• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Can Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart on PC match - and exceed - the PS5 experience?

Stooky said:
uhhh i'm going to pretend you didn't post that. some advice, you should play the game first.
Click to expand...

but it's not my type of game. what iam seeing, the portalling is just loading a small new area with limited interactivity. on rails if you will
 
ToTTenTranz said:
The major point being missed here is all these guys running the game on a HDD + RTX 4090 also have >32GB RAM, meaning the game can cache lots of stuff to the RAM and VRAM during gameplay which hides the low I/O speeds.


But the thing is... who the fuck has 48, 64 or more GB of RAM, a graphics card with 24GB VRAM but then plays games on a HDD?
It's not a reallistic situation at all. The people gaming on HDDs are going to be using super low budget systems, graphics cards with 4GB, and system RAM at 16GB tops. And on those the HDD is going to completely break the gameplay with terrible stuttering and loading times everywhere because there's not enough volatile memory to cache into.



Also, the stupidest thing I read here was the claim that playing on a HDD was made possible thanks to DirectStorage.
DirectStorage only exists because the I/O got so much faster with NVMe storage. If we were still stuck on a 10-100MB/s I/O with terrible access times we wouldn't need to optimize data transfers in windows and find ways to do massive parallel decompression on GPUs. A single low end CPU core is enough to take an average 40MB/s data stream and do a 2:1 decompression to 80MB/s.
These people mistook Nixxes' excellent automatic resource allocation system with DirectStorage.
Click to expand...
Of course its being missed.

You had ppl quoting tweets and just conveniently leaving out the amount of ram used in the tweet.

Its obvious to me why its being missed.
 
Zathalus said:
It's obviously a bug. The video is right there, the texture simply never loads. Other videos and screenshots in this thread show it loading perfectly fine, no delay of any sort. Random behaviour like that is a sign of a bug.
Click to expand...
It's not a bug. It's Nixxes we are talking about here and it's still present in Spider-man even after countless patches. It's just that PC hardware can't keep up with this game streaming requirements.

Loading a whole level is one thing as you just need high bandwith but loading textures on the fly just before it's needed is not something PC is good at. For this you need insanely low I/O latency. Something PS5 has being designed for.
 
mrcroket said:
Looks like PS5 has better raytracing reflections

PMlhy8s.png


whoops :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...
This is compared to performance rt as well instead of the fidelity mode.
 
Game runs ok at Native 4K with everything maxed out on a 4090, didn't see a lot of dips below 60.



I highly recommand this YT channel, this guy always deliver quality videos on different high end cards without shenanigans.

No texture streaming issue as well, don't know what was up with Alex version.
dq4kBSd.jpg


Rich also had issue before the test I believe, didn't he say he had to replace 2 motherboards before beginning the test?
I don't mind these 3 ways comparative videos with John, Alex and Rich but I think they should come AFTER the proper deep dive analysis video we're use to see. These look like they're put together in a hurry, without much preparation and with everybody at home, etc... it's just not the best first look you can give to a big new game I think.
 
Last edited:
OK I FINALLY GOT AN ANSWER AND CONFIRMATION FOR DECK SSD PERF


This video shows off the rift areas with the internal Deck SSD (NOT AN SD CARD) and the loading is.... fine. Not as slow as a HDD/SD but not as fast as a PS5 either. Acceptable!
 
Last edited:
Physiognomonics said:
It's not a bug. It's Nixxes we are talking about here and it's still present in Spider-man even after countless patches. It's just that PC hardware can't keep up with this game streaming requirements.

Loading a whole level is one thing as you just need high bandwith but loading textures on the fly just before it's needed is not something PC is good at. For this you need insanely low I/O latency. Something PS5 has being designed for.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a bug. If it was a streaming issue then surely it would happen all the time? But yet all the videos and images posted in this thread have had zero issues except for Digital Foundry. I myself have had no issues in the sections DF pointed out. In the cutscenes with Dr Nefarious I'm having zero streaming issues.
 
Zathalus said:
Of course it's a bug. If it was a streaming issue then surely it would happen all the time? But yet all the videos and images posted in this thread have had zero issues except for Digital Foundry. I myself have had no issues in the sections DF pointed out. In the cutscenes with Dr Nefarious I'm having zero streaming issues.
Click to expand...
Didn't they say it was related to RT?
 
