Support NeoGAF

[yamaci17]

Uses one of the worst optimised launch games ever to prove a point and dismisses a more recent nicely optimised game as just "doesn't count"

Looking at Gears 5 benchmarkes Series S smokes that card.

Bruh. How does it smoke it? You really think it renders 1440p 120? It was a lie, it drops to 810-900p in multiplayer mode.

And does 1080p- 60 FPS on single player, which is what GTX 1060 do.

Besides, games will get tougher and even tougher than Cyberpunk.

You coping with Cyberpunk being unoptimized is funny as hell. You really think games will remain soft loaded as Gears 5? Then you're highly "delusional".

 

[Riky]

Bruh. How does it smoke it? You really think it renders 1440p 120? It was a lie, it drops to 810-900p in multiplayer mode.

And does 1080p- 60 FPS on single player, which is what GTX 1060 do.

Besides, games will get tougher and even tougher than Cyberpunk.

You coping with Cyberpunk being unoptimized is funny as hell. You really think games will remain soft loaded as Gears 5? Then you're highly "delusional".

1060 can't do 120fps mode and is about 35fps at 1440p campaign, so smoked, you're clueless.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Not my word. Those are the words of engine programmers at id Software.

Well, I tell you one thing. ID Software are frigging Wizards and if they tell me there is an issue, I would like to think they know whats up. so ignore me lol.

 

[yamaci17]

1060 can't do 120fps mode and is about 35fps at 1440p campaign, so smoked, you're clueless.

With optimized settings (lower graphical settings, as Series S does) it can. You're just looking at internet benchmarks where ultra settings are in focus. You're clearly delusional for comparing ultra settings on PC.

It's also funny you're practically so much so delusional that you're accepting that Series S barely gives a bit of advantage over a 5 year old then-midrange GPU



Man you people are so pathetic.

"Smokes" lol. Delusional dream worlds. At best, it maybe have a %30 advantage over a 1060 in this game, and that's with all the bells and whistles of DX12_u. Cry in a corner. Not to me. Ignored and blocked.

You people cannot cope that Series S barely gives a bit advantage over a 5 year old 250 dollar GPU that used to be sold for 120-130 dollar last summer. LMFAO.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No need to argue; it's very simple. Series S was supposed to be a console that would play games at the same FPS and graphical fidelity as Series X (just in 1/3 lower resolution).

In Resident Evil village, Series X runs at 4K + 60 FPS + Ray tracing.

Therefore, Series S should have easily hit 1080p + 60 FPS + Ray tracing with no graphical downgrades.

If it does that, it's an example that everything is fine. If it doesn't, it proves that it's a problem.

 

[yamaci17]

No need to argue; it's very simple. Series S was supposed to be a console that would play games at the same FPS and graphical fidelity as Series X (just in 1/3 lower resolution).

In Resident Evil village, Series X runs at 4K + 60 FPS + Ray tracing.

Therefore, Series S should have easily hit 1080p + 60 FPS + Ray tracing with no graphical downgrades.

If it does that, it's an example that everything is fine. If it doesn't, it proves that it's a problem.

For the 125th time, it's not native. It's practically 1280x1440, 1.8m pixels, which is lower than native 1080p (2.1m pixels)

You're practically asking developer to hit 960x1080, and at that point, checkerboarding will look horrible. Simple as that. You people are dissecting how bad Xbox One looks. It looks bad because it runs at 960x1080.

Besides, going down from 1280x1440 to 960x1080 wouldn't solve the issues anyways. It renders practically 30-40 FPS, evidenced by Digital Foundry videos. Practically, it would need to go 640x720 (ROFL) for a stable 60 FPS. At that point you might as well port the game for Switch to run at 480p and call it a day.

 

[Md Ray]

The move to a unified GDK says otherwise, the minimum spec won't be Series S for a very long time, just saying it will doesn't make it so.

GDK brings development on PC and Xbox consoles under one umbrella and makes things a bit easier. That's about it. PC hardware moves forward every 6-12 months. The min spec in the PC space is already an RTX 2060 for RT, it's the least powerful RT GPU right now and shits all over Series S.

