So playstation fanboys? No wonder Sony don't care bout VRR. Average Joe playing on a potato.
The XSS is not a 4K machine therefore not holding back the PS5 or XSX?
Please, read the article. It´s reviewed by doctors. Our eye vision has limitations.
www.healthline.com
Or you can just take a 120 hz monitor/TV and use your eyes to see that it's a bullshit claim.Please, read the article. It´s reviewed by doctors. Our eye vision has limitations.
Human Eye FPS: How Much Can We See and Process Visually?
Your eyes and your brain are doing a lot of work to process images — more than you may realize. Learn more about how many frames the human eye can see per second, if you can test human FPS, and more.
Ikr? It's hilarious, given the first few pages of this thread.
How so? Simple math says XSX is outperforming the PS5. Numbers don't lie.
Again, numbers don't lie. 23% more resolution on average while pushing 5% less fps on average. That's just how it is.
Kinda said, I wouldn't be surprised if ps5 will offer smoother/stable perfomance more often but maybe at lower resolution. Higher frequency helps immensely imo at lower resolution in perfomance. That why such choice in the hardware design is it smarter than someone can think.
Why you care so much to have higher resolution with such perfomance? I don't get it. Because it's higher of the ps5? Higher dynamic resolution it's very deceiving. VGTECH said there isn't an average resolution, it's extremely dynamic on both. No one would notice a shit. More easily they will feel the FPS difference.
Because pixels per second is the only way to compare the power of the consoles. Comparing just resolution or just fps is nonsense. Also no FPS difference with a VRR capable TV. Silky smooth gaming here (outside of cutscenes of course).
This demo and the game engine is on DX11 not DX12. It also has inconsistent FPS drops when you have a lot of overdraw in the scene with transparencies. The camp where smoke is used a lot in that area tanks my 3090 from 90FPS down to in the 30s.Even the latest one with the latest update didn't get 100% breakdown from neutral sources like VGTech. So we don't really know about if XSX has reached parity or not. DF is more generalizing and talking a lot than needed. VGTech shows side by side comparisons with zero comments on the video.
Well, this is the current state of the game, many were touting DX12 Ultimate that will make games have much more gains vs PS5's API, and here's reality again:
Damn that's horrible. I assume you game at 4K? Transparancies decrease the performance exponentially the higher you go with resolution.
Like no. If higher res means unstable perfomance who gives a fuck. DLSS should tell you enough. And fuck VRR. FPS is more important, VRR shouldn't give the excuse to release game with less stable FPS. It's clear as the daylight such higher resolution it's meaningless on series X.
Yes, I'm running Ultra everything. Keep in mind, it's only in that camp that I know of for now. On the whole, the FPS is pretty high most of the time.
You're bragging about higher pixels, yet that's what's causing it to drop so many frames.
This means Xbox Series X likely needs to *lower* its resolution to maintain a stable frame-rate.
It doesn't use the full power.
Seriously. Why don't you take the time to look things up because you clearly don't know what you're even talking about?
Agree.
I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.
I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay
It's never that simple. However, many games still use DX11 but it's clear that DX12 gives better performance than DX11 from what I've seen so far.
Just comparing the FPS would mean that the console with the lowest resolution possible wins. That's obviously nonsense.
Uh no. On console textures filtering has a significant impact. It's quite notorious.I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.
I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay
Series S doesn't win, it runs like shit.
On last gen consoles maybe. The new ones are like modern PCs, and on PC the texture filtering setting does basically nothing to performance.
It would win if it ran at 360p. That's kinda my point.
Not true at all. Frequency are still higher on ps5, not necessarily on series X lower resolution give the same benefit. Even cpu play a role. If on ps5 is more efficient (hypothetical eh) lower resolution has still more benefit.
You should ask to you why there isn't a single game with better texture filtering on series X. From what I know at least.
The XSX literally has a function built in to deliver 16x AF in all BC games. It's not taxing at all.
Now you starting to be a little obtuse. BC games are not absolutely taxing for series X hardware. 16xAF here means nothing
I literally gave you averages. I'm not talking about upper bounds. VG Tech said the resolutions are "constantly changing" on both consoles which means it's safe to assume the resolutions hover somewhere around the average most of the time. Also texture filtering has basically no performance impact, we're talking sub 1%. Probably just a settings error.
I was promised around 20% more graphics performance in the best case scenario. That's pretty much what I got with this demo. I know you feel defeated right now but it's going to be okay
That's only BC.
16x AF never means anything on somewhat modern systems. On PC it hasn't been a performance factor for the past 10 years or so. Last gen consoles had bottlenecks all over the place which made texture filtering an issue. The new consoles don't have this issue anymore.
I know your brain is in fight or flight mode right now since you haven't been able to process the defeat, but this is still kinda insane tbh.
So why series X doesn't uses 16 AF in the native games and more than a time has a lower texture filter of the ps5 counterpart?
Feel free to list the games where the XSX has worse texture filtering than the PS5. I can't think of any. Dirt 5 got fixed, and other than this demo I can't remember any other instances.
Correct me if I am wrong, but with consoles 16x AF is more taxing than on PC because of memory bandwidth shared on the APU (
VFXVeteran
?)
Dirt 5 has still worse texture filtering even after the patch. WD too. I don't remind all, but I could swear there is another couple of games on ps5 but anyway 16XAF it's not absolutely the texture filter most used on console.
Interesting. I know that with Watch Dogs it was a bug, so maybe it's the same bug in the demo.