Mephisto40 said:
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried
Click to expand...
peish peish is right tho. The only other type of portals in the game are ones that teleports you over small distances in the same level at fixed places, and another that swaps between two instances of the same level, also on fixed spots. I remember seeing another one that connected two levels, once again at a fixed place.
 
Last edited:
64bitmodels said:
Didn't they say it was related to RT?
Click to expand...
No, the RT issue is seperate. I have the same issues that DF pointed out with bad BVH, but RT is maxed out for me and textures are fine.

I'll say one thing though, this game is absolutely murder on PC, looks like you need a 3080/4070 to match the PS5.
 
Kakax11 said:
DLAA is sharp

Click to expand...



Going away from the SSD talk for a sec I do love the soft shadows on Ratchet's character model on PC. RTAO at work if I'm not mistaken. I snapped screen from your video for comparison. It does a lot imo to give off CG look. I'm guessing DF will dive deeper into this Friday.

PS5

6aVAATc.jpg


PC

H15Dmm5.jpg
 
Mephisto40 said:
Which are about 2% of the game...
Click to expand...
Which makes it even worse. Those sequences were what they constantly kept advertising the game with, and all the other instances of portals don't look nowhere near as impressive, being far more limited and at fixed spots.
Its not a bad game, but the portal 'mechanics' (if it can even be called that) isn't a good reason to get this, assuming you want the game to play and not just make benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
Seems to scale well and run great, I skipped PS5 So I'm definitely glad Sony is getting better at these PC releases, love cartoony platformers.
 
The great effort to prove that Sony was lying and that the SSD was not necessary to match the performance of PS5 in that regard is incredible (those videos of people with a 4090, 64gb of ram, top CPU and mechanical HDD are ridiculous), because so much interest in destroying the effort that Sony made for something that is clearly good for users and developers in the future? It's absurd, we've been like this for years, at least it's been proven that Insomniac didn't lie.
 
rofif said:
I know I am an asshole but playing this with lowest possible settings, 720p with fsr2… and stuttery 32fps.
Idk man…
How is the input lag? Looks kinda delayed in the vid
Click to expand...
if youre so inclined you can play it on a Rog Ally and get better visuals than that lol

We still get these games portably. No one would've dreamed about that back in 2021. Much better strategy than Sony making their own dedicated handheld now that i think about it
 
Last edited:
was planning to double dip for this, but improvements on a monster pc seems marginal at best, even with some degradations at places.
honestly from their video ps5 version looks better overall.
fastest nvme you can use can't seem to match ps5 io as well.
 
Kenpachii said:
While everybody is bitching about HDD's and I/O / Directstorage.

The real question was, if a sata SSD with Directstorage could run this smoothly. Any footage of that. Because at the end of the day, consoles users paid a premium for SSD tech that for many people was overkill and not needed.

We all know nvme drives are kinda unused on PC since forever so does this game validate the usage of nvme drives or still not.
Click to expand...

Yah. Even a SATA SSD can run this game with next to no performance loss. PS5 should have use a SATA SSD so us console users need not play so much for a gen4 SSD.

Just started on SD and look jaw dropping. Haven't try with unlimited framerate and ultrawide yet on PC.
 
Last edited:
Got this video recommended to me and i think he summed things up pretty well. Tested on reasonable hardware, a good gaming pc neither too powerful nor a potato.




Results are basically:
>PCIe SSD runs the game the best.
>SATA SSD still runs the game very well without noticeable change in transition time nor performance.
>SATA HDD and USB flash drive have an awkward wait between portal transitions, but not unplayable.
>MicroSD crashes the game.
 
Last edited:
ArtHands said:
Yah. Even a SATA SSD can run this game with next to no performance loss. PS5 should have use a SATA SSD so us console users need not play so much for a gen4 SSD.

Just started on SD and look jaw dropping. Haven't try with unlimited framerate and ultrawide yet on PC.
Click to expand...

I hope this is a joke?
 
This is a launch PS5 game which is not THAT heavy on I/O system, it would be interesting to see something that puts it to it's limits. And we JUST got direct storage on PC, without it things would be horrible I guess.

