And how well does the game run on 120Hz displays?
Redux, do the honors?
Damn... gotta say Series S is continuing to surprise DF with how good it does at holding its own.
Digital Foundry have now collated performance comparison results from games made by an assortment of development studios.
We must be watching different videos. In last-gen AAA games it's either hitting its 1440p (Borderlands) or below them (Gears 5) but in current-gen games the performance not where MS has advertised and there are a few games that can drop as low as 720p. If it's surprising DF it's surprising them with just how low it can go.
Maybe you just arent as open minded as me ABizz. I hear the tone in DF as being surprised the S can do (at lower settings) many of the same features as big brother X and kissing cousin 5. It really is as easy as they say. Like adjusting sliders in a game to get better performance on lower end hardware. Something i used to do back in my PC days. At only $300 its pretty damn cheap for the performance it provides.
I think it lies somewhere in the middle, as many things do, between you and ABizzel. Richard has said "The 1440p target MS was talking about seems optimistic based on what we're seeing so far" in the Dirt 5 video - though he also says "And I'm fine with that [...] If 1080p is the target, so be it, I just think the marketing from MS needs to be a bit clearer about that". Then again, we're now seeing sub 1080p in some circumstances, so it's not even a guaranteed 1080p machine either. DF has covered a good number of games on "next-gen" now, and the trend for S - in my opinion - is a bit worrying. Forza 4, an in house game, was a last gen title with light visual polish that only hit 1080p60. 3rd party games like AC:V hitting 720p the majority of the time at 60fps (though, weirdly, closer to 1440p at 30fps), WD:L 900p-1080p30, Dirt 5 1080p60...it's not awful for a $300 machine (save 720p...that should have died with the base XBO), and in the case of BL3 it's solid performance for the money... That said, I can't help but wonder that if this is what we're seeing from cross-gen games, that games targeting next-gen may struggle even further on the S. I think the fact the memory bandwidth is 40% of X's bandwidth makes the overall power gap between the S and X larger than the 2/3 drop in GPU power would indicate, and is why we see some titles like BL3 perform great at good settings, while AC:V can only perform well at underwhelming settings. Hopefully things trend more towards the former than the latter as devs get more familiar with it.
No matter how much DF or some fans push the Series S, it's only $100 away from a true next gen console that has twice the performance and more features. Its cute, but has terrible price/performance in relation to the competition.
720p for ACV. Wasn't that last last gen like? Surprising in not a good way.
🤦♂️ With 576p textures in some games? I'm surprised too tbh..
I think it's safe to say that with each Xbox Series S game analysis it makes the PS5 DE more appealing at 100 bucks more. With that said It's clear to me that the 2 tflop gap between the two big brothers is inconsequential at this point in time (even after MS's investigation on why the series x was underperforming and the subsequent patch effectively bringing performance on par with the ps5 attests to that), with exclusives being the only metric that counts and until team Xbox releases a AAA Xbox exclusive the jury is out on that front. Which brings us to the next logical question- how will Series S affect true next-gen game development? Will dropping the resolution to 1080p, or lower, be enough when devs code for substantially more computing power and data transfer speeds, or will this inevitably lead to gimped "next-gen" experiences?
He's slacking a bit here. Am I expected to read the article myself? It's not bloody good enough.
as a huge borderlands fan is there something wrong with me that I am not even willing to pay $9 for BL3 when i paid full prices in past. Everything I have watched made it sound like it was a very glitchy game and not a really good BL game
The gunplay is what you would expect from a Borderlands game just more refined. The story was really weak compared to the previous games, and The Calypso Twins were horrible villains, especially when you compare them to Handsome Jack!
Sorry....I'm late Summary Resolution Mode: PS5 and XSX run at dynamic 4k 60fps XSS 1440p max rez XSS drops to 1188p Higher plant density on PS5 inherited from PS4 Pro PS5 has sharper high quality shadows than XSX/XSS. XSX/XSS share same preset XSS matches XSX and PS5 in texture quality Drops in frame rate are the same between PS5 and XSX Fewer drops for XSS due to lower rez Performance Mode: 120fps targeting native 1080p but uses DRS and gets down to 1440x810 in cutscenes Not available for XSS Smoother on XSX when using VRR XSX stays closer to 120fps better than PS5 Loading times: PS5 loads a couple of seconds faster. XSS slightly faster than XSX
Lmao man, you're doing God's work here! See, this is why I don't waste my time on these articles - I feel much happier now I've read the facts in the format I've become accustomed to! Thanks ;^D
Ps5 has... Faster loading times Sharper high quality shadows More foliage density Resolution = same Frame rate = same ballpark...but series X has a slight edge at 120fps (only with vrs TV support) Another win for ps5 which is the world's most powerful console..
