LordOcidax
Member
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle PS5 Pro, PS5, XSX, PC comparison thanks to Analista de Bits
Indiana Jones Consoles (PS5 Pro) vs PC comparison
- Thread starter LordOcidax
- Start date
- Status
TrebleShot
Member
Yeah
Even much more so if it is a game that aiming for 60 fps as priority...
PT is incredibly demanding so no wonder it's not on consoles.
That said, I think it's a great and balanced choice on consoles to prioritize those 60fps with that visual level. This doesn't detract from the fact that a 30-40fps option with higher RT values wouldn't hurt anyone.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Garbage developers. You shouldnt need path tracing or even RT to have those kind of shaders for wooden walls, and mettalic objects. Not to mention reflections which can be easily screenspaced in a linear game like this.
PT is incredibly demanding so no wonder it's not on consoles.
Just terrible optimization but as long as it runs at 60 fps and high resolutions on consoles, no one bats an eye.
Mortisfacio
Member
Since it's pretty obvious PT is superior, although most the PC market can't even achieve it due to how demanding it is, some of the draw distance and foliage rendering is also a noticeable difference
The more distant trees looks about the same of Series X and PS5, arguably better on PS5 Pro, but noticeably better on PC.
The more distant trees looks about the same of Series X and PS5, arguably better on PS5 Pro, but noticeably better on PC.
Bojji
Member
I said this in the other thread, why game don't have normal RT reflections, shadows etc.? Cuberpunk has PT but it also has most RT effects available in "normal" RT mode.
Indiana Jones has terrible shadows and cube maps/ssr reflections. This shit could have been fixed without "nuclear option" (PT).
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
The game runs at 4K60 with RTGI on consoles. That's pretty solid for a mid-tier budget.
reinking
Gold Member
Since it's pretty obvious PT is superior, although most the PC market can't even achieve it due to how demanding it is, some of the draw distance and foliage rendering is also a noticeable difference
The more distant trees looks about the same of Series X and PS5, arguably better on PS5 Pro, but noticeably better on PC.
I would hope so....
PC: RTX 5090 | i9 12900K | 64GB DDR5 | SSD M.2
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Cool, what about without Pathtracing
PT is incredibly demanding so no wonder it's not on consoles.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
they probably ran out of vram for rt reflections and shadows because the gpu budget is there even on base consoles. its not a big hit but the game is insanely vram heavy forcing me to go with medium texture streaming on a 10 gb card without path tracing. so much pop-in just walking around linear levels it was shocking. ive seen open world games with better LOD management when galloping around on horses.
i dont even want rt reflections or shadows. just proper textures. wood that looks like wood. marble that looks like marble. metal that looks like metal. i have no idea what happened with this game. you shouldnt need path tracing or rt for decent textures and assets in linear games like this.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Bojji
Member
It looks very close to console versions.
Yeah, I think they could have done better. I played 2/3 of the game with PT and even with that there were places where game looked not as good as expected
Even high res shadows maps would fix many issues (with increased LOD) and this doesn't require insane hardware.
Bojji
Member
looks the same. the game is ugly as sin on PC maxed out with path tracing disabled.
Bojji look at the LODs on the pyramid in the distance here. i rag on HFW, Uncharted and GOW for having terrible draw distance but this is something else lol
Yeah, it doesn't look good. But maybe it's DOF with some kind of haze effect?
crazyriddler
Member
What do you expect? PS5 PRO is only about 45% faster than the base PS5, 1800p is 5.7 million pixels, 4K is 8.29 million (roughly 45% more). And at these resolutions PSSR would be pointless, especially knowing that it has a significant performance cost.
That's the thing about making a PRO console with such a mediocre performance improvement and relying on AI.
That's the thing about making a PRO console with such a mediocre performance improvement and relying on AI.
Grechy34
Member
Man for the first time in a long time I'm looking at the PS5 Pro as a viable high end solution to PC.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
It is bad. They didn't do anything to improve the game for Pro despite Pro being 50% better GPU and 2-3x RT. None of that was put to use. The resolution isn't even increased much over base ps5, which has dynamic 2160 already. No use of PSSR to try to free up resources to raise settings in other areas either.
crazyriddler
Member
From 1800p to 2160p there is a 45% increase in resolution (and raw performance requirement). And PSSR is not free.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Don't use this game as an example because they didn't do jack...the Pro version is as console as you can get compared to PC. Most games have these incredible minor differences on Pro
nobody needs native 4k. people sure are not running this at native4k on their pc. they use upscaling and use extra headroom to dial up settings.
they basically did the lamest update they could to get the pro enhanced badge. shitty devs.
ac shadows is how its done.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
But doesn't the base PS5 bottom out at 1440p whereas the Pro is a locked 4K? If the frame rates remain the same, then we're talking about 2.25x more pixels or 77.78% more per axis in instances when the base PS5 drops to 1440p. That's an enormous difference.
Admittedly, I would have preferred for them to keep it at around ~1440p, add PSSR and increase the RT quality (mainly shadows), but the boost in IQ isn't insignificant.
