-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: EA Sports WRC: PC/PS5/Xbox Series X/S - DF Tech Review - An Engine Change for Better or Worse?
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
Vergil1992
Member
According to that image, if you are so interested in the line, you will also have noticed that XSX maintains a higher framerate for longer just before the sharpest drop, right?They are trying to avoid side by side FPS comparisons as much as possible, there are exceptions of course like in Robocop city traversal and Alan Wake 2.
Edit: From the written article, we can indeed see XSX FPS line dropping to sub 50's towards the end:
Hard to talk about a consistent PS5 performance advantage based on the video analysis/or this however. Still, it is running at least as well as XSX while having a higher cost shadow setting.
Just after the moment of capture where both work at 55fps, in XSX it rises to a figure close to 60fps and in PS5 it does not. Nothing to object there?
Seriously, this is so ridiculous. In racing games the framerate can be very variable and difficult to put side by side and make sure that what we see is representative of reality. I don't think it's any conspiracy. In fact, with Robocop I'm 100% sure that if they had put them side by side, XSX's advantage would be equal or greater in more areas than what we saw in the DF video.
Physiognomonics
Member
Yes it's not the first time we see this. But as expected there is also higher ground texture details on PS5. This was also seen in at least another UE4 title so I actually expected to see better ground textures on PS5 as well. We likely see those differences because XSX shares some settings from the weaker XSS version. It sucks for XSX owners though.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
MadchesterManc
Member
CPU utilisation is awful!!
That tends to happen with most games when you cap at 60. GPU is only at 68% too so there's plenty more in the tank for higher settings or more fps
SKYF@ll
Member
Perhaps Xbox Series X uses VRS.Yes it's not the first time we see this. But as expected there is also higher ground texture details on PS5. This was also seen in a at least one other UE4 title so I actually expected to see better ground textures on PS5 as well. We likely see those differences because XSX shares some settings from the weaker XSS version. It sucks for XSX owners though.
It's interesting to see that XSX, with lower shadow settings and VRS, has a frame rate comparable to PS5.
I hope the next patch will bring it closer to 60fps.
Vergil1992
Member
It's curious, I couldn't say if it has more detail or is simply different, in the end it is nothing more than a texture. I also see different foliage, in this case it seems to benefit XSX.Yes it's not the first time we see this. But as expected there is also higher ground texture details on PS5. This was also seen in a at least one other UE4 title so I actually expected to see better ground textures on PS5 as well. We likely see those differences because XSX shares some settings from the weaker XSS version. It sucks for XSX owners though.
XSX
PS5:
Although it also seems that on PS5 it has some more bushes in the distance.
I don't think there's anything notable in terms of performance here. Although I agree that XSX probably inherits some tweaks from XSS. It is no coincidence that they have exactly the same settings sometimes, in this case the shadows are the same in XSS and in XSX. Having two consoles on the market and with very low sales I don't think it's helping here.
What I don't like about DF is that they give less and less importance to real internal resolutions and they fail a lot. I would like VG Tech to do more analysis, they are much better at providing data on both framerate and resolution.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's curious, I couldn't say if it has more detail or is simply different, in the end it is nothing more than a texture. I also see different foliage, in this case it seems to benefit XSX.
XSX
PS5:
Good eye. Looks like a small difference in foliage LoD.
These differences are so minor. The frame rate is the same between the two after a second of variance and I doubt people would notice these visual differences outside of side by sides.
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
Good catch. In the same time higher settings have undeniably higher processing and/or memory costs regardless of those are intended or not. Don't you thing shadow map rendering could be faster on PS5 due to 22%-122% higher color/depth ROP headroom for example? I think sometimes those choices can be deliberate.Yes it's not the first time we see this. But as expected there is also higher ground texture details on PS5. This was also seen in a at least one other UE4 title so I actually expected to see better ground textures on PS5 as well. We likely see those differences because XSX shares some settings from the weaker XSS version. It sucks for XSX owners though.