I really hope we're not going to hear ironic "The magic of SSD" bullshit here again. PS5 I/O subsystem is a masterclass of design and should be copied across the industry, not ridiculed.
 
Guilty_AI said:
>SATA SSD still runs the game very well without noticeable change in transition time nor performance.
Click to expand...
It runs the game very well at what settings? Is the guy in that video running the game at the PS5 IQ settings?
He's clearly not, because it seems he disabled any form of raytracing, so he's not loading any BVH structures from the I/O. And what texture resolution / mipmap LOD is he using? Shadowmap LOD?

These will have an impact on I/O. If you're running the game out of a 550MB/s SATA SSD then the only way it's not getting noticeable changes in transition is if the game is never loading more than 1100MB/s of assets at any given time. If you're running settings on low then this isn't a problem. If OTOH you're maxing out RT + Texture detail + shadows + geometry in a game like this then it's definitely going above 1100MB/s because we can already see the PS5 outperforming a 7500MB/s PC SSD with directstorage pushing 15000MB/s decompressed data.


Ivan said:
This is a launch PS5 game which is not THAT heavy on I/O system, it would be interesting to see something that puts it to it's limits. And we JUST got direct storage on PC, without it things would be horrible I guess.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were no PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives back when this game started its development nor were there any PS5 devkits with final hardware, so my guess is Insomniac started this game's production on 3500MB/s NVMe drives.
 
64bitmodels said:
you know this is true actually. afterall without this game Directstorage would probably not get any use in any PC release for the next like 2 years lmao
Click to expand...
I'm surprised how long wide adoption is taking. Even on Playstation, I think R&C is the only game that really uses these new features. On Xbox? I cannot count a single one but am thinking Starfield might do it.

Old habits die hard and devs simply don't seem interested enough to change their storage management subsystem to take advantage of these new tools. Star Citizen for instance requires an SSD not to stutter and does actually push SSDs, even without DirectStorage, and that's all thanks to them revamping their storage management subsystem. Just that alone would tremendously help over the archaic solutions in placed that were used back when HDDs speed was still the limiting factor. The technology has greatly outpaced the developers.
 
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz said:
The major point being missed here is all these guys running the game on a HDD + RTX 4090 also have >32GB RAM, meaning the game can cache lots of stuff to the RAM and VRAM during gameplay which hides the low I/O speeds.


But the thing is... who the fuck has 48, 64 or more GB of RAM, a graphics card with 24GB VRAM but then plays games on a HDD?
It's not a reallistic situation at all. The people gaming on HDDs are going to be using super low budget systems, graphics cards with 4GB, and system RAM at 16GB tops. And on those the HDD is going to completely break the gameplay with terrible stuttering and loading times everywhere because there's not enough volatile memory to cache into.



Also, the stupidest thing I read here was the claim that playing on a HDD was made possible thanks to DirectStorage.
DirectStorage only exists because the I/O got so much faster with NVMe storage. If we were still stuck on a 10-100MB/s I/O with terrible access times we wouldn't need to optimize data transfers in windows and find ways to do massive parallel decompression on GPUs. A single low end CPU core is enough to take an average 40MB/s data stream and do a 2:1 decompression to 80MB/s.
These people mistook Nixxes' excellent automatic resource allocation system with DirectStorage.
Click to expand...
The game isn't using more than 11 gb of ram And vram. You can see it in Alex's video.

Hogwarts uses 25 gb of system ram alone. That's not happening here.

The game runs on hdds because the loading is cpu bound. If the loading was ssd bound, you wouldn't be seeing 2 second portals on the ps5, it would've been instantaneous because the ps5 can do 9 gbps.

The blizar prime level is just losfing the assets directly into vram. They sit there while you hit the crystal to change the look of the level. Again you can see it in the video because the vram and system ram pools hardly change when they hit the crystal.
 
SlimySnake said:
The game isn't using more than 11 gb of ram And vram. You can see it in Alex's video.

Hogwarts uses 25 gb of system ram alone. That's not happening here.

The game runs on hdds because the loading is cpu bound. If the loading was ssd bound, you wouldn't be seeing 2 second portals on the ps5, it would've been instantaneous because the ps5 can do 9 gbps.