I've already quoted an Xbox engineer before the machines launched saying visual effects that don't affect gameplay will have to be cut

Seen enough of those quotes to know how it goes.

So much for "same great next-gen experience at 1440p". Even VRR can't help this.

 

[yamaci17]

1440p. Mostly high and above settings

53-67 FPS. Mostly above 60.

Yeah Series S, great job. You also achieved 1440p 60 on Story mode. Wow, it dropped to 53. Holy smokes.!! Series S demolished a 5 year old GPU by 7 FPS!!

 

[TBiddy]

With optimized settings (lower graphical settings, as Series S does) it can. You're just looking at internet benchmarks where ultra settings are in focus. You're clearly delusional for comparing ultra settings on PC.

It's also funny you're practically so much so delusional that you're accepting that Series S barely gives a bit of advantage over a 5 year old then-midrange GPU



Man you people are so pathetic.

"Smokes" lol. Delusional dream worlds. At best, it maybe have a %30 advantage over a 1060 in this game, and that's with all the bells and whistles of DX12_u. Cry in a corner. Not to me. Ignored and blocked.

You people cannot cope that Series S barely gives a bit advantage over a 5 year old 250 dollar GPU that used to be sold for 120-130 dollar last summer. LMFAO.

What's up with the aggressiveness?

 

[yamaci17]

What's up with the aggressiveness?

What's up with the aggressiveness?

i'm really getting tired with these people. he's blatantly finding a random ultra maxed benchmark in internet to compare a 1060 and series s at 1440p. and that got me angry, rightfully so. getting so low to use extreme graphical preset benchmarks to compare a 5 year old gpu to a nextgen console to justify the console's existence is pretty anger inducing at this point and i see that there's no point arguing with these people

so might as well talk with them with the tone they deserve

next up, he will pull up a rtx 2060 1440p re village benchmark and claim that it renders 35-40 fps, which is what series s does, but at half the resolution (1280x1440 vs 2560x1440)

 

[Riky]

With optimized settings (lower graphical settings, as Series S does) it can. You're just looking at internet benchmarks where ultra settings are in focus. You're clearly delusional for comparing ultra settings on PC.

It's also funny you're practically so much so delusional that you're accepting that Series S barely gives a bit of advantage over a 5 year old then-midrange GPU



Man you people are so pathetic.

"Smokes" lol. Delusional dream worlds. At best, it maybe have a %30 advantage over a 1060 in this game, and that's with all the bells and whistles of DX12_u. Cry in a corner. Not to me. Ignored and blocked.

You people cannot cope that Series S barely gives a bit advantage over a 5 year old 250 dollar GPU that used to be sold for 120-130 dollar last summer. LMFAO.

Series S runs with GI on a setting that came to PC later so 1060 would choke hard, you have no clue.

 

[RoboFu]

not sure why poeple are tryingot shit on the Series S its doing RT at abnove 30 fps in this game. the only issue is it should be locked at 30. Its doing exactly what it should be doing.

 

[Riky]

GDK brings development on PC and Xbox consoles under one umbrella and makes things a bit easier. That's about it. PC hardware moves forward every 6-12 months. The min spec in the PC space is already an RTX 2060 for RT, it's the least powerful RT GPU right now and shits all over Series S.

Seen enough of those quotes to know how it goes.

So much for "same great next-gen experience at 1440p". Even VRR can't help this.

Like Ronald said some effects that don't affect core gameplay will be cut, so that may be RT, said that before launch. It's a 4tflop small £249 box that draws little power, you can't build a PC anywhere near it for the price.

 

[Insane Metal]

Not my word. Those are the words of engine programmers at id Software.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Everyone's favourite little console is under spotlight again I see.

Anyways, one of my relatives have made a pc that costs 3 times Series S. (2060 super)

It's targeting 1080p and I can't see difference between two. A win for Series S if you ask me.

 

[yamaci17]

Everyone's favourite little console is under spotlight again I see.

Anyways, one of my relatives have made a pc that costs 3 times Series S. (2060 super)

It's targeting 1080p and I can't see difference between two. A win for Series S if you ask me.

Try AC:Valhalla, then.

2060s can hit native 1440p 60 FPS in that title.

Series S does 720-810p 60 FPS.

