Xbox Series and PS5 Games Comparisons

Started by Xevross, Nov 11, 2020, 11:45 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xevross

Nov 12, 2020, 11:42 PM Last Edit: Nov 13, 2020, 10:08 AM by Xevross
Edit: link was removed

Xevross

Nov 13, 2020, 10:11 AM Last Edit: Nov 13, 2020, 10:14 AM by Xevross
NXGamer's analysis of AC Valhalla:




TLDW: Performance almost identical, PS5 perhaps has a very slight edge.

John from DF confirms they're finding a similar result and will have a video up soon:



Very interesting. Mark Cerny, what a guy.

Dr. Pezus

NXGamer's analysis of AC Valhalla:




TLDW: Performance almost identical, PS5 perhaps has a very slight edge.

John from DF confirms they're finding a similar result and will have a video up soon:


itter.com

And AC even has an Xbox marketing deal hm

I wonder how cod will turn out, probably the reverse lol

Xevross

And AC even has an Xbox marketing deal hm

I wonder how cod will turn out, probably the reverse lol
People think perhaps this wasn't optimised well due to late arriving Series X dev kits.

It is odd though, Series X was supposed to be ahead with third parties that don't optimise well due to raw GPU strength then PS5 was supposed to catch up with full optimisation. This isn't what we're seeing thus far.

COD seems like its better on PS5 no matter what due to the glowing impressions of using the DualSense with it.

Mmm_fish_tacos

It probably because the xbox is barley more poweful. Its like mega pixels in a camera. You'll need a lot more between two cameras to notice a difference. 1 isn't going to show.

Xevross




Both perform almost identically, with PS5 having a slight edge in 120fps mode.

Xevross

Matt on Era:

Quote
1) It's early in the gen on brand new hardware, it will take time for devs to get fully up to speed
Quote
2) The PS5 dev tools are simply better and more mature right now
Quote
3) It turns out Sony wasn't lying about "fast and narrow" having some benefits over "wide and slow"
Quote
Ultimatly the machines are very close to each other, and that's the best possible outcome.

Legend

It is kinda fun having both systems near identical so far. Way too many people blindly assumed series x would be way better than PS5, ala PS4 vs One or One X vs PS4 Pro.

Dr. Pezus

Matt on Era:

Shocker

Raw power isn't everything. Sony has Cerny

Xevross

Nov 18, 2020, 04:05 PM Last Edit: Nov 18, 2020, 04:12 PM by Xevross
DF's Valhalla video



Series S:

Quote
but the key cutback here [compared to flagship consoles] is a drop from 60fps down to 30fps, firmly pegging it with last-gen versions of the game. Not only that, dynamic resolution is rather elastic, operating from 1188p to around 1656p, often settling at 1296p, lower than Series X, and also delivering reductions in shadow resolution, alongside pulled in level of detail settings for trees and terrain.
PS5 and Series X:
Quote
Quote
Both of the premium next generation consoles also use a dynamic resolution scaling system. The lowest measured pixel count is 1440p (67 per cent of native 4K on either axis) while the maximum is 1728p (80 per cent native) and in almost all scenarios
Quote
While there are problems on both systems, Xbox Series X obviously fares worse
However, the key takeaway is that PlayStation 5 is much closer to the 60fps target more of the time, while Xbox Series X can struggle. In fact, at its worst, we noted PS5 delivering a 15 per cent performance advantage over its Microsoft equivalent in identical scenarios

Dr. Pezus

DF's Valhalla video



Series S:
PS5 and Series X:However, the key takeaway is that PlayStation 5 is much closer to the 60fps target more of the time, while Xbox Series X can struggle. In fact, at its worst, we noted PS5 delivering a 15 per cent performance advantage over its Microsoft equivalent in identical scenarios

XSS is most shocking. It was supposed to run at similar framerate. I wonder why they didn't set the max res at 1440p for that version though.

Xevross

XSS is most shocking. It was supposed to run at similar framerate. I wonder why they didn't set the max res at 1440p for that version though.
Yes very odd, if it was 1440p it would be much more stable and would perhaps lose fewer features. It would still only be 30fps though. AAA games are not going to be 1440p 60fps on Series S basically ever. Also exactly as expected, Microsoft were borderline faslely advertising Series S, suggesting it had 1440p, 120fps and ray-tracing when you can only get one of those things at once. 1440p 30 (or upscaled to 4K 30) or 1080p 30 with a smidge of RT is probably what we'll see.

Dr. Pezus

Yes very odd, if it was 1440p it would be much more stable and would perhaps lose fewer features. It would still only be 30fps though. AAA games are not going to be 1440p 60fps on Series S basically ever. Also exactly as expected, Microsoft were borderline faslely advertising Series S, suggesting it had 1440p, 120fps and ray-tracing when you can only get one of those things at once. 1440p 30 (or upscaled to 4K 30) or 1080p 30 with a smidge of RT is probably what we'll see.
How is CoD on it? 1080p60?

Xevross

How is CoD on it? 1080p60?
Series S uses a horizontal reconstruction technique for a dynamic 1440p60, so is mostly not at 1440p native, and it also drops below 60 a lot of the time. That's compared to PS5 and Series X 60fps modes which are essentially locked at dynamic 4K plus raytracing.

Like I said, I don't think native 1440p60 is something the Series S can manage for big AAA games.

DerNebel

Good thing we had almost a year of panic, concerns and fanboy wars on forums like Resetera for games to end up looking almost the same.  ;D

And I'm gonna refrain from laughing at all the clowns who were "concerned" when Ubisoft didn't put "native 4K at 60fps" or whatever in their description for the PS5 version of this game while they did for the Xbox Series X.

Go Up