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

Too_Talls said:
eva01beserk said:

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.

Now you are taking what I said out of context. My claim is simple. The competitive scene on theese shooters is focused if not exclusive to the pc. Dont add anything to that. they want higher frames per second not us console folks. we want the best we can get and know there will be sacrifices but we pay less. So adding "options" to a crowd that does not care for it, does not benefit anyone. Maybe just some online trolls like us that argue online about games and consoles. But the majority of gamers dont and just want the best they can get. and now you even have to go throw system menus to get some options and thats just bullshit.



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

Around the Network

Both look and run great but considering ps5 is the least powerful on paper, I am more than happy with ps5 performance which will be my main platform. Best exclusives IMO and parity with series X! Couldnt ask for more.



JRPGfan said:
Too_Talls said:

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.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of DFs videos. They never spend much time looking at mean fps because it would make for pretty short clips, instead they analysis performance overall and focus in on any stress points. Stress points can be a very small % of gameplay so they won't make a huge impact on a mean fps, but that doesn't mean they're not noticable in a play through. i.e everytime a boss performs a certain attack. This has been typically of every video they make, if there are stress points they focus on it, even if its just a cutscene. 

Both games have a very stable FPS, they mention this, you also see it in the frame graph. But at 60fps the PS5 version shows occassional high percentage drops (going from 60fps to 50 or less), they stated this doesn't occur during gunplay when facing actual enemies. They don't mention mean fps because they're more interested in places where people will actually see drops and places where the system exhibit differences. None the less they do state and show that both systems are the majority of the time 60fps.

Anyone who watches DF's content should able to be aware of the fact that its just a tech breakdown. They look for technical aspects to speak about, I find it super interesting but at the same time when they zoom in to grass blades to show the difference in resolution between 2 versions of a game or show a few frames dropping in  the heaviest action, I know full well that won't impact my experience at all. If anyone comes away from a video like this thinking the PS5 version is bad or feeling defensive of it, they're watching more with their feelings than with their brain. And this goes for a lot of their content. People need to stop getting touchy about things they literally wouldn't be aware off if it wasn't for these tech breakdowns.



Also the ray tracing package doesn't do anything on Series S



Otter said:
JRPGfan said:

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.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of DFs videos. They never spend much time looking at mean fps because it would make for pretty short clips, instead they analysis performance overall and focus in on any stress points. Stress points can be a very small % of gameplay so they won't make a huge impact on a mean fps, but that doesn't mean they're not noticable in a play through. i.e everytime a boss performs a certain attack. This has been typically of every video they make, if there are stress points they focus on it, even if its just a cutscene. 

Both games have a very stable FPS, they mention this, you also see it in the frame graph. But at 60fps the PS5 version shows occassional high percentage drops (going from 60fps to 50 or less), they stated this doesn't occur during gunplay when facing actual enemies. They don't mention mean fps because they're more interested in places where people will actually see drops and places where the system exhibit differences. None the less they do state and show that both systems are the majority of the time 60fps.

Anyone who watches DF's content should able to be aware of the fact that its just a tech breakdown. They look for technical aspects to speak about, I find it super interesting but at the same time when they zoom in to grass blades to show the difference in resolution between 2 versions of a game or show a few frames dropping in  the heaviest action, I know full well that won't impact my experience at all. If anyone comes away from a video like this thinking the PS5 version is bad or feeling defensive of it, they're watching more with their feelings than with their brain. And this goes for a lot of their content. People need to stop getting touchy about things they literally wouldn't be aware off if it wasn't for these tech breakdowns.

Good. The problem in this come to 2 points, first the 3 scenes they collected the drops in 60fps they didn't find odd or need to contact dev, they didn't verify that other people played the same and didn't had drops, but when it came to the 120hz it was less important, VRR will solve it and made sure to point there was no reason for Xbox to drop more than PS5.



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."

Around the Network

Disregard



Otter said:

Also the ray tracing package doesn't do anything on Series S

Supposedly some people have been able to get RT to work on Series S, others haven't. Sounds like there is a bug that is preventing it from showing up on some people's options menus on Series S, while other people do have the option and have turned it on. Here is a screenshot from a supposed Series S RT video vs what the Series S version looked like in DF's video:



DonFerrari said:
Otter said:

Good. The problem in this come to 2 points, first the 3 scenes they collected the drops in 60fps they didn't find odd or need to contact dev, they didn't verify that other people played the same and didn't had drops, but when it came to the 120hz it was less important, VRR will solve it and made sure to point there was no reason for Xbox to drop more than PS5.

The scenes were more action orientated and the drops were very temporary. Its not especially odd. I don't think they contact devs everytime they see fps drops, Its not like Dirt where one console literally has last generation LOD on the vehicles. Or DMC where you had crazy differences in performance at times (50+ fps difference) and a completely unlocked fps that was running all over the place.

