Again, that is totally irrelevant. MS SDK allows a XB1 game to enable 120fps which are only available in the Series X version. vGPU or not, the rest is done by the OS. Sure, MS's virtualization is good, probably better than Sony's. But PS4 games run exceptionally well on the PS5 - with improved performance and that is only possible with - if you want to call this "virtualization" - with just that. That's done on a HW level (leveraging higher cpu clocks and possibly more ...
I don't even want 120fps. At least not right now, not if the need is to run 120 flat and to achieve that games need to scaled down somewhere. Once VRR is there in the PS5, I would probably want it back, with something like a 90+fps target of some sort. If you buy a new TV today, though, they all support 120fps and VRR.
I agree. While 120fps would be nice, if it can be done quickly, go for it. But otherwise why waste time and resources on games which have already been sold and were never intended to run at that framerate. Not going to buy a PS5 to play last gen Rocket League at 120fps.
Not sure what you are talking about here. The PS5 has the same HW based emulation that it can switch in HW if necessary into PS4 mode. This has nothing to do with it though.
Getting PS4 games to run 120fps needs a the PS4 SDK to support that which it obviously doesn't (well, in parts it does for VR games). Doesn't matter at this point in time. Sony could patch this into the PS4 SDK and have the PS4 actually check if a game runs in emulation mode enabling that - I am...
This minuscule difference in power and the overselling on Microsoft's part was the main reason the PS4 outsold the XB1. No matter who's fault it is, it leaves an impression history repeats itself. I can only imagine Microsoft's goals are elsewhere (Gamepass, coherent PC gaming strategies etc) so that they just need to stay in the console game to stay relevant. Sure too early, but not so good of a start imo.
Tough choices: Do I run sustained 120fps at 4k on PS5 or 25fps at 8k with chroma sub sampling on. Might be the reason the SX lingers 10fps behind. Must be the pressure of those additional bits.
People just come up with these ridiculous numbers lately to make the SX make look better (like "but I can load 10GB in 2 sec if I switch everything off" kinda stories). Sure, keep it coming. Wonder when you can make this work in Youtube comparison videos (almost feels like...
This is a gorgeous looking game and plays much better than Odysse. Got it for the Pro (ya, try to get a PS5 somewhere...). Since I got an SSD in the Pro, that ain't that bad any more. And runs great even at 30fps. So, cross gen or not. This game pushes some boundaries, no matter what platform it is on.
That's the things. Same with CoD. The PS5 simply hangs closer to the VSync. To do that, it must have headroom. Typically that 10fps delta is typically a const, it would not just happen below the 60fps mark. That means, if they'd remove that cap, the PS5 would go beyond 60 quite a bit (likely around 70fps and in CoD's example probably closer to 130fps, which is quite a feed).
@crazyCoconuts - "worse" for MS. So yes, I agree. Well, if you take the Digital edition, you are back at the $100 price advantage.
Speaking of XSS - it runs exactly the same as the PS4 Pro (same dynamic res and framerate - tada - same 4TF GPU/RAM - and guess what with an SSD in the Pro not much different loading times, either). Given it's $100 cheaper, you get basically a cheaper Pro.
2TF mean nothing if you are so bottlenecked elsewhere that you can never fully take advantage of it
I am pretty sure that SSD isn't even use at its fullest (like direct to texture loading, else the delta would even be bigger - see Miles Morales or R&C). But brute force 5GB/s vs 2.5 still has an advantage.
15-30% worse framerate with screen tear is not on par. I would think the S vs. PS4 is less than that (the PS4 has a 28% higher average res than then S, 972 vs 756). If they'd implement the same scaler in the SX to match the 60fps of the PS5 it would probably result in the same lower average res (below 1440p). They chose to not lower the res below the PS5 but run with a lower framerate. Considering VRR, this might have been a reason why. But doesn't change the fact we are looking at ab...
Why do people say on par? The delta between PS5 and XSX in those games is bigger than PS4 vs X1S. They are not on par.
That is before you factor in all the other benefits like faster SSD and much better controller; and actually a better UI or $100 less (if you are like me buy digital only).
Well, you sure can play CoD Cold War @ 4k@120fps on the PS5.
The PS5 is outperforming the XSX by a higher margin the PS4 outperforms the X1S (the XSS runs exactly the same as the PS4Pro, and the X1X probably outperforms both). But still, this is turning out much better for the PS5 than it even did for the PS4 when that launched back then. Valhalla isn't the only game. CoD shows about the same. The only place where the X can handle the framerate is when both run into a cap or they use VRR (which probably will come to the PS5 eventually). "Most ...
No matter if they have some issue with the Series X - this is worse than it was when the PS4/XBOne released. By far! Quite unexpected, really.
Marketing already created a perception in favor for MS:
"In this instance I assume the average resolution drops lower on PS5 than the Series X to maintain performance. Digital Foundry will give the final verdict on that one."
None of that is actually factual true. Neither for framerate nor resolution.
This is a not equivalent PS4Pro vs. X1X conversation, indeed it is the same PS4 vs. X1 conversation; but even worse for MS, be...
@DJStotty Both drop. 1440p is target for both. There is no evidence the PS5 drops more often or lower. Quite the opposite, actually.
"RTX 3070 is $500 USD"
Yes, but a) not the best choice for the next gen GPU and b) still $100+ more than a console (depends which model)
RT seems to pull ahead on the SX Possibly where the compute advantage counts. On high bandwidth modes, interestingly, the PS5 is ahead.