he can to save his face

from what I counted using VG Tech's own images, the resolution seems to definitely be dynamic and goes down to 1440p.

but if you mistrust DF but somehow trust VG Tech without testing the game yourself then that shows your own bias pretty much instantly I'd say.

and "doctors his videos", showing your tinfoil hat so openly as well man... don't ever go full ****** instantly as a neo member

 

[kingyala]

from what I counted using VG Tech's own images, the resolution seems to definitely be dynamic and goes down to 1440p.

but if you mistrust DF but somehow trust VG Tech without testing the game yourself then that shows your own bias pretty much instantly I'd say.

and "doctors his videos", showing your tinfoil hat so openly as well man... don't ever go full ****** instantly as a neo member

df have at times asked vgtech for help in pixel counting and it is well known that vg tech is more accurate than df...

 

[MarkMe2525]

be careful of alex analysis he always doctors his videos to claim series x is better simply because he cant he wrongly assumed series x will outperform ps5 and also assumed ssds wont improve graphics.. so ever since hes been looking for ways to discredit ps5 anyway he can to save his face

Hahaha....People in the real world don't take this stuff that seriously. Alex is PC master race, he could not really care less which console comes out in top.

 

[01011001]

df have at times asked vgtech for help in pixel counting and it is well known that vg tech is more accurate than df...

it's not well known unless you or someone else sat down and tested their claims directly, which noone did.

oh, wait... I did... and I saw 1440p in the test above when I used an image that they themselves apparently used for pixel counting

also show me your example of DF asking VG Tech for help in pixel counting plz

 

[SlimySnake]

Interesting, higher res than what DF counted

DF had RT and hair strand turned on. VG Tech has Hair turned off. Not sure about RT, but he didnt give separate pixel counts with RT on.

 

[Skifi28]

Is this 2017!? Why tf are they using checkerboard rendering on PS5 when there's so much better up-scaling techniques available today??

The RE engine has had checkerboarding for years in all platforms including PC as an option and it has always looked quite nice until now. Nothing wrong with the technique itself, it just seems like something went wrong here with its implementation.

 

[kingyala]

it's not well known unless you or someone else sat down and tested their claims directly, which noone did.

oh, wait... I did... and I saw 1440p in the test above when I used an image that they themselves apparently used for pixel counting

also show me your example of DF asking VG Tech for help in pixel counting plz

go to beyond 3d i cant remember when but df have asked vg tech for resolution help alot of the times,, and this isnt just me it is well known that vg tech is the most accurate.. df admit it themselves that they sometimes cant get perfect measurements, im not gonna waste time to look for when cause its just pointless so ill rather wait for vg tech to come up with comparisons or the dev clarrifies

 

[01011001]

go to beyond 3d i cant remember when but df have asked vg tech for resolution help alot of the times,, and this isnt just me it is well known that vg tech is the most accurate.. df admit it themselves that they sometimes cant get perfect measurements, im not gonna waste time to look for when cause its just pointless so ill rather wait for vg tech to come up with comparisons or the dev clarrifies

then test their claims like I did when I got 1440p in an image that they used to pixelcount.

they are right there on their google drive, download the image, use an image editing program (Paint works fine) and look for places to count the image they uploaded.

my count came out as 1440p in the image I posted above. finding a countable edge in that blurry mess of a scene was hard tho I gotta say.

why do you blindly trust vg tech apparently? they have been wrong in the past you know? demonstrably so.
just like DF and NXG

 

[kingyala]

then test their claims like I did when I got 1440p in an image that they used to pixelcount.

they are right there on their google drive, download the image, use an image editing program (Paint works fine) and look for places to count the image they uploaded.

my count came out as 1440p in the image I posted above. finding a countable edge in that blurry mess of a scene was hard tho I gotta say.

why do you blindly trust vg tech apparently? they have been wrong in the past you know? demonstrably so.
just like DF and NXG

cause i have other stuff to do its why i need trusted content creators to do that job for me but most of them arent trusted, i trust vg tech for resolution and fps stats, df for gameplay, performance overall review and bugs, nx gamer the same and elanalista just ofr a quick untrusty check up.. its just how i see things df are always variable in resolution checks i dont blame them but ive found any analysis from alex that includes consoles especially ps5 to be flawed he always discredits something without context

 

[Skifi28]

cause i have other stuff to do its why i need trusted content creators to do that job for me but most of them arent trusted, i trust vg tech for resolution and fps stats, df for gameplay, performance overall review and bugs, nx gamer the same and elanalista just ofr a quick untrusty check up.. its just how i see things df are always variable in resolution checks i dont blame them but ive found any analysis from alex that includes consoles especially ps5 to be flawed he always discredits something without context

Trust nobody, count your own pixels and frames.

