By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry- CoD Black Ops Cold War

Looks really good in both consoles.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:


Imo 120 fps is just as much a waste of resources as native 4K. I've seen the difference between native 120 fps and re-projected 60 fps on PSVR and I have to look at rotating helicopter blades and fences zooming by on the sides to notice the difference.


It depends on the games you play, if you're only playing cod for the campaign it may be a waste, but the MP playing 120 vs 60 is night and day. It adds to response times, when people can die in milliseconds, every millisecond matters, and at 120 you would see an enemy pop out faster than 60Hz would show, and the image stays smoother in motion so if you have to track and shoot at a moving target, you will be more accurate @120Hz. Basically, 120hz is for competitive players. on PC, we've been turning down the graphics to get more frames for years, play a day @60 and then 120 the next day, you just end up doing better with more frames.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Too_Talls said:
JRPGfan said:

also DF are late with their videos, for weeks we've been hearing people say it runs better on PS5.
DF basically had to cherry pick 2 minor instances, where they found the XSX to run better than PS5 and show that, while other videos from other 3rd party have actually found area's where the xsx runs worse (hence why this game was said to run better on the PS5).


Seems like cherry-pick your console war to me. take whatever side you favor more at believe the sections of videos they uploaded and the validity of what THEIR graphs show.

For me whether it fits my bias narrative or not, if there are conflicting reports, I'll put more weight on whatever the report is from DF over the new kids on the block, as DF has been doing this stuff for years, and have earned the credibility miles over anyone else attempting to enter this space of content.

Aside from the credibility of the content creator knowing what they're doing and having the right tools to do so, there is this shroud of narrative interests. And over the years, I've seen DF report big wins for both sides, at this point, I have no reason to believe they'd try to swing the narrative in any other direction than what is factual. As for the new kids, I don't know their agenda or their body of work, so I'm not finna jump on their wagon if it's contradictory to what DF reports JUST BECAUSE I like their verdict more.

Its not a "pick which ever side you believe more".
You cannot argue with facts.

Facts are DF showed 2 instances where the XSX ran better.

However thats not the entire story.

Look at this video :  around 16mins of head to head compairson between XSX and PS5.
Both run locked 60fps for the entire thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQYpS7I_B8

You have to believe your own eyes right?
Theres a graph here that shows, the results.

What DF says when it shows 2 small instances that last a few secounds.... doesnt matter, when you yourself can watch 16min+ of footage of both running the same damn locked 60fps.

if you run a few hours of footage, and analyse the FPS both run at.... you end up reaching something like this:

60 FPS mode:

1. XSX = Mean frame rate 60 FPS | 16.67 ms at 99.99%
2. PS5 = Mean frame rate 59.99 FPS | 16.67 ms at 99.96%

120 FPS mode:

1. XSX = Mean frame rate 114.93 FPS | 8.33 ms at 91.9%
2. PS5 = Mean frame rate 117.02 FPS | 8.33 ms at 94.15%

Source:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CXW167MudfhuhOjscNSc8Vvs6YEuQ21dXDWkjJCpJQk/edit#gid=0

Its a differnce of 0.03%-0.04% or so between the two in terms of which holds 60fps better.

DF found two super rare instances of dips... and choose to show that.

4/100'th of a % = a tie imo.

Both are what I'd call solid 60fps.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 24 November 2020

JRPGfan said:



Look at this video :  around 16mins of head to head compairson between XSX and PS5.
Both run locked 60fps for the entire thing.

that IS the whole story, DF basically said it. paraphrasing:"ps5 has some big drops in some set-pieces but runs @60 most of the time, especially when there are actually people to shoot"

So that video wouldn't tell me anything DF didn't.

Based on what they said, naturally I'd assume if I watched game play for a few minutes that didn't have any of those set pieces, I'd mostly see 60 FPS

Last edited by Too_Talls - on 24 November 2020

http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Too_Talls said:
SvennoJ said:


Imo 120 fps is just as much a waste of resources as native 4K. I've seen the difference between native 120 fps and re-projected 60 fps on PSVR and I have to look at rotating helicopter blades and fences zooming by on the sides to notice the difference.


It depends on the games you play, if you're only playing cod for the campaign it may be a waste, but the MP playing 120 vs 60 is night and day. It adds to response times, when people can die in milliseconds, every millisecond matters, and at 120 you would see an enemy pop out faster than 60Hz would show, and the image stays smoother in motion so if you have to track and shoot at a moving target, you will be more accurate @120Hz. Basically, 120hz is for competitive players. on PC, we've been turning down the graphics to get more frames for years, play a day @60 and then 120 the next day, you just end up doing better with more frames.

Does the online separate 120fps mode from 60fps mode in match making?

Resolution and draw distance are also important for competitive multiplayer to distinguish the enemy from the background. Turning down the graphics helps on PC to remove 'clutter' and make the enemy stand out more. Turning down the resolution (what the consoles do to achieve 120) doesn't help.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
Too_Talls said:

It depends on the games you play, if you're only playing cod for the campaign it may be a waste, but the MP playing 120 vs 60 is night and day. It adds to response times, when people can die in milliseconds, every millisecond matters, and at 120 you would see an enemy pop out faster than 60Hz would show, and the image stays smoother in motion so if you have to track and shoot at a moving target, you will be more accurate @120Hz. Basically, 120hz is for competitive players. on PC, we've been turning down the graphics to get more frames for years, play a day @60 and then 120 the next day, you just end up doing better with more frames.

Does the online separate 120fps mode from 60fps mode in match making?