Last edited:
Tchu-Espresso
likes mayo on everthing and can't dance
While also being a completely boneheaded design choice when PSSR is available.
Native 4K perceptively adds nothing over 1800p from an ordinary viewing distance while completely nuking the frametime budget.
They could have instead opted to increase lighting or reflection settings by adopting PSSR and lowering the resolution instead of the boring approach they took.
Thanks for the info captain obvious.
PT is incredibly demanding so no wonder it's not on consoles.
Tchu-Espresso
likes mayo on everthing and can't dance
Even if you add an addition 0.6-1ms to account for the additional cost of PSSR, they would have much more headroom available by using it and lowering the base resolution to 1440p.
This feels like the definition of a quick cash grab.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Why shit on PS5 version? It looks fine. Can't expect consoles to do path tracing so El Anal istadebits could have made a better comparison by just going RT on PC.
Slim is having a meltdown again it seems. "Garbage developers", I've seen it all. RTGI all the way down to a series S, one of the best optimized path tracing on PC.
Slim is having a meltdown again it seems. "Garbage developers", I've seen it all. RTGI all the way down to a series S, one of the best optimized path tracing on PC.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
they cant. if they couldve, they wouldve done that even on base consoles. instead they targeted 1800p on the xsx. native 1800p.
their engine sucks ass. thats the reason for such shoddy textures and even worse lighting in many areas. i mean look at how the so called amazing ray traced global illumination fails to illuminate a fucking heater right next to the wall. its clear they are using a very low quality bvh. likely because their engine isnt allowing them to push the rtgi quality to where it should be. not on consoles. and not on pcs with less than 12 gb of vram. trust me, i played with max settings and it still looked like it was a cross gen game from 2014.
You need path tracing and 16 gb vram. 12 is minimum but you need to drop other game settings, and resolutions to 1440p with internal resolutions well below that even on a 5070 to get a somewhat decent 60 fps. cerny gave this console a tiny vram increase, but even if he had added 10gb, the ps5 pro couldnt have run path tracing at anything over 720p internal resolution at which point it would look nothing like the pc version we see here.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Agreed. The shadows still have that pixelated look. I would have preferred 1440p+PSSR+better shadows, but even maxed out shadows look bad. Only PT looks good and that's off the table.
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
RTGI in name only. it looks worse than many games with software lumen or baked lighting on the series s. you literally have screenshots posted that show how terrible it is at the actual illumination part of ray traced global illumination.Why shit on PS5 version? It looks fine. Can't expect consoles to do path tracing so El Anal istadebits could have made a better comparison by just going RT on PC.
Slim is having a meltdown again it seems. "Garbage developers", I've seen it all. RTGI all the way down to a series S, one of the best optimized path tracing on PC.
it was so well optimized with path tracing on pc that when it came out, only the 4080 and 4090 could play it. anyone with 10gb or less literally did not have that option available. yeah, amazing optimization.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Beg to differ (and it was improved since that video)
Holds up way way better than software Lumen which is plagued with light bleeding and a lot less noisy. In fact one of the least noisy RTGI implementation I've seen. What are you even smoking.
Software lumen in comparison
Played Indiana Jones with path tracing with 3080 Ti.
While the VRAM limit sucks and is kind of arbitrary, ran a lot better than Cyberpunk 2077, Alan wake 2 or Wukong, way better.
Last edited:
DavJay
Member
That's a very underrated statement.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
It sounds like some people are just salty that they bought a Pro thinking it was more than it was. Its still 4k 60. Its one of the best optimized engines out there. Game looks pretty good even on the S.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
yamaci17
Gold Member
this dog so cool lol
Its the team behind Riddick
anyways this game is actually great in first person. I think it adds a unique feeling to the exploration. I'm just glad we didn't actually get another tomb raider / uncharted like game
maybe it also helped with the game having such a great performance? I mean first person games almost always run much faster than third person games. probably due to more areas being loaded around the character? I don't actually know
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
The game is absolutely stunning maxed out on PC. A true generational leap over the console versions.
A few shots of my playthrough:
A few shots of my playthrough:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
...
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Of course we're salty. The game is dynamic 2160p on base ps5 already ...they did nothing to enhance this on the Pro. We spent $800 in hopes of getting some meaningful graphical improvement. 45% gpu and 2-3x RT improvement is nothing to scoff at. We don't have a single graphical preset that's higher than base PS5's in this game on Pro other than slight resolution increase
yamaci17
Gold Member
there should've been an unlocked framerate mode at least
in this CPU test, we can see 3700x can push 80+ FPS even in the crowded sections of the game
and we know that consoles are more efficient in terms of CPU performance (especially in ray tracing games)
at least they could've done that...
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
viveks86
Member
It's not the bvh that's the issue. The default RTGI is probe based, not per pixel. That's why there's a massive jump with PT (or full RT), where it is per pixel. Also why the resolution increase for Pro has no effect on the quality of RT. Timestamped below. This was confirmed by the devs in another video.
Last edited:
Well when PT isn't actually PT...
- Status