As far as the 120fps mode. Both systems miss their target a fair bit and thats what they expected, but 10 frames lost at 120fps is not the same experience as 10frames lost at 60fps. Given that they did not even expect 120fps this generation, I think its fair to say they will not be as harsh on 120fps targets as they are on 60. None the less they highlight PS5's advantage here, but neither are especially stable unless you have VRR. What likely confuses them is why the Xbox Series X version runs better in RT mode but worse in 120fps mode. There is nothing on paper or that they're aware of that would cause this difference. Maybe in time they will get a better grasp on the topic but right now their guess is as good as yours. If you have an idea, @ one of them on twitter.





Otter said:
JRPGfan said:

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.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of DFs videos. They never spend much time looking at mean fps because it would make for pretty short clips, instead they analysis performance overall and focus in on any stress points. Stress points can be a very small % of gameplay so they won't make a huge impact on a mean fps, but that doesn't mean they're not noticable in a play through. i.e everytime a boss performs a certain attack. This has been typically of every video they make, if there are stress points they focus on it, even if its just a cutscene. 

Both games have a very stable FPS, they mention this, you also see it in the frame graph. But at 60fps the PS5 version shows occassional high percentage drops (going from 60fps to 50 or less), they stated this doesn't occur during gunplay when facing actual enemies. They don't mention mean fps because they're more interested in places where people will actually see drops and places where the system exhibit differences. None the less they do state and show that both systems are the majority of the time 60fps.

Anyone who watches DF's content should able to be aware of the fact that its just a tech breakdown. They look for technical aspects to speak about, I find it super interesting but at the same time when they zoom in to grass blades to show the difference in resolution between 2 versions of a game or show a few frames dropping in  the heaviest action, I know full well that won't impact my experience at all. If anyone comes away from a video like this thinking the PS5 version is bad or feeling defensive of it, they're watching more with their feelings than with their brain. And this goes for a lot of their content. People need to stop getting touchy about things they literally wouldn't be aware off if it wasn't for these tech breakdowns.

DF actually said this could be a bug, as well.

potentially a bug and you can fix this, as it appears randomly (ei. not always).
John even mentions that just restarting from a checkpoint, and redoing it, and its gone.
Some have said, even when they go past the same part, it isnt there (always).
So if its a performance issue that pops up randomly... possibly theres a fix to it.

But again... if you watch the DF video, you dont walk away from it thinking these two consoles both run 60fps mode with RT on, almost equally.
You just notice the two cherry picked stress points (or performance bug issues) DF ran into.

If lateron a patch removes this.... do you think DF appoligies for its representation in this video? and does another one, comparing the two again?


Also on Dirt 5, when they were quick to go talk about potential bugs (in the video itself).
With Call of Duty, they (john) lateron says its a likely bug in a tweet.

DF handle xbox and playstation slightly differntly (imo).
They are much kinder/softer towards microsoft and xbox.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 24 November 2020

Otter said:
DonFerrari said:

Good. The problem in this come to 2 points, first the 3 scenes they collected the drops in 60fps they didn't find odd or need to contact dev, they didn't verify that other people played the same and didn't had drops, but when it came to the 120hz it was less important, VRR will solve it and made sure to point there was no reason for Xbox to drop more than PS5.

The scenes were more action orientated and the drops were very temporary. Its not especially odd. I don't think they contact devs everytime they see fps drops, Its not like Dirt where one console literally has last generation LOD on the vehicles. Or DMC where you had crazy differences in performance at times (50+ fps difference) and a completely unlocked fps that was running all over the place.

As far as the 120fps mode. Both systems miss their target a fair bit and thats what they expected, but 10 frames lost at 120fps is not the same experience as 10frames lost at 60fps. Given that they did not even expect 120fps this generation, I think its fair to say they will not be as harsh on 120fps targets as they are on 60. None the less they highlight PS5's advantage here, but neither are especially stable unless you have VRR. What likely confuses them is why the Xbox Series X version runs better in RT mode but worse in 120fps mode. There is nothing on paper or that they're aware of that would cause this difference. Maybe in time they will get a better grasp on the topic but right now their guess is as good as yours. If you have an idea, @ one of them on twitter.

But they have been contacting the devs on the comparisons in portions that favor PS5. They forgot to mention that the drops on PS5 in CoD were bugs... that is why they are getting their credibility questioned. For one side they are giving excuses, minimizing the issue or calling the devs to confirm, for the other it is "well it is less powerful so nothing unexpected". That is the reason why I say they are struggling to cope with the games showing different then what they expected.



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."