Resolution and draw distance are also important for competitive multiplayer to distinguish the enemy from the background. Turning down the graphics helps on PC to remove 'clutter' and make the enemy stand out more. Turning down the resolution (what the consoles do to achieve 120) doesn't help.

their guess is that it still runs at about 1200P which is more than enough. 1080 has been the standard for seeing for a while, the option to output a higher resolution has been there for a while, most people stuck to 1080p with more frames as opposed to bumping up the res.

framerate > resolution, ask any competitive player they will take the frames over resolution everytime, so long as the resolution is at least 1080. of course 720 and 120 frames wouldn't do anyone any good, but 1200P + 120fps > 4k 60.

And trust me, if the option to lower that res further to push more frames, many people would do that, but unfortunately these boxes cap off at 120Hz. Ask yourself why you think 1080p 240Hz monitors even exist.

Last edited by Too_Talls - on 24 November 2020

http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

SvennoJ said:
eva01beserk said:

Seems like we found our trend for the gen. RT on will favour the xbox and RT off will favour the ps5. At this game at least both are virtually the same anyways as both only strrugle during set pieces but gamplay seem solid in all versions and modes. As someone who favours the ps5, ima take the loss as I have zero interest in high framerate. Im 100% in for image quality. Not that ima ever play a COD game lol

All these modes and versions worry me. Instead of having one HW profile and one mode to optimize for, now we not only have multiple HW profiles but also, quality, performance, high frame rate and ray trace modes. What happened to the version the directors are making the game for. What is the 'intended' way to experience the game, the way the director had it in mind.

VRR will likely come to PS5 as well with an update, however it most likely won't come to my tv with an update. HDMI 2.0b ancient tech :p
Imo 120 fps is just as much a waste of resources as native 4K. I've seen the difference between native 120 fps and re-projected 60 fps on PSVR and I have to look at rotating helicopter blades and fences zooming by on the sides to notice the difference.

Ray tracing does enhance image quality, however there I fear it's simply a bit too early. To get RT performing a lot of cuts have to be made, quartering the resolution for reflections for example. The idea was that RT would save a lot of development time since you don't need baked lighting and reflections anymore. However this gen it's only more work since the former is still needed with RT sprinkling some sugar on top.

No wonder game prices have to go up!

Its ridiculous I know. The whole point of the console development and why it punches above its weight is because you had one mode and one target hardware to optimize t its fullest.  But now you have 7 consoles and 4 modes on some consoles. This pc influence is detrimental to the console experience. But I honestly dont think its for long. Maybe its just crosgen games that get those options so as not really developing for them just add 2 different enhancements. Maybe leter on the gen once AMD finally releases their upscaling tech that according to insiders, MS will use but sony will use a custom build off it, that will become irrelevant. both will just target upscale 4k and 60fps with varying degrees of RT and other detail options.

Also have zero interest in VRR or 120fps and even if I did theres no way I would fork over so much cash to buy a tv just for that. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Too_Talls said:
SvennoJ said:

Does the online separate 120fps mode from 60fps mode in match making?

Resolution and draw distance are also important for competitive multiplayer to distinguish the enemy from the background. Turning down the graphics helps on PC to remove 'clutter' and make the enemy stand out more. Turning down the resolution (what the consoles do to achieve 120) doesn't help.

their guess is that it still runs at about 1200P which is more than enough. 1080 has been the standard for seeing for a while, the option to output a higher resolution has been there for a while, most people stuck to 1080p with more frames as opposed to bumping up the res.

framerate > resolution, ask any competitive player they will take the frames over resolution everytime, so long as the resolution is at least 1080. of course 720 and 120 frames wouldn't do anyone any good, but 1200P + 120fps > 4k 60.

And trust me, if the option to lower that res further to push more frames, many people would do that, but unfortunately these boxes cap off at 120Hz

ON PC. That competitive scene doesn't go much to consoles, and even if the consoles offered that option, they would not abandon PC where they have even better options and can actually have high res and high framerate. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:
Too_Talls said:

their guess is that it still runs at about 1200P which is more than enough. 1080 has been the standard for seeing for a while, the option to output a higher resolution has been there for a while, most people stuck to 1080p with more frames as opposed to bumping up the res.

framerate > resolution, ask any competitive player they will take the frames over resolution everytime, so long as the resolution is at least 1080. of course 720 and 120 frames wouldn't do anyone any good, but 1200P + 120fps > 4k 60.

And trust me, if the option to lower that res further to push more frames, many people would do that, but unfortunately these boxes cap off at 120Hz

ON PC. That competitive scene doesn't go much to consoles, and even if the consoles offered that option, they would not abandon PC where they have even better options and can actually have high res and high framerate. 

the logic is the same. as yourself why 1080p monitors with 240Hz refresh rates were still being released after 4k and 1440 were already a thing.

regardless of the power of the PC, you get more frames, at lower resolutions, and lower resolutions are often chosen on PC, why in the same games, would a console player not also choose higher frame rates at lower res? the game is cross platform now, so you play PC players anyways, may as well do what they have proven leads to better results.

I won't argue against PC having better options, but even so, when optimizing a PC game for frame rate, lowering the res is usually the best thing to do to increase the frame rate. And also on PC 1080p is often chosen to push as many frames as possible EVEN THOUGH a powerful PC may be strong enough to run high frames at a high res.

lastly most PC players don't have those ultra-powerful PC's so you shouldn't generalize PC gamers based on the most expensive setups that exists.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

To compliment what JRPGfan have posted and give context to OP very slim descriptions.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."