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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry- Hitman 3 PS5 vs Xbox Series

Azzanation said:
PotentHerbs said:

Demon's Souls & Miles Morales say otherwise.

Sure, meanwhile MS Flight Simulator renders the entire world on a HDD.

Also what does Demon Souls do with the SSD that no other game does?

You claimed SSD's were overhyped because we still have load times but DeS proves that wrong. 



Around the Network

In a way I'm kinda sad all the hype has died down around console parity between Series X and PS5. I doubt we will be seeing much complaints about the PS5 version, when in reality I'm sure with a bit more time and optimization we could probably get to 4k60fps.

The fact that we put so much emphasis into these early gen comparisons is really crazy, Gamers Nexus has a serious video about how the PS5 is equivalent to a GTX1060 claiming that its impossible for a $399 machine to perform at the same level as a mid-high end gaming machine of 2020. This was done using DMC as a benchmark.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

This is just the beginning of next gen, it's going to be 2 or 3 years more before we start seeing potential from each hardware. People are going crazy on twitter like some war victory.



Captain_Yuri said:
shikamaru317 said:

Guru3D benchmarks are average framerates though. A GPU can average 60 fps but still drop into the 50's or even 40's at times, much like Series X is locked 60 almost all the time, but falls into the 50's on the demanding outdoor section on that one single level. Hitman 3 can have some some pretty big drops at times it seems, I saw one video where somebody ran the in-game benchmarking tool on a 2070 and it had a minimum framerate of 42 fps compared to an average of 60 fps, considerably below the lowest drop that DF recorded on Series X. If IO wanted a completely locked 60 fps on PS5, I can see why they had to drop all the way to 1800p. 

It is kind of strange that none of the 3 consoles got Ultra shadows though, they range from low on Series S, to medium on PS5, to high on Series X. The PC benchmarks suggest that all 3 should be able to run ultra shadows at their respective resolutions. For instance Series S only has low shadows, even though you can run the game at 1080p all ultra settings at well over 60 fps average on a comparable PC GPU like the RX 470. Series S also has high textures instead of ultra, though that may be due to not having enough memory rather than a GPU issue. Maybe they just didn't optimize the console versions quite enough, I definitely feel like all 3 would be capable of ultra shadows with more optimization.

 It may well be that the developer dropped the the shadows to medium while testing 4K, and left them there when they dropped the resolution   rather than do a whole new optimisation.

chakkra said:

You gotta keep in mind that those numbers are the average. I bet the RTX 2070 falls below 60fps with a lot more frequency than the PS5.

They are average yea but in order to have an average, the fps also needs to go higher than 60fps and maintain a 60fps or above more often than not for it to be a 60fps average otherwise it will be less. Not to mention the Series X also went below that 60fps as well quite a few times during one of the levels but the devs still kept the resolution throughout the game which I am assuming is because throughout the rest of the game, it was fine.

So for the ps5 to be 1800p and medium shadows, for whatever reason, it needed to be consistently under 60fps at 4k for more than one level if we go by the "Criteria" the devs have for dropping settings/resolution.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

PotentHerbs said:
Azzanation said:

Sure, meanwhile MS Flight Simulator renders the entire world on a HDD.

Also what does Demon Souls do with the SSD that no other game does?

You claimed SSD's were overhyped because we still have load times but DeS proves that wrong. 

And we still do have load times today. Did God of War 2016 have load times back on the old PS4 HDD? I certainly did and they were disguised very well.

You honestly think DeS couldn't be achieved on previous hardware even with no loading screens. Its as linear a game as they come.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 21 January 2021

Around the Network

So basically the difference between series X and PS5 is 1800p vs 2160p. PS5 does run a bit better but I will attribute that due to the lower Shadow quality. Not really bad for a non RDNA 1.5 piece of hardware with variable clock speeds which lacks significant horsepower compared to the full RDNA 2 12TFLOP machine its up against.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Azzanation said:
PotentHerbs said:

You claimed SSD's were overhyped because we still have load times but DeS proves that wrong. 

