Destiny 2 has been upgraded to a next-generation version with an update on PS5, Xbox Series S, and X. The game now runs at 60 FPS with fast load times.
Does that mean it will be 1080+ or?
It means it tops at 1080p and can go below that!
It seems to me that XSX holds better framerate than Ps5.
Mostly locked 60. I counted 9 frame drops on ps5 vs 20 on XSX.
So, IDK how they are capturing, but even factoring in Youtube compression, this video looks poorly representative on PS5. (and I assume XSX) Very bad colors and Contrast added onto the noise from compression and it just looks bad.
Dynamic 1080p... Scary
lol yeah what is that? I mean really now.
Its basically a current gen console masquerading as a next gen console.
Its basically a cheaper option... Remember when gamers liked options?
@InUrFoxHole Which generation launched in the past offering 2 sku's with 1 being almost an entire generation behind the other? You could even argue that the One X from last gen is superior when you consider it actually ran games at 4k and Series S can't even run the One X enhancements of games. That's not the kind if "options" I want as a gamer.
@InUrFoxHole We tend to like smarter options ... PS5 Digital, for instance, which retains all of PS5's power while being $100 cheaper.
I love options, but good ones that make things better, not worst. I also dont like to be misled.
@S2Killinit did your last gen console have Zen 2 cores and a RDNA2 GPU? My PS4 has weak Jaguar cores :(
Literally with PS4/xbone margins
That’s totally fine, there are a lot of gamers who have high end 1080p 3d tvs that might only need a series s. Why spend the extra 100-200$ish Or Perhaps it’s a second or third console, if someone has 4 kids it’s expensive to spend an extra 400-800 on consoles for them.
Someone with some sense, I enjoy my series S and it does have enhanced games still, just not as enhanced as Series X. I got mind for abit of an upgrade but obviously i didnt have the 4ktv n all that, all this was known to people before the console released. I think some people want to try witch hunt the series S and make daft arguement out of nothing. For me the console is a much more better improvement on last gen apart from the no 4k thing and there are alot of people who do not do 4k yet.
Problem is the series s doesn’t fit the narrative of all the armchair engineers , who all seem to think they know better but can only rinse and repeat the same ol lines...
My Series S is a second console tying me over until Halo Infinite. As it is today, sure details aren't as crisp as One X (forget comparing anything to my PS5), but I am loving Halo MCC and Gears 5 MP in 120hz even if it is just 1080p. It has its place and yes, it's still a speedy machine. You feel the Zen 2 CPU advantage immediately.
@DaveZero I don't think there's anything wrong with the XSS in theory, but its execution to this point leaves something to be desired. MS was painting this as a 1440p60 machine, and it has shown that it is mostly unable to do that. Cross-gen games like AC:Val & Destiny 2 here try for 1080p at the top end and, in the case of AC:V, can dip into 720p. This is true even of MS's in-house Forza Horizon 4. In the titles it hits 1440p in, they tend to be 30fps. The trend that's forming seems to point to the XSS as a dynamic 1080p60 system instead - which can be fine, but I think we'd all really expect this machine to be dynamic 1440p60 with the lows hitting 1080p rather than 720p. 720p really has no place in a next gen system of any price point. My unease is that if this is what is happening early on and with cross gen titles, is this going to impact multiplatform games going forward that have to support this lower-end SKU? And for those who buy it, will they have to worry that games targeting next gen will have an even harder time keeping up acceptable resolutions and framerates given the uncertainty we're seeing in cross gen games? I think the S is a very good idea in theory, and I'm all for options. But the reality seems to not be matching up to the marketing performance & it leaves some question marks about how things will go as time goes on.
We have to remember these games are not built for the next gen console, so the developer do their best to try to upgrade it for next Gen. Im pretty sure that if Destiny 2 was rebuilt for PS5 or XSX, it can do a lot better than this.
1080p at 60fps (multiplayer at 120fps if supported by TV or Monitor) for $299. That's a steal!
Series S is going to be an anchor this whole generation for Microsoft. Imagine if they want to have a mid gen console and it's games still get dragged on by Series S. What a terrible idea for a "next gen" console.
I thought it was just the GPU that was different in the architecture? If that is the case surely it’s just a point of tweaking the settings to take advantage of the additional power?
@dazzysima It has less memory, much slower memory bus & a lower cpu clock speed also. While you could argue the reduced memory (and some of the memory bandwidth) could be offset by the lower resolution rendering, the reduced cpu capability and cpu memory bandwidth seem more of an issue. For the slower cpu memory it drops from [email protected]/s to [email protected]/s.
Yes it is and thats the problem. You can't make a game that takes full advantage of the sx 12tf because it has to run on the s. All you'll get is S capable games with a bump in rez, some rt or framerate boost.
