• 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.

[VGTech] Battlefield 2042 PS5 & Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Test



From VGTech:

The versions tested were 1.000.004 on PS5 and 1.0.71.536 on Xbox Series X|S. The footage is from 128 player matches.

Timestamps
00:00 PS5
05:03 Xbox Series X
10:05 Xbox Series S

Very large frame time spikes were found on Xbox Series X https://bit.ly/3FDfNNw These frame time spikes weren't found on PS5 or Xbox Series S.

Xbox Series S uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being approximately 2272x1278 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1440x810. Pixel counts at 1440x810 seem to be rare on Xbox Series S.

PS5 and Xbox Series X use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being 2560x1440. Pixel counts at 2560x1440 seem to be rare on PS5 and Xbox Series X.

The resolution on Xbox Series X seems to be higher than PS5 when pixel counts are performed during the same scene on each console. Some example pixel counts for PS5 and Xbox Series X during the same scenes are below. Note that these figures are approximate.

Xbox Series X: 3733x2100 and PS5 3584x2016.
Xbox Series X: 3648x2052 and PS5 3456x1944.
Xbox Series X: 3342x1880 and PS5 3093x1740.

All three consoles appear to be using a form of checkerboard rendering to reach the stated resolutions.

PS5 and Xbox Series X have some graphical improvements compared to Xbox Series S such as: improved undergrowth quality and improved LOD transition distance https://bit.ly/3HQDm7z

PlatformsPS5Xbox Series XXbox Series S
Frame Amounts
Game Frames178681782217617
Video Frames181201812017920
Frame Tearing Statistics
Total Torn Frames000
Lowest Torn Line---
Frame Height216021602160
Frame Time Statistics
Mean Frame Time16.9ms16.95ms16.95ms
Median Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms16.67ms
Maximum Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
Minimum Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms16.67ms
95th Percentile Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms16.67ms
99th Percentile Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
Frame Rate Statistics
Mean Frame Rate59.16fps59.01fps58.99fps
Median Frame Rate60fps60fps60fps
Maximum Frame Rate60fps60fps60fps
Minimum Frame Rate50fps47fps47fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate55fps55fps54fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate52fps51fps52fps
Frame Time Counts
16.67ms17616 (98.59%)17524 (98.33%)17314 (98.28%)
33.33ms252 (1.41%)298 (1.67%)303 (1.72%)
Other
Dropped Frames000
Runt Frames000
Runt Frame Thresholds20 rows20 rows20 rows
 
Last edited:
Slighty higher resolution on average on XSX (between 8% and 17% higher) and slighty better framerate stats on PS5 notably with the higher low.

PS5 XSX
Mean Frame Rate 59.16fps 59.01fps
Minimum Frame Rate 50fps 47fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate 55fps 55fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate 52fps 51fps

But there are big random stutters (0fps) on XSX not included in those stats:
 

Cherrypepsi

Member
64 vs 64 players, vehicles, planes, destructable objects and buildings, I think the game runs great on consoles considering how unpredictable things can get.

framerates are the same and looking at the comparison screenshots, even zooming in like crazy I pretty much can't tell them apart.
 

Md Ray

Member
Yes they are. Between 1080p and 1440p max. Closer to 1080p most of the time.
It's not. When it's rendering at 2160p via cb, it's not "effectively running at 1080p". First off, it's pushing 2x more pixels (1920x2160) than 1080p, which puts greater load on the GPU than straight 1440p does. And then there's an additional rendering cost of checkerboard resolve on top. It's not as simple as saying "between 1080p and 1440p. Closer to 1080p". You need to do some research.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Does that fat bastard even know how hard he gets shilled here?

@OP

So its basically a wash between PS5 and XSX. XSS being another story (once again). I'm assuming that the next-gen console versions are running more efficiently then their PC counterpart?
 

JackSparr0w

Member
It's not. When it's rendering at 2160p via cb, it's not "effectively running at 1080p". First off, it's pushing 2x more pixels (1920x2160) than 1080p, which puts greater load on the GPU than straight 1440p does. And then there's an additional rendering cost of checkerboard resolve on top. It's not as simple as saying "between 1080p and 1440p. Closer to 1080p". You need to do some research.
Dynamic resolution on top of checkerboard rendering equals to a native pixel count of 1080p to 1440p depending on the scene. It's very simple. Checkerboard 4k equals to around 1600p then add dynamic resolution and you can go all the way down to 1080p.

It's not that consoles are underperforming. I'm not trying to take a dig at them as it runs really bad on PC too. It's just a very poorly optimized game that manages to look worse than Battlefield V. BF 2042 is just terrible by any measure.
 
Last edited:
While we could say the game runs quite well on XSX and PS5, it's really not the case on XSS. While having about the same framerate and using the minimum resolution (1440p vs 810p) the big twins render 3.15 times more pixels.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
this is mirroring what specs those machine have...res advantage of the sx at basically same perf. obv will be given as a tie and will be classified as irrelevant. In the meantime, the game Elden ring with an old engine and the poorer optimization ever... taken as maximum example
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
It's not. When it's rendering at 2160p via cb, it's not "effectively running at 1080p". First off, it's pushing 2x more pixels (1920x2160) than 1080p, which puts greater load on the GPU than straight 1440p does. And then there's an additional rendering cost of checkerboard resolve on top. It's not as simple as saying "between 1080p and 1440p. Closer to 1080p". You need to do some research.
When running on 60 FPS, it's very close perceptually to 4k, as seen on VILLAGE, so it's not the same situation as in past gen, for those who are (((concerned)))
 
Top Bottom