And we still do have load times today. Did God of War 2016 have load times back on the old PS4 HDD? I certainly did and they were disguised very well.

You honestly think DeS couldn't be achieved on previous hardware even with no loading screens. Its as linear a game as they come.

Third party games aren't going to be utilizing the capabilities of the SSD especially for multiplatform games that are cross gen. That doesn't mean that load times can't be optimized to 2 - 3 seconds like in Miles Morales or Demon's Souls, and it doesn't mean third party developers won't optimize load times for the SSD once they aren't shackled to last gen hardware. When it comes to DeS, it certainly can be scaled back to run on the PS4, but it won't load nearly as fast. 



Shadows is probably the biggest victory. I'm not convinced I could tell the difference between 2180 versus 1800. I get the math makes it seem like a large difference, but on a normal sized TV with a average sitting distance....



chakkra said:
Captain_Yuri said:

I am a bit surprised the ps5 is only able to do 1800p with medium shadows as a 2070 can do 4k 60fps at Ultra settings on PC. And for a Raster game, the ps5 should be faster than a 2070.

You gotta keep in mind that those numbers are the average. I bet the RTX 2070 falls below 60fps with a lot more frequency than the PS5.

Drops below a locked framerate shouldn't be a big deal anymore, variable refresh rate displays are a thing...

I definitely can't tell when I drop from 144hz to 100hz because of it. (Although when that happens I upgrade my PC)

shikamaru317 said:

If we do see benefits from SSD's beyond reduced load times, they will certainly be on fully current-gen games. I can see some ways where an SSD might speed up some things like texture loads, but I personally don't think we'll see much in the way of SSD secret sauce techniques on PS5, like not rendering assets behind the player to boost graphics in front of the player, by utilizing the SSD and RAM to quickly reload what is off-screen before the player can turn and see that it was missing. While it works in theory, I can't see many devs, especially multiplat devs, taking the extra time to do anything with PS5's SSD that wouldn't also be possible on the Series S/X SSD and slower PC SSD's.

PC has been SSD for years.

Keep in mind the Xbox Series X also has an SSD and can also do all those same things, just the PS5 is better at it.
The Original Xbox was doing that stuff as well... On a mechanical hard drive.

The faster the drive, the higher quality the assets you can swap in, no new wheels are being invented here, it's a refinement of 30~ year old technology.

Otter said:

As far as comparisons go, Series X has the edge, although I also wouldn't be surprised if the PS5 version reaches parity with later patches. The field level stress test shows that the PS5 GPU is running with extra head room for 99% (potentially 100%) of the time. At the very least it should receive high quality shadows. Dynamic resolution seems like it would be the best way to go for future releases

Honestly, the shadows aren't even a big deal.

But yeah, I don't see why it isn't native 4k. The performance gap between the two machines isn't that great, unless the PS5 is extremely ROP bound in this game.

Shinobi-san said:

In a way I'm kinda sad all the hype has died down around console parity between Series X and PS5. I doubt we will be seeing much complaints about the PS5 version, when in reality I'm sure with a bit more time and optimization we could probably get to 4k60fps.

The fact that we put so much emphasis into these early gen comparisons is really crazy, Gamers Nexus has a serious video about how the PS5 is equivalent to a GTX1060 claiming that its impossible for a $399 machine to perform at the same level as a mid-high end gaming machine of 2020. This was done using DMC as a benchmark.

A mid-high-end PC is definitely faster than the next-gen consoles.
Not that it says allot, supply/demand has been bullshit lately as PC hardware is selling like gangbusters, so no one can buy anything.

Qwark said:

So basically the difference between series X and PS5 is 1800p vs 2160p. PS5 does run a bit better but I will attribute that due to the lower Shadow quality. Not really bad for a non RDNA 1.5 piece of hardware with variable clock speeds which lacks significant horsepower compared to the full RDNA 2 12TFLOP machine its up against.