The win goes to XSX for a higher and more stable 120 fps, with the difference sometimes being as high as 15 fps. The shadow and foliage has nothing to do with console power, as it was stated to be left over legacy code from the base versions (where the same differnce was present on the One X and the Pro). And if you have to cling to a whole 3 second faster load time, you are reaching. And for the record you will save a lot more time with quick resume on the XSX than you will with all those 3 seconds added up, so don't even bother with that one lol. Nice hyperbole though!
Every multiplat has been better on PS5 Inc borderlands 3, the edge in 120fps mode is because of vrr which will also be implemented on PS5 soon.
VRR doesnt improve or increase frame rates, it lets a supported display (TV/monitor) refresh at the same rate so any dips or deviations from the standard appear smoother. Basically AMD freesync. 100 FPS output is still 100 FPS output with or without VRR. More frames is more frames (the "edge").
@Father_Merrin DVCV better on XSX in 3 out of 4 modes, and the 4th mode was patched and improved. Valhalla near identical post patch, with the XSX having a slightly more stable 60 fps but a lower bottom res in rare occasions. CoD Cold War holds a solid 60 fps with ray tracing while PS5 dips into the 40s in spots. Borderlands 3 has a clear advantage at 120 fps mode. Watch Dogs Legion is identical. Keep reaching there bud.
call of duty was just a temporary bug in the PS5 version and was fixed after a reboot https://www.youtube.com/wat... much better all round on the PS5 https://cdn.discordapp.com/...
@fishy Not true. My monitor is a 140 htz monitor that if paired with v-sync, does 200. So there is an advantage with using a supported monitor that benefits a games performance.
shiken how? maybe you watched a different video. XSS drops below 1440p and ps5 has the advantage over the other 2 two in graphics. 12TF argument was such nonsense and childish it's about you how custom built your machine and I trust mark cerny over phil spencer/xbox team any day of the week
"The win goes to XSX for a higher and more stable 120 fps" No. It's either a draw, or PS5 wins overall. PS5 the emerging superior mulitplat machine. But XSX does have a slight but not noticeable improvement in one mode here, better FPS with lower settings, and a noticeable deficit in another. Load times are a great bonus that's the icing on the cake.
Yes because you will see and notice 105fps vs 120..
PS Fanboys strike again
Stopped reading after someone mentioned VRR wiill help improve frame rates. Constantly waving pom poms for a pieces of plastic must be exhausting or at leqst shameful. It's N4G after all.
humm, even with that up to 15 high fps, in some spots, in the 120 mode, its not a big Diference for the tower of power. for me its another win for the Ps5, considering its the "weakstation".
Loading times still apply when loading a new level. But yeah quick resume is insane, im playing bards tale 4, and I think i can power on my SX and be where I left off in like 10 seconds.
@shiken Quote : "DVCV better on XSX in 3 out of 4 modes, and the 4th mode was patched and improved. Valhalla near identical post patch, with the XSX having a slightly more stable 60 fps but a lower bottom res in rare occasions. CoD Cold War holds a solid 60 fps with ray tracing while PS5 dips into the 40s in spots. Borderlands 3 has a clear advantage at 120 fps mode. Watch Dogs Legion is identical. Keep reaching there bud." ..... Is DMC V patched and improved in 120hz on XSX? Btw. unpatched Valhalla for PS5 >>>patched XSX version = PS5 version. Cold War on PS5 is bugged. VGTech and NXG said it is stable 60 in that scenes. In Borderlands 3 both version has drops. VRR doesn't fix the framerate For some reason you forgot to mention Dirt 5 for XSX.
Nice try...so explain why in AC: Valhalla the xsx version was fixed (bad screen tearing) by dropping the resolution lower threshold to 1188p while the PS5 maintains 1440p?
