Aveum is a poorly optimized game.
There is practically no scaling between a 4 core/4 thread CPU to an 8 core/16 thread CPU.
On the consoles, that means a chunk of the CPU isn't doing much, not ideal when you could task an entire core to perform morphological AA rather than let it go to waste, something developers would do even on the PS3.

Ram requirements are also not that intensive, 16GB is more than enough for everything, even the Series S with only 10GB of Ram isn't impossible to run.

It's mostly a GPU bound game.

The game originally started development on Unreal Engine 4 then was "ported" to Unreal Engine 5 and that is likely where the dramas started to set in, because they tried to shoe-horn older development methods into the new development paradigm.

On PC when you first load the game up, there is a ton of pre-compilation of shaders going on, but even while that is occurring, CPU usage isn't maxxed out, it spikes, which means the CPU is waiting on data, which likely means they aren't pre-loading that data into system memory and is instead fetching it directly from the SSD/HDD... Which introduces an I/O bottleneck. - There is no pre-compilation stutter on all platforms thankfully but it does highlight the CPU not being used efficiently and RAM not being used effectively, the SSD/HDD is holding back performance potentially.

Nanite and Lumen are intensive, for games that are going to highlight and push that technology, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a common occurrence... And the way around it? 30fps. The console GPU's are the limiting factor I am afraid so you need to be able to increase your render time budget and the best way to do that is halving your framerate.

Developers need to start offloading their Global Illumination to the Ray Tracing cores... And virtualise all the texturing and geometry with Nanite, but also start loading up the RAM (Especially on PC) with frequently requested assets and bypass streaming from the SSD as much as possible.

This is all a learning thing, UE5 does change many aspects of how games are designed from the last several decades, so it's only normal for there to be a few teething issues early on... And despite being 3~ years into the generation, it's only just recently that developers started to cut the tether on older hardware.

And of course we need a Playstation 5 Pro and Xbox Series X Pro with newer, more powerful GPU's and faster SSD's.

Cheers, good to know.

How about PS5 vs RTX 4060 as discussed in this thread, can you shed some light there? How does the PS5 GPU actually stack up to PC cards, about what card is it close to in actual realworld performance?

Cheers, good to know.

How about PS5 vs RTX 4060 as discussed in this thread, can you shed some light there? How does the PS5 GPU actually stack up to PC cards, about what card is it close to in actual realworld performance?

Performance wise the Playstation 5 should fall between a Radeon 6700 and 6700XT in both rasterization and ray tracing.

So it's actually pretty capable.

That means verses an RTX 4060 there will be instances where the PS5 would be roughly on par, other instances where it's slower (I.E. Ray Tracing) and other instances where it can take a substantial lead.

Just your normal variances between AMD vs nVidia really.

For example Doom Eternal with it's heavy use of Alpha effects really hammers the 4060Ti's limited memory bus, which means the 6700XT can outperform it by 30%.

But then throw Cyberpunk 2077 with it's heavy use of Ray Tracing and the 6700XT folds and ends up being 50% slower.

So ideally when you account for any overheads and other hardware nuances, the 6700XT is a good ballpark for the Playstation 5.

The fact that people here argued with me that PS5 GPU is RTX 2070 Super level at best, some saying RTX 3050 is comparable to PS5 lol

when are you getting new hardware lol? you are about to get 2 generation jump in graphics and performance looking forward to hearing your impressions from coming out of the stone age.

I mean, Switch graphics are definitely way behind PS5 and XS, but I wouldn't call them "stone age".

I already saw some Switch games that are very close to PS4 and XOne.

Switch games are not even close to ps4 games. Look at gow, red dead 2, star wars battle front, last of us 2, spider man. the jump is much much bigger then ps4 to ps5. Clearly look like they belong in a different generation  

I'm not sure I'd agree, I feel like they look in the same generation in the way that, say, the Dreamcast was in the same generation as the Xbox and Gamecube despite being significantly less powerful.

Games on Switch obviously don't rival the most technically advanced games on PS4, but they use most of the same graphical techniques, just usually at lower resolutions and in less complex scenes.

Well done ports from PS4 to Switch like Nier Automata, Doom 2016/Eternal, or Dying Light don't look a generation apart, nor in my opinion do the best looking games built for Switch like Metroid Prime Remastered or Luigi's Mansion 3.

Nier looks like a ps3 game. sorry but platinum is small dev that doesn't know how to make impressive looking games or have the resources. Doom is sub HD  and half the framerate that's not stable the difference is similar to early ports of some 360/ps3 games. To me it differently  looks a gen behind. Like just compare red dead 2 to totk they don't like they belong in the same gen at all. Same goes almost every single genre.