Support NeoGAF

[Mr Moose]

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

I think there's 26 steps, but that would still be 3328x1872.

 

[01011001]

I think there's 26 steps, but that would still be 3328x1872.

yeah, and that's not even the RT perf mode btw, that is perf without RT.

the resolution seems to be clearly dynamic. the overhead scene at the town is a blurry mess that gave me 1440p, one of the shots in the forest they uploaded is pin sharp, this one where he jumps out the window is in-between, sharp but definitely not perfectly so

 

[rofif]

I appreciate the analysis but these are the worst data sheets I've ever seen.
Why do I need 17 rows of "frametimes" ?!
I never liked and never found frametimes to be easier or better way to judge performance.
Just avg fps, min and 1%min is enough.
All this frametime bs is just some modern hip "i am so smart and cool" way of backwards ass looking a the simplies fps lol. Yeah I know that frame is ons creen for 16m with 60fps.... you know what happens in that time? 60 frames get displayed in one second !

 

[01011001]

I appreciate the analysis but these are the worst data sheets I've ever seen.
Why do I need 17 rows of "frametimes" ?!
I never liked and never found frametimes to be easier or better way to judge performance.
Just avg fps, min and 1%min is enough.
All this frametime bs is just some modern hip "i am so smart and cool" way of backwards ass looking a the simplies fps lol. Yeah I know that frame is ons creen for 16m with 60fps.... you know what happens in that time? 60 frames get displayed in one second !

frametimes tell you how bad spikes are.
playing at 120fps and having a 33.3ms spike is worse than playing at 60fps and having a 33.3ms spike for example.
but having 2 separate 16.6ms spikes at 120fps would feel less bad even tho it would even out as the same "framerate" in the end

 

[Gaiff]

http://[URL][URL]https://www.euroga...ffect-legendary-edition-ps4-xbox-one-analysis

[/URL][/URL]

http://[URL][URL]https://www.euroga...y-2018-redout-on-xbox-one-x-beaten-by-ps4-pro

[/URL][/URL]

Thanks. A far cry from what the other poster said when he claimed that DF "asked VGtech for help". It was already mentioned in by NxGamer here and

I appreciate the analysis but these are the worst data sheets I've ever seen.
Why do I need 17 rows of "frametimes" ?!
I never liked and never found frametimes to be easier or better way to judge performance.
Just avg fps, min and 1%min is enough.
All this frametime bs is just some modern hip "i am so smart and cool" way of backwards ass looking a the simplies fps lol.

But that's completely false. Frame times are actually much more critical than frame rates in telling how a game feels to play. Has nothing to do with "modern hip" or whatever. Frame time analysis has been a thing for decades.

Case and point; Bloodborne. The average frame rate is close to 30fps but the frame times aren't and it results in microstutters which makes for a jittery experience.

Yeah I know that frame is ons creen for 16m with 60fps.... you know what happens in that time? 60 frames get displayed in one second !

But that's the thing. It's not necessarily the case, hence why we need frame times. There are some cases where you can get a a frame at 8.33ms and then none at the next 16.66ms, this would result in a slight stutter due to uneven frames but you would still see a 60fps reading. A couple of years ago, AMD cards in CrossFireX were infamous for microstutters. Your frame rates were much higher but your frame times were far more inconsistent, resulting in a more uneven and overall worse experience despite better performance. 60fps just means that for every second, 60 frames are rendered, not necessarily that one frame is rendered every 16.66ms...that's what frame times are for.

 

[Mr Moose]

yeah, and that's not even the RT perf mode btw, that is perf without RT.

the resolution seems to be clearly dynamic. the overhead scene at the town is a blurry mess that gave me 1440p, one of the shots in the forest they uploaded is pin sharp, this one where he jumps out the window is in-between, sharp but definitely not perfectly so

Am I doing this shit wrong? lol
What do you get here?

re4-demo-pro-perf-s2.png

drive.google.com

I am getting 1792x1008 but I might be doing it wrong
(PS4 Pro perf mode)

 

[01011001]

Am I doing this shit wrong? lol
What do you get here?

re4-demo-pro-perf-s2.png

drive.google.com

I am getting 1792x1008 but I might be doing it wrong
(PS4 Pro perf mode)

the res seems REALLY low here.
I too get 1008p here using a 60 pixel high ruler.

the ease at which you can count the stairsteps in this says it all imo lol

edit, horizontal pixel counts suggest 972p maybe...?
because vertical I get 1728 pixels, which in 16:9 would end up as 972p

edit2, if I use a 45 pixel ruler I come to 960p
the issue with these super dynamic in-between resolutions is that it is hard to narrow down exactly what the resolution is.
the only way to make sure is to go super extreme, and even then there's margin for error.
with a 48 pixel ruler I get 990p

so here a count with a 130 pixel high ruler.... 963.6923076923077p
VG Tech came out with 966p apparently, but I bet it's just really dynamic again and will adjust up and down from there

edit3, TO GO EVEN FURTHER BEYOND!!!