@Sieraguy For AC Valhalla the XSX does drop to a lower bottom resolution, that it very rarely goes down to. Some of you are acting like that is just the resolution now, but it still averaged out to 1440p just like the PS5. But what really makes it a tie is that when more taxing special moves are used (like when dirt gets kicked on the screen), the PS5 will drop frames while the XSX maintains 60 fps. And since DF debunked the patch making the PS5 version worse than pre patch, it is safe to assume this is a legit XSX advantage now. So the way I see it, XSX with a lower bottom resolution or PS5 with more minor frame drops. They cancel eachother out as both differences are too small to be seen by the human eyes.
This is one of the few wins for the Series X, but it seems like the wins the Xbox has had has always been on last-gen games compared to PS5 winning current-gen games. LOL @Zabre Created a new account just to post on the first comparison Xbox wins. It's not that deep dude.
We have not seen any current gen games yet. Only cross gen ports that were optimized for for last gen, and rushed onto the new consoles for launch. They show what niether console is capable of.
Like Shiken says, there really arent any next gen only multiplat games. Everything has been cross gen. We wont see real next gen only until next year or so.
Yup. The few modes where XSX has held its own or got a lead are last gen ports.
It has up to 15 FPS advantage without VRR. The shadows and foliage are legacy from pro and one x... Watch the video
So if the One X was more powerful than the PS4 Pro. Why did the PS4 Pro have the advantage here?? Just doesn't make sense if it's a more capable system.
Can you or someone else please tell me why if a game (most games) are written on a p.c. to start with then ported over to ps5 or xbox etc why the game can look different. Now I don't mean in general like performance, RT, shadows, FPS, giggaflops and thelike i mean in the actual written information. Why is it that, in this particular article, the playstation has more foliage grass etc and the like where the xbox is missing it? I'd presume the developers write one game and port the same info to both consoles not write each one differently and add more stuff into the game (not talking DLC, just in this particular case). I'm keen to know.
PS5, 20% faster loading PS5, 6x better foliage density PS5, 1x better shadow quality 120fps mode is a disaster on both, only saved by vrr
Posted above, but going to piggy back on yours for better visibility. Summary Resolution Mode: PS5 and XSX run at dynamic 4k 60fps XSS 1440p max rez XSS drops to 1188p Higher plant density on PS5 inherited from PS4 Pro PS5 has sharper high quality shadows than XSX/XSS. XSX/XSS share same preset XSS matches XSX and PS5 in texture quality Drops in frame rate are the same between PS5 and XSX Fewer drops for XSS due to lower rez Performance Mode: 120fps targeting native 1080p but uses DRS and gets down to 1440x810 in cutscenes Not available for XSS Smoother on XSX when using VRR XSX stays closer to 120fps better than PS5 Loading times: PS5 loads a couple of seconds faster. XSS slightly faster than XSX
DF didn't get deeper (maybe paycheck stopped searching further), they didn't specified lower resolutions in dynamic 4k for both consoles. It'll be surprising xsx will go below ps5 resolution.
@russo121 Yeah....I noticed that as well. Strange.
@Razzer One thing is for sure - Craig cut the grass again!!! First was in Dirt now in Borderlands. 8) https://imgur.com/JHRFCsd
So for the average gamer, given the choice, PS5 is the way to go, but they're so close that most people won't notice any difference.
NO matter what anyone says the 12TF argument has now gone
Not really. The power difference will always be there. it will always remain 12tf vs 10tf through to the end. One side is just better at using their power than the other. That is just the way its been. Genesis was said to be less powerful than the SNES but that didnt stop it from getting games like it did. That was due to the talent of the devs, not the power of the platform. Sony has better talent, that's all there is to it but it doesnt mean the series x/s wont get some good games from its stable of devs. And with MS taking a more hands off approach, many of them have been working on some new and interesting ideas. You have the S now, so enjoy it with whats available and just know there is much more to come soon enough. Its a great little system.
Sony "had" better talent. Let's see
According to a fanboy on the internet. That's a great source of knowledge... Next gen isn't even a month old yet. Wow such a smart remark....