How can it target when it already drops below 900p on a crossgen AAA game.

If you can't see a differece between 810p and 1080p that's you. And even then, 2060s can actually aim and achieve 1440p in many games, whereas Series S can't. You can always push res scaling or higher settings at 1080p with a 2060s, as well.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Try AC:Valhalla, then.

2060s can hit native 1440p 60 FPS in that title.

Series S does 720-810p 60 FPS.

How can it target when it already drops below 900p on a crossgen AAA game.

If you can't see a differece between 810p and 1080p that's you. And even then, 2060s can actually aim and achieve 1440p in many games, whereas Series S can't. You can always push res scaling or higher settings at 1080p with a 2060s, as well.

Lower than 1080p resolution is norm on the system cause upscalers are so good on new systems.

Developers will make full use of that. It's smart.

Playing Jedi Fallen Order, it's upscaled and looks so crisp. Very hard to tell from native.

This is not Xbox One S situation where you get a noticeable softness across the frame if it's sub 1080p.

 

[Riky]

Everyone's favourite little console is under spotlight again I see.

Anyways, one of my relatives have made a pc that costs 3 times Series S. (2060 super)

It's targeting 1080p and I can't see difference between two. A win for Series S if you ask me.

They discount things like price, size and power draw as it destroys their narrative.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

They discount things like price, size and power draw as it destroys their narrative.

People are warring like it's still PS4 / xbone generation where sub 1080p used to look soft and mushy.




Check out 0.22 in video. Very hard to tell any difference.

 

[yamaci17]

Even 1080p DLSS looks bad for most people (720p internal resolution) and yet you claim that Series S has a secret special sauce upscaler that somehow creates a sharp image on a 1080p screen with 720p rendering. Huh. Weird cope.

It's becoming absurd at this point.

Even special upscaling hardware has trouble creating a sharp image at 1080p with 720-810p materials.

There's no shame in admitting it's a blurry garbage and you can tolerate it. Simple as that. You being able to tolerate a blurry 810-900p image does not mean it's sharp and good quality. It's below standarts of 1080p gaming in 2021.

 

[Heisenberg007]

For the 125th time, it's not native. It's practically 1280x1440, 1.8m pixels, which is lower than native 1080p (2.1m pixels)

You're practically asking developer to hit 960x1080, and at that point, checkerboarding will look horrible. Simple as that. You people are dissecting how bad Xbox One looks. It looks bad because it runs at 960x1080.

Besides, going down from 1280x1440 to 960x1080 wouldn't solve the issues anyways. It renders practically 30-40 FPS, evidenced by Digital Foundry videos. Practically, it would need to go 640x720 (ROFL) for a stable 60 FPS. At that point you might as well port the game for Switch to run at 480p and call it a day.

I understand it's CB; I personally just don't mind it.

As to your other point, I agree. If it does not render ~60 FPS with 1/3 the resolution, that's a problem.

We also noticed similar behavior in other games like Control and DMC5, where the Series S didn't have ray tracing enabled. That was not how the console was promised and promoted, so that's an issue.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Even 1080p DLSS looks bad for most people (720p internal resolution) and yet you claim that Series S has a secret special sauce upscaler that somehow creates a sharp image on a 1080p screen with 720p rendering. Huh. Weird cope.

It's becoming absurd at this point.

Here's a hint: it does not. Go play actual native 1080p games, compare them side by side. Don't try to fool yourself.

I can't compare side by side.

But I have seen almost all videos from Elanaldebits involving Series S/X comparison. I was super sceptical before getting Series S as I thought I would miss out.

On 1080p screen, Series S maxes it out. I wouldn't gain much by using more powerful hardware. (Except supersampling which I am yet to see in action)

 

[Heisenberg007]

not sure why poeple are tryingot shit on the Series S its doing RT at abnove 30 fps in this game. the only issue is it should be locked at 30. Its doing exactly what it should be doing.

It's lowering the resolution + it's only rendering ~35 FPS. That's the problem.

If it was doing only one of those things (not both), then there would be no problem. Either lower the resolution or frame rate, not both.

 

[yamaci17]

I understand it's CB; I personally just don't mind it.