@dazzysima It is but it isn't. The GPU is 1/3 the power of the Series X, it only has 10GB of RAM compared to 16GB for the other 2 consoles, of which only 8GB is useable and it's significantly slower RAM in comparison. So you can reduce the resolution in some games and be fine, however, in games that are using more than 8GB of VRAM you have to basically use different assets, LOD, and build different settings into all your games so you can have them playable on the console, then you have to determine if it's worth the fight to get the Series S version up to the same fps as a Series X game. For example, there are Series X games that are 60fps and only 30fps (AC Vahalla was once one of them), and to get parity they have to drop resolutions below 1080p which fps is more important, but a 2020 console dropping to 2006 console resolutions AT LAUNCH, is what's so concerning about this. Now this fits with MS strategy of making all their games come to PC, so they have a low-spec target (the Series S) and they have their recommended target (the Series X), but this ideology doesn't make anyone have the desire to max out the Series X and make the best and most powerful game they can make, because they always have to have a target spec for Series S, even first-party devs. Xbox is basically an off the shelf gaming PC running Xbox OS at this point, which isn't a bad thing, it's just rare to see anyone attempt to push the hardware to the max in that kind of environment.
@cfir Lower CPU clock is an issue? It’s 0.2Ghz and the XSS CPU is FASTER than the PS5. So is the PS5 holding this generation back with its weak cpu? This is no different from PC games running on an intel I5 + 980 while also running on an intel I9 + 3090 - and that hasn’t held back PC games from looking and running great.
I thought you fanboys got over that topic when Spider-Man and a few other games were going to come to the PS4 as well.
That's funny because you xbox fanboys keep bringing up Spider-Man meanwhile most Sony fans were actually disappointed that some new games were still going to be cross gen. So while xbox fanboys were busy defending cross gen and denying that things can be held back with crap like "sliders" PlayStation owners were disappointed the next gen wouldn't be full on. But unlike xbox PlayStation will have games fully designed around PS5 where as SX will never have a game designed fully around it's hardware because everything will always have to work on S. Get back to me when you haven't been waiting YEARS for an actual next gen game. I'm sure it'll be right after that E3 you guys keep telling us to wait for.
Devs will take the easy route and use lower base graphics for all. Spider-man doesn't affect a whole generation of games.
Most video games are multi-platform. If you think it's going to be an anchor, then it's going to be an anchor for 99 percent of the industry in general. Think bigger lol.
4k is so 2020. Its time to move on to 8k consoles
Lets get past dynamic 1080 first, then we will discuss 8k.
Hope you're being sarcastic, because videogame hardware is still in its infancy at 4k. Consoles barely running it at meager settings, and only $1200+ PCs running it properly. I think we're still in the area where people should be aiming for 1440p/60fps in most recent releases.
@predex84 "You mean even a $3000 PC cant run games at native 4k60? The 3090 drops to 15fps in native 4k in cp2077." RTX 3090 has an average frame rate in the 40s running 4k at Ultra settings and DLSS Performance Mode. That card can easily handle 4K/60 at lower settings. Heck, my 2080 Super can run at 4K/60 if I lower quality settings down far enough and crank up DLSS. So no, you don't have to have a $3000 PC to achieve this. https://www.tomshardware.co...
@RazzerRedux DLSS is great, but predex84 mentioned "native 4k". DLSS is not native, as upsampling from a lower resolution is the sauce that gives that performance bump. I believe that the highest quality resolution that DLSS uses for 4k is 1440p native/internal, with its lowest "ultra performance" setting for 4k upscaling from 720p. To be clear, I think DLSS is a great option & some of the results are truly impressive. But it isn't native 4k. Native 4k is truly a beast of a spec to run with modern engines & rendering techniques - doubly so when one of those techniques is ray tracing.
@instantstupor Yeah, you are right. I didn't catch the "native" reference. I'm not sure why people even talk about "native 4K" anymore at all, frankly. The sacrifices made for such an minute increase in clarity just isn't worth it so why are we still talking about hitting a largely irrelevant target?
Time to move onto deep learning as an industry standard, and improve upon it, so we don't need to render in native resolutions at all.
The 60fps is nice but 8nstall size is ridiculous
Is it? The game is smaller now than before. I stopped playing around the end of the Forsaken expansion and it was over the 100gb mark. The PS5 version is sub 70gb I'm sure.
I thought so too and then realized I'd ended up with both versions installed :/
I see both sides of the Xbox series S argument, but its no different to owning PCs with different specs. High end better results, mid range compromises. Why can't consoles work the same. Ps4 pro xbox one X have proved that.
Shut your logic up sir!
The gap between the Pro and 1X is waaaaay smaller than the gap between the Series S and current gen systems so that's not an accurate comparison, having to cater for that machine can also limit overall game design than just turning down the resolution won't be able to make up for, not to mention this is a cross-gen game.