 

[Gaiff]

go to beyond 3d i cant remember when but df have asked vg tech for resolution help alot of the times,, and this isnt just me it is well known that vg tech is the most accurate.. df admit it themselves that they sometimes cant get perfect measurements, im not gonna waste time to look for when cause its just pointless so ill rather wait for vg tech to come up with comparisons or the dev clarrifies

It's so well-known that you don't bother provide a source. Here you are a new member going on a diatribe against DF and we're supposed to just take your "trust me bro" source as gospel?

Produce evidence that DF is helped by VGTech like you claimed. Shouldn't be hard.

 

[kingyala]

It's so well-known that you don't bother provide a source. Here you are a new member going on a diatribe against DF and we're supposed to just take your "trust me bro" source as gospel?

Produce evidence that DF is helped by VGTech like you claimed. Shouldn't be hard.

believe what you believe, im new here but ive always followed beyond 3d

 

[Gaiff]

believe what you believe, im new here but ive always followed beyond 3d

You make claims. When we ask you for evidence, you refuse to produce it and go "believe what you believe."

Sure.

 

[analog_future]

be careful of alex analysis he always doctors his videos to claim series x is better simply because he cant he wrongly assumed series x will outperform ps5 and also assumed ssds wont improve graphics.. so ever since hes been looking for ways to discredit ps5 anyway he can to save his face

 

[kingyala]

You make claims. When we ask you for evidence, you refuse to produce it and go "believe what you believe."

Sure.

im not gonna search the whole internet archive just to prove a point, so believe what u believe

 

[01011001]

cause i have other stuff to do its why i need trusted content creators to do that job for me but most of them arent trusted, i trust vg tech for resolution and fps stats, df for gameplay, performance overall review and bugs, nx gamer the same and elanalista just ofr a quick untrusty check up.. its just how i see things df are always variable in resolution checks i dont blame them but ive found any analysis from alex that includes consoles especially ps5 to be flawed he always discredits something without context

so you arbitrarily chose who you trust for absolutely no reason?
and then you say Alex says stuff that is not true about PS5 versions, even tho "you have other stuff to do", meaning you clearly don't know if what he says is true or not... you chose to not trust him even tho what he says could be 100% correct.
why would he even do that? he is a die hard PC guy, he literally even said in a DF Direct that he would stop playing games the day PC gaming stopped existing because he wouldn't want to play on console, because part of what he enjoys is the freedom of tweaking settings and modding games.

how do you know that VG Tech's data on resolution here isn't completely false? like I said, from my counts on one of their images it clearly isn't a static 19XXp image, maybe my pixel count was flawed here too, who knows... but why do you trust VG Tech if you really have not a single reason to do so?

what if they have like 4 guys that take turns testing this stuff, and 2 of the 4 are unreliable because they just phone in the pixel counts? you wouldn't even know which one did the test.


edit: just to ride this home even more... I just pixelcounted yet another image VG Tech uploaded from their Performance Mode Pixel counts.

I did a vertical count here, and came back with 25 steps on a 30 pixel ruler.
25 / 30 = 0.8333333333333333
0.8333333333333333 x 3840 = 3200

with a 3200 vertical res it would mean 1800p in this image, not the claimed static 1932p by VG tech.
even if I was 1 step off (which is by far the max I could be off tbh here), it would still be only 1872p not 1932p
let's say I was off by 2, then the count would come out at 3456x1944

 

[Mr Moose]

It's so well-known that you don't bother provide a source. Here you are a new member going on a diatribe against DF and we're supposed to just take your "trust me bro" source as gospel?

Produce evidence that DF is helped by VGTech like you claimed. Shouldn't be hard.

How well does Mass Effect Legendary Edition run on last-gen consoles?

We've already covered Mass Effect Legendary Edition as it presents on Xbox Series consoles and PlayStation 5, with some…

www.eurogamer.net

To be blunt, the 'favour frame-rate' mode is a bit of a bust and not particularly recommended for base machines. Resolution typically remains at native 1080p even when the engine is under heavy load (though the excellent VGTech seems to have found DRS in their tests)
Despite looking visually identical to Xbox One X with the same 1440p output (again, VGTech finds some drops that weren't present in our samples), PS4 Pro has a higher level of performance in gameplay.

Redout on Xbox One X falls short of the PS4 Pro experience

UPDATE: Developer 34BigThings has responded to our analysis of Redout, taking issue with our findings - specifically th…

www.eurogamer.net

First of all, apologies to 34BigThings for the flak attracted by our article - we updated it once additional data from VGTech came in, which demonstrated that an error had been made, and have since pulled the video which is not so easily updated. We will revisit the game and post a new version as soon as we can.