As to your other point, I agree. If it does not render ~60 FPS with 1/3 the resolution, that's a problem.

We also noticed similar behavior in other games like Control and DMC5, where the Series S didn't have ray tracing enabled. That was not how the console was promised and promoted, so that's an issue.

I'm not actually saying CB is not bad. It's good. It's also looking good from what I've seen. But game's static nature also helps hiding artifacts.

Series S usually does 1/3 resolution, no problems on that front end. Only problem is, for 60 FPS mode SX targets 1300-1440p, and that hurts Series S.

Microsoft cannot force developers to hit 4K 60 FPS, as its impossible and 1440p usually scales good to 4K due to the high amount of pixels already present. FidelityFX will probably do good work with base 1440p pixels to reach 4K.

But when SX targets 1440p, Series S automatically targets 1/3 of it, 720p (not actually 1/3) and lower settings. And it's simply 1m pixels that cannot be realitically and usefully used to upscale an image. I've seen DLSS up close. It does a decent job, but image is still too blurry.

Heck, some people find 960p internal to 1440p upscaling bad. Somehow some people really believe that consoles have better upscaling than DLSS, then I have no words for it

I don't have no hopes that FidelityFX managing and producing a good image on 1080p from 720p internal resolution. After 3 years of development and with specific tensor cores, even DLSS can't do that. You still need 1440p base resolution for best DLSS results.

 

[01011001]

It's lowering the resolution + it's only rendering ~35 FPS. That's the problem.

If it was doing only one of those things (not both), then there would be no problem. Either lower the resolution or frame rate, not both.

it's not lowering the resolution... what? both modes run at 1440cb which is actually the problem here.

the RT mode should have been set to 1080cb and that might have saved the framerate to be at least in the 45-60fps range like PS5 and SX

the fact that they kept the res at 1440cb is ridiculous

 

[Riky]

There is no problem, turn off RT which is barely noticeable anyway in this game and you get a locked 60fps. It's a great way to play.

 

[01011001]

There is no problem, turn off RT which is barely noticeable anyway in this game and you get a locked 60fps. It's a great way to play.

well on the high end consoles RT is totally worth it tho. yes it's not the best implementation but it's still way better than freaking SSR and SSAO.

on Series X on a VRR screen you will literally not notice the framedrops either.

it's only the Series S where it sucks. and it's baffling that Capcom just kept the same resolution and didn't implement an optional 30fps lock when they know that the S can't keep a steady framerate (and yes I said optional, 30fps locks should ALWAYS be optional)

 

[yamaci17]

Back to 720p! Sure it will look super crisp and sharp even with a 4k screen with special secret sauce upscaling that Nvidia couldn't achieve with 3 years of development

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I'm not actually saying CB is not bad. It's good. It's also looking good from what I've seen. But game's static nature also helps hiding artifacts.

Series S usually does 1/3 resolution, no problems on that front end. Only problem is, for 60 FPS mode SX targets 1300-1440p, and that hurts Series S.

Microsoft cannot force developers to hit 4K 60 FPS, as its impossible and 1440p usually scales good to 4K due to the high amount of pixels already present. FidelityFX will probably do good work with base 1440p pixels to reach 4K.

But when SX targets 1440p, Series S automatically targets 1/3 of it, 720p (not actually 1/3) and lower settings. And it's simply 1m pixels that cannot be realitically and usefully used to upscale an image. I've seen DLSS up close. It does a decent job, but image is still too blurry.

Heck, some people find 960p internal to 1440p upscaling bad. Somehow some people really believe that consoles have better upscaling than DLSS, then I have no words for it

I don't have no hopes that FidelityFX managing and producing a good image on 1080p from 720p internal resolution. After 3 years of development and with specific tensor cores, even DLSS can't do that. You still need 1440p base resolution for best DLSS results.

Sometimes it helps to own the hardware or do research from purchase perspective.

Much better than napkin maths.

 

[yamaci17]

People are warring like it's still PS4 / xbone generation where sub 1080p used to look soft and mushy.




Check out 0.22 in video. Very hard to tell any difference.

You're practically giving an example where it can hit 1080p and it's probably native 1080p in those scenes.