273 pixel high ruler!!!... 973.1868131868132p
so maybe my horizontal count that came out as 1728x972p was right all along?

 

[Kamina]

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 did say that it was hard and they weren’t sure

 

[rofif]

Thanks. A far cry from what the other poster said when he claimed that DF "asked VGtech for help". It was already mentioned in by NxGamer here and

But that's completely false. Frame times are actually much more critical than frame rates in telling how a game feels to play. Has nothing to do with "modern hip" or whatever. Frame time analysis has been a thing for decades.

Case and point; Bloodborne. The average frame rate is close to 30fps but the frame times aren't and it results in microstutters which makes for a jittery experience.



But that's the thing. It's not necessarily the case, hence why we need frame times. There are some cases where you can get a a frame at 8.33ms and then none at the next 16.66ms, this would result in a slight stutter due to uneven frames but you would still see a 60fps reading. A couple of years ago, AMD cards in CrossFireX were infamous for microstutters. Your frame rates were much higher but your frame times were far more inconsistent, resulting in a more uneven and overall worse experience despite better performance. 60fps just means that for every second, 60 frames are rendered, not necessarily that one frame is rendered every 16.66ms...that's what frame times are for.

And yet bloodborne feels better than any 30 fps game. It had 75 ms less input lag than demons souls 30 fps. That’s because it delivers frames asap. And there is only some jitter which never bothered me. Not as bad as final fantasy xv.

You can see stutters with fps too. Maybe more detailed with frametimes but it doesn’t do anything for me setting these.

 

[Low Moral Fibre]

I know VG Tech is normally right but he’s wrong here as there is DRS in performance mode on PS5. Either that or Capcom are purposefully applying a filter to randomly blur certain scenes.

The RE engine games do seem to cause problems for the tech channels. I think I remember NX Gamer arguing there was no checkerboarding in the PS5 version of RE2 when a blind man could tell there was just by eyeballing it. Apologies if I’m misremembering.

 

[Gaiff]

And yet bloodborne feels better than any 30 fps game.

The fuck, no it doesn't. The game's frame pacing is awful and the entire time, it feels like it stutters.

It had 75 ms less input lag than demons souls 30 fps. That’s because it delivers frames asap. And there is only some jitter which never bothered me. Not as bad as final fantasy xv.

More responsive = / smoother. Bloodborne feels awful to play but it's so good that we just give it a pass. Hell, I initially couldn't even play the game for more than about 1 hour because the color palette coupled with the bad frame pacing actually gave me eye strain.

You can see stutters with fps too. Maybe more detailed with frametimes but it doesn’t do anything for me setting these.

These are just frame rate drops. The point is simply that frame times aren't a useless modern metric that people use to feel smart like you said. They're legitimately useful to catch a problem that you'll no doubt feel but might not be able to tell with fps alone. The reading will be flat but the feeling you'll get won't be.

 

[rofif]

The fuck, no it doesn't. The game's frame pacing is awful and the entire time, it feels like it stutters.

More responsive = / smoother. Bloodborne feels awful to play but it's so good that we just give it a pass. Hell, I initially couldn't even play the game for more than about 1 hour because the color palette coupled with the bad frame pacing actually gave me eye strain.

These are just frame rate drops. The point is simply that frame times aren't a useless modern metric that people use to feel smart like you said. They're legitimately useful to catch a problem that you'll no doubt feel but might not be able to tell with fps alone. The reading will be flat but the feeling you'll get won't be.

SEriously. Play demons souls 30fps for 15 minutes and then launch bloodborne. It controls faster than demons at 60fps man.
I don't care for few stutters here and there. You people are too obsessed with tech perfection

 

[Gaiff]

SEriously. Play demons souls 30fps for 15 minutes and then launch bloodborne. It controls faster than demons at 60fps man.

I know Bloodborne at least moves faster and that the 30fps mode in Demon's Souls is ass. 60fps mode is fine though.

I don't care for few stutters here and there. You people are too obsessed with tech perfection

I still beat the game like 6 times so I eventually got used to it. I just want something consistent. I'm not asking for 120fps or anything. Just give me something with a rock solid 30fps and even frame times and I'll take it.

 

[rofif]

I know Bloodborne at least moves faster and that the 30fps mode in Demon's Souls is ass. 60fps mode is fine though.

I still beat the game like 6 times so I eventually got used to it. I just want something consistent. I'm not asking for 120fps or anything. Just give me something with a rock solid 30fps and even frame times and I'll take it.

It's either rock solid 30 or fast 30 it seems.