@SoulWarrior That's not true. The Series S while much weaker is only 35% - 40% weaker than the Series X. The Xbox One, however, was only 20% of the power of the Xbox One X. @Einhander1971 The difference is last-gen games were being ported up to the higher-spec console and enhanced. This generation games are being ported down, and when you port down from higher-end hardware issues start to pop-up and at that point, you're basically developing two versions of the same game. The VRAM pools and speeds are different, so you have to adjust every single texture in the game to work on either 8GB mid-speed VRAM for Series S and enhance for the Series X 10GB high-speed, or you go with Series X 10GB high-speed (possibly 12GB variable speed) and then create a bunch of LODs for Series S or have to flatout replace textures for Series S because it can't handle them assets. So you're looking at a situation where the Series X is either going to be held back where we as gamers won't see it because all we see is this grass and rocks looks a bit better on Series X, not realizing they entire game could have an extra 4GB of VRAM to do more. Or we're looking at this game could have been done 6 - 9 months ago, but they had to make sure that the Series S version was running up to par and spent months creating LODs, and lower-end assets. That's where the issue comes into play, and it's what Sony along with the Unreal Engine demo are trying to eliminate from gaming, where you don't have to have a bunch of LODs for everything, making 6 versions of the same texture or asset. It just scales dynamically and streamed into the game. They are looking at removing a barrier and reducing the time for game development, meanwhile, the Series X and S are going to continue the run into these issues. It's not a bad thing it just gets to a point where the Series X will be held back, even if we don't see it, or the Series S will get to a point it just can keep up and we'll have Series X with 60fps games, and Series S with 30fps games that look good or 60fps versions that run closer and closer to 720p which isn't bad in actuality, but it looks bad when a 2020 console is running at 2006 console resolutions.
I mean, they were going to use those lower res textures for the pc release anyway, so I don't really see how that would add such a huge amount to the workload specifically for series s as you're saying.
"That's not true. The Series S while much weaker is only 35% - 40% weaker than the Series X.' No the GPU is about 65% weaker on S compared to X. It has 50% less usable memory memory. The Average memory bus speed is 266 which is 40% lower than the X and PS5,
Zhipp And that's the problem. Their game resources are being pulled in too many different directions so you can't get maximum performance. On top of that PC is contantly growing and in a 2 - 3 years Series X performance will be the new mid / mid-low. The RTX 3060 Ti is $400 and offers a bit more performance than the PS5 and Series X in raw, while having easily over 2x the performance gains in Raytracing and the benefit of DLSS. You have the RTX 3060, RX 6700 XT, and RX 6700 coming out all around the $300 - $400 price range and rival the consoles. In 2 - 3 years those cards are now $200 - $250 GPUs and now you have $300 - $400 RTX 4060 and 4060 Ti, and RX 7700 and 7700 XT which start at RTX 2080 Ti performance and even better raytracing for $300 - $400. The issue there is the new PC low spec is going to be used RTX 2060 GPUs, and Series S will no longer be anywhere near the new low-end spec. So now you have to make a seperate version, and again a version that's either down to 720p or lower, or lock it at 1080p @ 30fps version of games while the other versions are 1440p @ 60fps with much better graphical assets. It just doesn't have the hardware to go an entire generation without ending up like the Xbox One vs Xbox One X but worse. People are already skipping over the Series S hardware which has been available all week in favor of waiting for the Series X, so if the market ends up being 80% Series X and 20% Series S that's another huge problem, because games will always be ported down, and we can end up with some vastly inferior ports on the Series S. @Eonjay The Series X has 52CUs and the Series S has 20 and on top of that, the Series X is clocked higher. The Series X is basically running a reduced CU RX 6800, the Series S is running a raytraced version of the RX 5500 XT. The 5500XT is around 35% - 40% of the performance of the RX 6800. Both consoles have fewer CUs and around 300 MHz lower clock speeds than the GPUs they're model after meaning the performance gap stays in parity especially considering the RAM pool and speed difference. Therefore, the Series S is around 35% - 40% of the Series X.
Xbox Series S is low range tho. 720p is not mid range PC
And Sony putting an 8K label on its console's box.
If just one game is 8K capable, they'll do it. They can also claim 8K even if it's only streaming.
Forget that. What about MS bragging about the xsx being the most powerful console for months, and it can't even hit full 4k for Destiny 2?
Love watching you guys get heated over which box you play on. Spending all day trying to trash each other like proving your console may be somewhat better justifies your personal identity tied to it.
I'm glad I got a series S, for what it is it's got some oomph in it, I couldn't care about the fact I cant 4k since I dont own a 4k tv or I would of bought the series X.
Same here the S is extremely good value. I keep XS games on internal any anything else on a 500gb external works a treat. Also plugging a 32gb usb in the back gives you lots of time to record clips. We'll worth the asking price
i have played both the Series S and X versions and i can't tell a bit of difference
Funny how every xbox owner could see the difference between the PS4 Pro and the x though.
This damn captcha system has been preventing from logging in for weeks. Finally managed to log in through the submit page. When are you gonna fix this @N4G ???
System performs Just as I thought it would. It's only uphill for xbox series x from here on out.
Who is XSS for again?
Kids, 2nd consoles, budget gamers who can’t afford a 4K tv and $500 consoles. Not everyone who likes to game is a millionaire or wants to invest heavily in it.
It would be better to run on consoles at 1080p with that 120fps mode. For a FPS you want all the frames possible 60fps is never good in a FPS.
Buying a Series S is equal to shredding $300
PS4 doesnt run 60fps?
Is the XBS S slower than the XBS X? I thought it was just missing the blu ray drive.
Its only 4 teraflops compared to the SX's 12 teraflops.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.