This clearly looks blurry and "mushy". Because upperbounds is 810p for this game.

lmao

besides, i dont even care for static images. dlss also looks good on static scenes. present me actual dynamic gameplay where you move around your camera. cheers.

 

[Riky]

You can also go to fidelity mode which goes to 1600p + if you care about resolution on Series S Valhalla.
So there is something for everyone.

 

[01011001]

You can also go to fidelity mode which goes to 1600p + if you care about resolution on Series S Valhalla.
So there is something for everyone.

I actually expect the Series S to eventually go down that line.

we see the trend of 60fps games on next gen, so if that keeps up, I expect the Series S to eventually become the 30fps version of the SX.
slightly lower res at half the framerate

that's basically what Valhalla did, it looks pretty much like the other next gen versions but runs at 30 instead of 60 in fidelity mode.

of course, optional 60fps modes, no matter how low res, should always be there as an option, and it's great that Ubisoft actually put one in after launch.

 

[yamaci17]

I actually expect the Series S to eventually go down that line.

we see the trend of 60fps games on next gen, so if that keeps up, I expect the Series S to eventually become the 30fps version of the SX.
slightly lower res at half the framerate

that's basically what Valhalla did, it looks pretty much like the other next gen versions but runs at 30 instead of 60 in fidelity mode.

of course, optional 60fps modes, no matter how low res, should always be there as an option, and it's great that Ubisoft actually put one in after launch.

Res mode on Valhalla look like godlike compared to performance mode on Series S.

I would definetely play at 30 FPS if i had that console

 

[Bogroll]

Imo people should compare Series S to Ps4. Don't give a fuck what gen it is, its around the same price as the Ps4 in the Uk.

 

[yamaci17]

I've watched all the performance mode videos of Vallhalla on Series S there are available. It simply looks much worse compared to native 1080p videos with similar compressions.

Just as I can't force you to change your opinion about the blurrines/sharpness of the Series S IQ, you can't change mine.
There's no point arguing. There were a lot of Xbox One guys that claimed RDR 2 looks fine on their screens at 864p, while I saw it upclose. And it looked horrible compared to native 1080p. Weirdly, they also claimed xbox one had special hardware scaler that does gReAT work so I can see where you're coming

if you can prove that series s does a better job at upscaling, be my guest.

but let me tell you. series s does not even upscale the game. that's where you actually hard-fail. valhalla uses a temporal reconstruction that is present on ALL platforms. it practically outputs a 1080p resolution for series s, but interanlly renders at 720-810p and then reconstructs them to 1080p. and let me say, i've tried that on PC as well. it simply doesn't look that good. it's better than PAST generations of games with MSAA , where you would drop to 720p and get horrible image quality. But instead you get soft and mush image quality. There's no point arguing. There's no special upscaling going on. Just TAA doing its reconstruction job. It does not increase sharpness, it just makes the image tolerable across a variety of dynamic resolution changes.

temporal reconstruction does not make a image look sharper. it just makes it look like a whole. that's an improvement but it still looks blurry and "mushy".

you giving an example of a game that mostly renders at 1080p is hilarious really. i never talked about star wars, as i knew it could hold onto mostly 1080p on that game. even a 1060 can do that (rofl)

yup, easy



this gpu could be bought for 100-120 dollars just last summer. so detracting the topic to more expensive cards such as 2060s is also very funny.

there will be 150-200 dollar gpus in 1-2 years that will smoke series s. cheers (if mining craze does end, that is. if not, buy a sx, not a gimped down fake nextgen console)

besides, i'm all in for series x. i would gladly get a series x instead of a 2070/2080 or 2080s.

 

[RobRSG]

The Series S is really cheap.

People forget that.

 

[yamaci17]

The Series S is really cheap.

People forget that.

SX is also cheap. Some people also omit that fact for some reason while defending this console.

Now cue the "give the 200 dollar difference yourself" argument. Rinse and repeat.

You're getting a 3050Ti (most likely) PC at 300 dollar price target
You're getting a 3070 (will be, once console optimizations start to settle) PC at 500 dollar price target

It's a huge leap no one can deny.

I don't stop people from buying Series S if they really do not have the budget. I simply can't.