Certinty
Member
Said it for a while but so many people overlooked and downplayed just how good those Kylotonn WRC games were. They really never got the credit they deserved, the last few were excellent and now this has become a shitshow. But hey, the only way is up from here. But given what Codies have done with the F1 franchise the past 14 or so years i'm not expecting too much.
King Dazzar
Member
I was so glad I got to do the free trial on XSX. It handled and played OK, but the blurry low res visuals and poor HDR put me off buying it straight away. It looked like a game from 10+ years ago. Such a shame.
Vergil1992
Member
Yes, it seems certain that it is. XSS can use graphics settings from a console that has 52CU/1825mhz, when XSS's GPU has 20CU/1565mhz. That is, XSS, having a less fast GPU, with a third of the computing units of XSX, with less memory and less bandwidth, has the luxury of sharing settings with a much more powerful console.
It is absolutely unthinkable that developers are using XSS settings in its older sister, either out of inadvertence or because it is the easiest thing to do. But nevertheless in Alan Wake 2, a much better optimized game and developed by a much more capable developer, with impressive technology, the fault is that they have not worked on the PS5 version! (as you said) the fact that XSX has 50% more CU and 18% more total power, in addition to greater bandwidth had absolutely nothing to do with its better performance.
Seriously, I think this is absurd. How is it possible that XSS has the same graphical setting as XSX? (In specific graphic settings such as those indicated here) Magic? The only advantage the PS5 GPU has over the XSX is its clock frequency (1.8 vs 2.2ghz), but the XSX GPU is more powerful overall. Can't XSX go beyond the XSS settings when it has a faster GPU (by almost the same difference as the PS5 GPU compared to XSX), with much more CU, more memory and more bandwidth?
This wouldn't make any sense. If we apply common sense here, it's clear that XSX is using some XSS settings that the developer hasn't bothered to modify. The shadows are absolutely identical and so is the appearance of the land. I do not think it's a coincidence. With games from very competent developers like Remedy, if XSX has a very tangible advantage over PS5, it is that they have not optimized the PS5 version well (even though it was the one they were showing and they recognized that the XSX patches were behind the version of the Sony console), but with a game with PS4 graphics and that is also terribly poorly optimized, with identical graphic settings between XSS and XSX it seems reasonable to think that it is due to the hardware.
In a terribly optimized game, which despite looking like a PS4-One game does not run at a stable 60fps and drops its resolution to 1080p. But then with talented studios like Remedy that make games with impressive technology, when XSX has a +10fps advantage over PS5, having 50% more CU and 18% more total power than the PS5 GPU is not relevantly...
c'mon please...
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Wait, there was a trial for this.? Must have missed it. Is it still on ?
Elysium44
Banned
It's a 5 hour trial on EA Play.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Perfect. That sounds like more than enough time for me in a game like this.
GG ea play / game pass.
Physiognomonics
Member
I don't think so. I think XSX somehow inherited from XSS settings and devs haven't bothered to make XSX settings perfectly equal to PS5. Maybe because of some API quirks related to UE4 and XSX/XSS. The fact that we have seen the same problem in several games should tell us it's not performance related.
Vergil1992
Member
I've been looking at the images more closely and it appears that in some areas XSX is definitely showing more foliage.
SKYF@ll
Member
It's based on the PC version and was ported to PS5 and XSS/X by a different team, so I think there are small differences in graphical settings.I've been looking at the images more closely and it appears that in some areas XSX is definitely showing more foliage.
Slightly different LODs, different shadow resolutions, texture details, etc.
The XBOX porting team has to optimize two models, so the effort is twice that of PS5.
For PS5, porting from DX12 to the unique API may be a bit of a hassle.
hollams
Gold Member
I never thought using a wheel felt very good on those titles. I went to try WRC 10 just to test again and got a couldn't connect to server message that wouldn't let me get past it so I could never play.