@Zeeb That's Monter Kill 8) https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Ya we are less than 4 weeks into the generation and you can now declare the performance in games is locked. That is really stupid. We don't know how optimized systems are yet, and as newer games come out doing different things this may become a differentiator. Running a bunch of games that not only ship on both consoles but also ship for last gen is not at all a good way to assess the new hardware. Whether it be PS5, XSX, or XSS. We will really see whether the technical differences make a difference in about 2 years when the consoles are running brand new games that are not available to last gen consoles. The only thing I see so far is that these consoles are pretty much the same in performance.... XSX and PS5. PS5 has a edge in load times but not a massive edge that is the only real differentiator so far. 12 secs instead 15.... Not really important.
@Zeeb Nope. More like new games in 2022 onward that do not support the previous consoles. It will take a year to optimize these consoles and then another year before we see games that truly push them.
With how much shorter the load times are now, a few seconds faster is actually a larger difference than compared to 43 seconds VS 45-46 seconds. Example: You know what half of 2 is? 1 which means if loading on one system is 2 seconds VS 1 second that means the game loads 50% faster than the other system. So if 12 TF is a huge difference compared to 10TF like many people pound their chest about, why cant a few seconds faster loading times at an already fast load time be just as important? Don't downplay an advantage just because it doesn't seem like one to you.
Logic crazy u had to explain that.
@StoneyYoshi I don't deny PS5 has a faster SSD then SX. But just like the 12 vs 10 tfps argument, this is really falls under the laws of diminishing returns. The first time I transferred 5 GB (not TB) to another hard drive with more capacity back in the 1990's it took 3 days. YES 3 DAYS! Regular hard drives load games from seconds to minutes today. SSDs now load games in seconds. Does it really matter that instead of 12 secs, something on XB is loading in 15 secs? I am sure that Sony will find a way to apply this, and it will be good. but right now it is as irrelevant as the extra tfps on XSX GPU. I am not going to make a decision on whether to buy an XSX or PS5 based on SSD performance when the difference is 3 seconds on load times. Let's put it this way. Let's remove the names of the consoles.... Would you buy a console X that had 50 AAA exclusive games and slower load times by 3-5 seconds or console Y that had 5 AAA exclusive games and faster load times by 3-5 seconds? The answer would probably be "I will suffer for the 3-5 seconds of load times to play better and more exclusive games". So stop pretending that the SSD is a differentiator today because it really isn't. It is all about the games, and Sony is winning in that department with the PS5. They are not winning because they have a faster SSD.
It's the toolset bro. It's totally going to get better, but not Playstation's, it's totally going to remain stagnant. /s This seems to be the story for most games, PS5 seems to have a slight advantage in most cases, but it's very minor. This is generally what we expect every console gen, but it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the "most powerful console of all time" marketing.
If you have a 120hz display, I'm sure many still have a 60hz TV. Me I have a 1080p Alienware 240hz LCD gsync panel :D So even though I don't care about the Borderlands series always, always choose higher FPS with lower res for a much better experience. Example, playing Doom Eternal in the 200s to dips to about 170 ish FPS is just amazing. I would never trade that for 4k/60. Only until we can run games in the 100s - 200 fps in 4k with everything on max (no VRR or DLSS in nvidia's case, just true 4K) then I will upgrade.
Many? The vast majority have a 60hz TV.
I wonder if the slightly lower FPS on PS5 in performance mode is related to the better shadow and foliage quality
That could be the case. Foliage and shadow detail is more demanding than some people might think. Just like how the XSX runs
30fps is perfectly fine, it’s never bothered me. I want graphics to blow me away, something I can admire. You can’t admire frames per second, nothing to wow you and enjoy looking at, like graphics! It’s what improves and gets better with every console, it’s what we want.
Usually, 30fps is fine until you experience the same game at 60fps. I also want enjoy the best visuals effects possible, but if they can be delivered at 60fps with no major compromise, the better. That's why I believe the Dynamic-4K resolution at 60FPS is the best compromise for XSX/PS5. Enough with the Native-4K demands.
Very close performance. Probably going to be like this with most games moving forward.
I've said this from the start even though series X is 2TF more ps5 has advancements in other areas and due to ballpark being the same games will be same it will differ on software's support. It was just extremist N4G Xbox fans that was claiming foul on PS5 and to see it all come back on them is a sight to behold...
They way you all argue back and forth about the tiniest details is truly a sad thing. Just enjoy the games you want on whatever platform you prefer. Just be a damn gamer and.enjoy
It is an informative post.
The Series S keeps getting destroyed in every video 😅 I was shocked to see some games running sub-720p.