I just want people with a little bit extra budget to make right choices. Even if they still game on their 1080p tv/monitor, they should go with SX IF they have the budget. No one should feel obliged to have a shiny new 4K tv for SX that some people would like you believe. You still get 1200-1440p with a SX that should superb on a 1080p screen due to extra quality coming from SSAA, instead of downscaling that you get with Series S in games.

Some people are adamant for suggesting Series S in every circumstance where a 1080p screen is present. That's what I'm fighting against.

Say the person A has a 1080p TV and do not want to upgrade their TV but wants to get a new gen console. They say they can afford 500 dollar console.

These people pop up and will say SX is waste of money and drive those people into buying 720p-810p gaming machine because for them Series S is a perfectly capable 1080p console that is perfect fit for 1080p screens.

It's only a fit if you're really, really, really tight on budget.

If it was priced at 150-200 dollars, I would have no quarrels. But that's I guess is extreme.


You don't get what you pay for with Series S. You pay 300 dollar but you get 4 TFLOPS, you pay 500 dollars and you get a whopping 12 TFLOPS that will make sure to put you in 1080p+ resolutions for the entirety of a 6-7 year span of generation while the other will bail out at 720p 3-4 years later.

Yes, SSD and CPU is there. Crazy value. 300 dollar alone is a crazy value you get from Series S. No ONE can deny that or argument about that.

But. Series X is UNPARALLED value compared to Series S.

Nowhere in the hardware world you can get THRICE the performance for just a 200 dollar bump. 500 GB more disk space. Disc drive. More memory, guaranteed ray tracing for future next-gen titles.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

SX is also cheap. Some people also omit that fact for some reason while defending this console.

Now cue the "give the 200 dollar difference yourself" argument. Rinse and repeat.

You're getting a 3050Ti (most likely) PC at 300 dollar price target
You're getting a 3070 (will be, once console optimizations start to settle) PC at 500 dollar price target

It's a huge leap no one can deny.

I don't stop people from buying Series S if they really do not have the budget. I simply can't.

I just want people with a little bit extra budget to make right choices. Even if they still game on their 1080p tv/monitor, they should go with SX IF they have the budget. No one should feel obliged to have a shiny new 4K tv for SX that some people would like you believe. You still get 1200-1440p with a SX that should superb on a 1080p screen due to extra quality coming from SSAA, instead of downscaling that you get with Series S in games.

Some people are adamant for suggesting Series S in every circumstance where a 1080p screen is present. That's what I'm fighting against.

Say the person A has a 1080p TV and do not want to upgrade their TV but wants to get a new gen console. They say they can afford 500 dollar console.

These people pop up and will say SX is waste of money and drive those people into buying 720p-810p gaming machine because for them Series S is a perfectly capable 1080p console that is perfect fit for 1080p screens.

It's only a fit if you're really, really, really tight on budget.

If it was priced at 150-200 dollars, I would have no quarrels. But that's I guess is extreme.


You don't get what you pay for with Series S. You pay 300 dollar but you get 4 TFLOPS, you pay 500 dollars and you get a whopping 12 TFLOPS that will make sure to put you in 1080p+ resolutions for the entirety of a 6-7 year span of generation while the other will bail out at 720p 3-4 years later.

Yes, SSD and CPU is there. Crazy value. 300 dollar alone is a crazy value you get from Series S. No ONE can deny that or argument about that.

But. Series X is UNPARALLED value compared to Series S.

Nowhere in the hardware world you can get THRICE the performance for just a 200 dollar bump. 500 GB more disk space. Disc drive. More memory, guaranteed ray tracing for future next-gen titles.

How many Tflops would you put in a 1080p targeting system? 4 is pretty potent.

Sure you can get series x for redundancy. To me not worth it. Worse it will urge me to upgrade display as well.

 

[M_A_C]

Watching Dr Disrespect playing right now, he is playing on a beast PC with a RTX 3090 and he was getting 30-40 FPS in some parts.

 

[RobRSG]

Watching Dr Disrespect playing right now, he is playing on a beast PC with a RTX 3090 and he was getting 30-40 FPS in some parts.

The perks of RT without DLSS.

 

[Fat Frog]