I would also argue the Series X isn't a full RDNA2 experience either as it lacks the Infinity Cache... Although the Series X/Playstation 5's level of performance means hey generally don't need it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
chakkra said:

You gotta keep in mind that those numbers are the average. I bet the RTX 2070 falls below 60fps with a lot more frequency than the PS5.

Drops below a locked framerate shouldn't be a big deal anymore, variable refresh rate displays are a thing...

I definitely can't tell when I drop from 144hz to 100hz because of it. (Although when that happens I upgrade my PC)

shikamaru317 said:

If we do see benefits from SSD's beyond reduced load times, they will certainly be on fully current-gen games. I can see some ways where an SSD might speed up some things like texture loads, but I personally don't think we'll see much in the way of SSD secret sauce techniques on PS5, like not rendering assets behind the player to boost graphics in front of the player, by utilizing the SSD and RAM to quickly reload what is off-screen before the player can turn and see that it was missing. While it works in theory, I can't see many devs, especially multiplat devs, taking the extra time to do anything with PS5's SSD that wouldn't also be possible on the Series S/X SSD and slower PC SSD's.

PC has been SSD for years.

Keep in mind the Xbox Series X also has an SSD and can also do all those same things, just the PS5 is better at it.
The Original Xbox was doing that stuff as well... On a mechanical hard drive.

The faster the drive, the higher quality the assets you can swap in, no new wheels are being invented here, it's a refinement of 30~ year old technology.

Otter said:

As far as comparisons go, Series X has the edge, although I also wouldn't be surprised if the PS5 version reaches parity with later patches. The field level stress test shows that the PS5 GPU is running with extra head room for 99% (potentially 100%) of the time. At the very least it should receive high quality shadows. Dynamic resolution seems like it would be the best way to go for future releases

Honestly, the shadows aren't even a big deal.

But yeah, I don't see why it isn't native 4k. The performance gap between the two machines isn't that great, unless the PS5 is extremely ROP bound in this game.

Shinobi-san said:

In a way I'm kinda sad all the hype has died down around console parity between Series X and PS5. I doubt we will be seeing much complaints about the PS5 version, when in reality I'm sure with a bit more time and optimization we could probably get to 4k60fps.

The fact that we put so much emphasis into these early gen comparisons is really crazy, Gamers Nexus has a serious video about how the PS5 is equivalent to a GTX1060 claiming that its impossible for a $399 machine to perform at the same level as a mid-high end gaming machine of 2020. This was done using DMC as a benchmark.

A mid-high-end PC is definitely faster than the next-gen consoles.
Not that it says allot, supply/demand has been bullshit lately as PC hardware is selling like gangbusters, so no one can buy anything.

Qwark said:

So basically the difference between series X and PS5 is 1800p vs 2160p. PS5 does run a bit better but I will attribute that due to the lower Shadow quality. Not really bad for a non RDNA 1.5 piece of hardware with variable clock speeds which lacks significant horsepower compared to the full RDNA 2 12TFLOP machine its up against.

I would also argue the Series X isn't a full RDNA2 experience either as it lacks the Infinity Cache... Although the Series X/Playstation 5's level of performance means hey generally don't need it.

The average mid-high end gaming pc of 2020 would be rocking a RTX2060-RTX2070 gpu and most likely a 6-8 core cpu. Roughly speaking id say this lands in the ballpark of next gen consoles. I mean I cant see any reason why it wouldn't.

To equate one of the next gen consoles to a gtx1060 is laughable.

As a side note, mid-high end in the PC market has truly taken on a whole new price tag in 2020 and it looks to be getting even worse in 2021. And if you are not living in the US, which is most of the world, a RTX3060ti is coming in at what typically would be high end gpu prices. 

I would say that had prices remained even remotely "normal" the statement would be true post the 3000 series launch, given how fast a RTX3060ti is.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|