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.

Yes, Tom will look at that too. The drops are very much real but they can be eliminated, it seems, but restarting from checkpoint. Which...kinda sucks? So it's not actually a performance limitation so much as some kind of performance bug.

— John Linneman @dark1x.bsky.social (@dark1x) November 24, 2020

The DF video shows these "set peice" scenes with drops.
Which could be caused by this bug.


"VGTech explained it a week ago that sometimes these frames just do NOT drop at all. John just double-checked and confirmed it. If it were a hardware limitation, wouldn't the frames drop every single time?"

^ this is the logic.

If it was a performance issue with the console, why would it sometimes not appear at all? or why would loading a checkpoint fix it?
DF might have just ran into a performance bug, video'ed it, and called it a day, then used it in video, as a way to say xsx > ps5.
Its not at all representative of how actual gameplay is (when you have footage from 16mins without a single frame drop on consoles), if its a random issue that only pops up sometimes.

Ethomaz :
"If that the case... restart a checkpoint make it smooth again. Then I believe it is some memory bug or memory leak." - neogaf.

Hopefully future patch fixes this.

Shadows (and overall lighting) are really important for visuals. I hope that we can improve this gen with RT shadows, much more important than accurate reflections.

numberwang said: Shadows (and overall lighting) are really important for visuals. I hope that we can improve this gen with RT shadows, much more important than accurate reflections.

Hard not to agree with this.
Lightning & shadows makes a gigantic impact on image quality.

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. Ask yourself why you think 1080p 240Hz monitors even exist.

I was thinking about Series S, dropping as low as 576p in one game that offered 120fps

They exist for motion clarity. I don't buy the 4 or 8ms advantage compared to 200ms human response time. Higher fps mainly creates a more stable picture with better motion clarity making it much easier to identify and track threats. For the same reason, turn off motion blur, dof, bloom, lens flare, film grain, vignette, dirty lens, screen shake, head bob, particle effects, anything that distracts from seeing the enemy. Even lower res textures can help.

Dropping resolution should be a last resort to stay competitive, fps > resolution >>>>> eye candy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. Screen size helps as well. I'm faster in racing games on bigger screens (or sit closer). Fastest in VR despite crap resolution. Peripheral vision helps a lot to know exactly how far you are from the side and how fast you are moving laterally. However the resolution of VR is too low for shooters.

Anyway, 1200p is indeed plenty. I wonder if CoD separates the modes in matchmaking or otherwise lists who is playing on/with what. It would be interesting to see stats whether 120fps players really have an advantage over 60fps players and how much.

While the deep dive from DF is appreciated , plenty of reviews have declared this games MP a visual downgrade from MW.

The whole debacle reminds me of Ghost a bit. Good graphics in the SP but the MP graphics and quality of gameplay are poor.

JRPGfan said: Yes, Tom will look at that too. The drops are very much real but they can be eliminated, it seems, but restarting from checkpoint. Which...kinda sucks? So it's not actually a performance limitation so much as some kind of performance bug. — John Linneman @dark1x.bsky.social (@dark1x) November 24, 2020 The DF video shows these "set peice" scenes with drops. Which could be caused by this bug. "VGTech explained it a week ago that sometimes these frames just do NOT drop at all. John just double-checked and confirmed it. If it were a hardware limitation, wouldn't the frames drop every single time?" ^ this is the logic. If it was a performance issue with the console, why would it sometimes not appear at all? or why would loading a checkpoint fix it? DF might have just ran into a performance bug, video'ed it, and called it a day, then used it in video, as a way to say xsx > ps5. Its not at all representative of how actual gameplay is (when you have footage from 16mins without a single frame drop on consoles), if its a random issue that only pops up sometimes. Ethomaz : "If that the case... restart a checkpoint make it smooth again. Then I believe it is some memory bug or memory leak." - neogaf. Hopefully future patch fixes this.

Dude you got a lot of energy, I hope you can use that energy against the pc-gamers instead of xbox.

But you're right, those fps drops in RTX-mode on PS5 seems to be a bug, so it's a tie here between Xbox and Playstation.

Did we get any rumor of PS5 tools being late or Xbox tools arriving to cover this comparison?

SvennoJ said: I was thinking about Series S, dropping as low as 576p in one game that offered 120fps

Now image if we had waited for a year and got some AMD-DLSS solution for that problem. Game changer missed.

PotentHerbs said: smroadkill15 said: I disagree. Both XSX and Ps5 fps are in the 90s during 120 mode so being 4 fps higher when both are struggling isn't really a bragging point. Where as XSX performance is 60 fps with raytracing on with no drops vs ps5 dips into the 40s with it on. This a much bigger deal than any advantage ps5 has. Loading times are not a big enough difference to really brag about. If we're going to be adding advantages that have nothing to do with performance, then XSX can quick resume at any point during the game, or Xbox has cloud saving without needing a sub. Lets keep the comparisons related to graphical performance shall we.  The Series X having better RT isn't as big a factor as you think. If the PS5 version dropped into the 40's consistently, frequently in gameplay, than yeah it would be a huge advantage for the Series X. However, DF states the PS5 version dips in RT mode during select scenes (they gave two examples) but otherwise runs at 60FPS most of the time. I'd say the advantage the PS5 has in 120hz mode is about the same as the Series X advantage in RT.  Graphical performance isn't the only point of comparison. DF themselves note the Dualsense, controls that actually impact how you play, and not something completely irrelevant to performance like cloud saves. In a multiplatform game that runs nearly identical on both consoles, the Dualsense features help the PS5 version stand out, and adds another layer of immersion to the gameplay.

You can make the same argument for XSX games running smooth minus a few hiccups, but yet it's a huge deal in those other comparison threads.

The Duelsense is a great controller, but I would never be the deciding factor on where I play a game. It's not like the series X controller is bad. it's an excellent controller with tons of QoL improvements. As long as ps controllers continue to have asymmetrical sticks, I will always prefer the Xbox controller.