The blizar prime level is just losfing the assets directly into vram. They sit there while you hit the crystal to change the look of the level. Again you can see it in the video because the vram and system ram pools hardly change when they hit the crystal.
Click to expand...
Check my post above, the game runs almost perfect on HDD when not running on potato PC. CPU is more important than SSD here.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
Now they are doing comparison of the crowd density knowing full well that Performance RT mode on the PS5 halves the crowd density. This is so disingenuous.

None of this is neccessary because the PS5 VRR mode runs this at native 4k 40+ fps. So any comparisons they might have wanted to do with PC couldve been done using that mode. Especially since at 60 fps the game becomes cpu bound.
Click to expand...

It doesn't shock me anymore but it still feels bitter because they have a big platform in this space.
 
mansoor1980 said:
sata ssd causes performance issues even on a beefy pc during that rift portal sequence
Click to expand...
Well, here it's running on HDD and works just fine. Sure it's not SSD perfect, but Digital Foundry were misleading people when using very old PS4 HDD as an example and running it on lowest possible configuration for this game. The reality is that the CPU and GPU Ram were the real issue and not the SSD. Very poor stuff from DF.
 
Last edited:
Edder1 said:
Well, here it's running on HDD and works just fine. Sure it's not SSD perfect, but Digital Foundry were misleading people when using very old HDD as an example and running it on lowest possible configuration for this game.
Click to expand...
point is that the fast sequence does not run the way it is supposed to.
 
rofif said:
Slide show? :p That gaming tech guy is a pc shill.
Around 50fps in 4k rt mode with 120hz unlocked vrr. 90fps in performance rt around 1440p
Click to expand...
Well, the 4k RT mode is around 1800p with drops and the performance RT mode actually drops to 1080p. Unlocking the framerate does mean the DRS needs to be more aggressive. No free lunch as they say.

Regardless, it still performa much better on PS5 then equivalent PC hardware, which seems to be a trend with Sony ports.
 
Zathalus said:
Well, the 4k RT mode is around 1800p with drops and the performance RT mode actually drops to 1080p. Unlocking the framerate does mean the DRS needs to be more aggressive. No free lunch as they say.

Regardless, it still performa much better on PS5 then equivalent PC hardware, which seems to be a trend with Sony ports.
Click to expand...

And you can't really ask for any more than that.
 
sinnergy said:
Runs the same as PS5 version? What settings .?
Click to expand...
It's a maxed out PC so probably running everything on ultra. Settings don't matter since the argument was that the game can't run on HDD or can't run on it competently, not that it can't run on a weak PC or moderate settings. The fact is on a well specd PC the game runs well on HDD. You got some slight delay when portals are loading, but that's minor gripe when taking into account that this game was apparently never meant to run on HDD.
 
Last edited:
Ivan said:
This is a launch PS5 game which is not THAT heavy on I/O system,
Click to expand...
It's barely scratching the surface. Sony first-party games can have an interesting time and space-bending gameplay mechanics for example if the devs will try. Can't wait to see what the first-party games are cooking taking advantage of the PS5 SSD and I/O system.
 
Zathalus said:
How so? Loading appears to be one of the things that works well. A 3.5 GBs drive nearly matches the PS5. It's like 1/5 of a second slower without any of the dedicated hardware that a PC has. Seems it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
Click to expand...
Wait, so they didn't even use PCI-e 4.0 but 3.0 drive? Hell we're basically in 5.0 already. They should have see meat tried with a 4.0 drive
 
Didn't even crack the top 100 ccu on steam on launch day, peaked around ~8700. Not sure if it's the good will burn't on tlou1 or just not something pc players care to drop full price on. For comparison Remnant 2 cracked the top 10 with 83k ccu today even with the outcry about it's performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS5 Pro Enhanced - Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
49
5K
asdasdasdbb replied
Besides AstroBot and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, what games use the dual sense features the best?
35
3K
Justin9mm replied
How to sign up for the Horizon Hunters Gathering playtest on PS5 and PC
Hype 
31
390
KanKamAndNob replied
DF - Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart PS5 Pro vs PS5 Image Quality Face-Off
8 9 10 11 12
575
40K
Kangx replied
Ratchet & Clank: Ranger Rumble mobile game announced
2
83
876
rkofan87 replied
Top Bottom