After years of waiting, Unreal Engine 5 is finally here with a decent roster of full games to look at, beyond the tech demos and samples we had in the past. The early results have been mixed, with some titles exhibiting UE5's merits convincingly while others have been bogged down by image quality or performance problems. Yet there's one question that hasn't been answered quite as well: how well do these technologies scale to console systems? Today we're looking at the current state of Unreal Engine 5 on PS5, Series X and Series S to evaluate how the technology fares in early game efforts.
At the time, there's no Unreal Engine 5 game that can run at native 4K resolution with decent performance, and this is due to how the engine is built.
That's a shame, not only fps matters but so does resolution. I love visuals that are crystal clear, sharp & vivid especially when playing video games.
Yeah me too, that's why 4K DLSS Quality on version 3.7.1 fully utilized works great at 120fps on a 4090 in well optimized games. Can't distinguish from native 4K personally.
Its not a shame its total bs
We should be very upset about this new console promised 4k we have graphics cards at over 1,000 dollars but the engine was so piss poor made we can not do 4k resolution?.
Na sorry i am not accepting this get a patch out fix this the industry is moving to the unreal 5 do too the ai tools i am not accepting that every game is going to run like trash there must be a patch down the line.
New consoles were never going to be 4k machines it was always up to 4k and heavy use of upscaling techniques.
Remember the one x was often used to prioritise native 4k over PS4 pros often 1440p checkerboard 4k and the result was always games performed better on PS4
Pushing 4k Native has always required sacrifice and unless you want games to stop pushing fidelity and graphics it will stay like this for a while longer
I'm curious... By "not accepting this", what will you do? Stop gaming on console...?
Just curious.
I said we were told/promised 4k with the new console's
I think everyone has forgotten you have graphics slider's along with optimization back in the day consoles were the go too because devs had one sku to optimize get the most out of the hardware but today's gamer over and over defends broken games along with the deb team.
You should be demanding/upset were not getting 60fps games and games that are so unoptimized they crash or run below 1080p native but that never happens.
@DarXyde
There is not a single pc in the planet that can run cites skyline 2 past 60fps there are several unreal 5 games that can not get past 40fps on machines that are 2x or higher than the post recommend hardware.
Like FFS everyone is happy call of duty now uses the power of cloud tech to stream assets over the internet because a rtx 4090 is need to play at 1440p.
I remember when the ps5 had 8k written on the box! What a joke. That's been removed on the recent boxes.
You do know ue5 has a massively upgraded lighting system, that and nanite can get pretty heavy depending on the scenes. It's not EPICs fault if devs are opting to use the new features and not optimising for it properly. It's more than likely budget cuts, Publisher pressure and lay offs that are forcing devs to release unoptimised games.
EPIC are constantly optimising ue5 and 5.4 runs much faster than .0, .1, .2 & .3.
If devs rushed in and released a game on .0 or .1 then it's up to them to pump out patches not EPIC
Oh wow. It's because the rendering assets scale exponentially on a per pixel basis and will load a higher res asset with increased resolution directly with things like nanite and probably lumen. Optimization needs to be made for each resolution and that seems like a pain for devs and it simply wont happen.
4K is unrealistic. 2.5K or less will likely be the base for a long time.
Indeed. Got a 3080 a few years ago to play 4K cyberpunk but it’s been a humbling experience with essentially every game struggling to put out max visuals at 4k when you start getting into Ray Tracing. I’m not a particular fan of DLSS in most games so I just stick to 2k and get about 100 fps in most games
Give Nukems AMD frame gen mod a look (AMD gave 20 & 30 series cards a longer lifespan). I'm on a 3080, and the game becomes very playable at 4k. I play at 1440p and I can run everything on Ultra w/ ray tracing (even path tracing) and getting 80 - 100fps that says a 3090 or 40 series card required. I've tested it at 4k, and you get 60+ fps performance if you dial back the ray tracing settings. It's night and day. You'll here people complain about latency, but milliseconds of latency isn't really ruining my experience at all. I don't even notice it. It's a very, very simple install.
The latest dlss has very little fidelity issues. It's improved massively with the latest versions.
@Milohighclub it looks fine in most games today but I’m not getting a 40 series card to get those benefits. Cyberpunk is much better now than it was when first released but there’s still some games like say Tarkov for example, that it makes bushes blurry allowing players to hide behind them better when they can be seen much better on native. To say the least, I don’t recommend it on anything that isn’t a single player or casual multiplayer game.
4k has been out for over 10years now
It is not unrealistic in truth we should be seeing at as a standard not some huge goal post 8k screen have been out for 4 years at this point get your standers up.
In those 10 years , cost of development and optimisation also increased when we got raytracing etc. Thats my take.
@rainbow
I just finished the gear 4 campaign native 4k with 4k textures everything maxed out with 6.2gb of vram usage native 4k 120hz.
The game only crashed once (my fault) it was a smooth fun experience except those jubles? annoying enemy oh but the game was from 2016....
for fast-paced games, I prefer higher FPS. for slower games, higher res is preferred.
Just give me constant 60fps. I played Marvel SP2 in 60fps and then tried to play on 30fps on new game + and I couldn't do it. The game felt slower. I can care less about the graphics. It could be 1080p or checkered 4k or whatever, as long as its 60fps I am good.
So do you care a lot or just a little less about graphics?
Agree with the 60 fps though. Not saying that I couldn’t care less about graphics, but I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t care a lot about them once a reasonable level has been established.
I personally care about fps more than graphics. Horizon FW, Stellar blade, Marvel SP2 are, to me, perfect example of how 60fps games should look. On the other hand Ff7 rebirth's 60fps should look better than it does but I'd still pick that over the graphics mode. Again this is just my preference and I wouldn't disagree with someone who prefers graphics mode over performance because everyone wants to play it in their own way. I just want companies to keep giving us different modes to play. I think 40fps should also become a standard because that's the best of both worlds.
Dive into a stunning fan-made version of the beloved 1999 game set in Toy Story's Andy's room. Get nostalgic with Unreal Engine 5 graphics.
Get a look at 23 minutes of exclusive gameplay from Gray Zone Warfare, the upcoming Unreal Engine 5-powered military shooter from developer Madfinger Games. Wishlist it on Steam if you're interested: https://store.steampowered....
The most realistic and engaging open world FPS game in works. for quite some years, by Madfinger Games.
Here's more about the game :
https://youtu.be/Romb5AIbce...
I will speak for PC and say I don't really care for UE that much as I used to. To me the best game engine developer that can probably top UE if he was still making game engines is John Carmack. I wish he would return to doing just that.