Vergil1992
Member
Yeah, I'm not sure it has an impact on performance, but in the video the foliage seems to be a little richer on XSX in general. Sometimes it is the same or there are variable differences, I checked if it was something related to the LOD but on PS5 there are times where the vegetation does not appear:
It is not a very big difference, but when comparing XSX vs PC we can see similar differences (although in favor of the PC). The problem is that this is in motion, and such a subtle difference is impossible to perceive if it is not from side to side. but it is relatively easy to observe that there are moments where XSX has a greater density of vegetation, very subtle, but noticeable. The other way around doesn't seem to happen, at least I haven't seen it. I don't know if it's something random, it doesn't seem like it's something like going from medium to high, or from high to ultra. If it were related to graphics settings, it would be something like high vs high+. The difference is too small, between XSX and PC it is much larger, and it is supposed to be high vs ultra.
Last edited:
Skifi28
Member
It's a rally game with the only dynamic thing on the screen being your car, everything else in the world is static and they even have aggressive resolution scaling to help yet it still drops tons of frames and tears without looking any better than the older games. All that while on UE4, not even 5 for the extra eye candy. Seriously, game development is going backwards.
Last edited:
SkyHighTrees
Member
Wow
KuraiShidosha
Member
I'm so glad I listened to my gut instinct after watching the first trailer for this. I KNEW this was some jank ass shit when their debut trailer had stutter, poor performance and generally ugly visuals coming from a very competently put together Dirt Rally 2.0. I sunk a hundred hours into that game in VR and it took me upgrading to a 7950x3D and RTX 4090 to finally master its visuals. I knew there was no way this game would be a good performer once I saw it was UE4. Shit engine and stupid decision on Codemaster's part.
Shake Your Rump
Gold Member
If your game has screen tearing on a PlayStation console, you know you fucked up.
IMO the reason why some companies use proprietary engines is because they can bring manpower interested in challenge than just filling the job, it doesn't help that they would also probably cut the manpower and time required because its a familiar enigne.Why spend man power to enhance an aging engine for a new generation when you can just throw Epic some licensing fee to rent Unreal Engine
CamHostage
Member
RIP Ego Engine.
I've been into what Codemasters pulled out of that for a long time (it also built upon Neon Engine, which utilized Sony's multiplatform Phyre Engine tools, which just felt nice when I was rooting for Phyre to do cool stuff,) but I get that sometimes you just hit a wall with what the thing can be rerigged to do AND you just don't have the people to maintain or train for it.
At some point, an old engine can become a liability for the company. It gets hard to stretch it in ways it wasn't designed to work (even if they could have expanded the circuit sizes with some effort, it would have to be done in a rush and with potential downsides in production velocity if not final product quality,) and then all the people you bring in need to adapt to your unfamiliar, 15-year-old, hacked-to-shreds proprietary technology.
I hate to see Ego go, and still feel there could have been life in it (especially seeing all the downsides of the move to UE in framerate instability and no HFR and stutter,) but an old beast can break a team even when it still has its strengths. (Also your parent company may fall for the promise of greener grass, which may or may not be found on the other side.)
I'm assuming most of this will get worked out next year (although 120FPS mode may be a forgotten dream, they're fighting for 60 still here and even a move to UE5 next year plus internal refinements would still take a lot to get there,) and Epic keeps trying things to alleviate the stuttering issues so there's hope they'll have some answers next year.
...Fat lot of good that does people spending $70 this year though.
I've been into what Codemasters pulled out of that for a long time (it also built upon Neon Engine, which utilized Sony's multiplatform Phyre Engine tools, which just felt nice when I was rooting for Phyre to do cool stuff,) but I get that sometimes you just hit a wall with what the thing can be rerigged to do AND you just don't have the people to maintain or train for it.
At some point, an old engine can become a liability for the company. It gets hard to stretch it in ways it wasn't designed to work (even if they could have expanded the circuit sizes with some effort, it would have to be done in a rush and with potential downsides in production velocity if not final product quality,) and then all the people you bring in need to adapt to your unfamiliar, 15-year-old, hacked-to-shreds proprietary technology.
I hate to see Ego go, and still feel there could have been life in it (especially seeing all the downsides of the move to UE in framerate instability and no HFR and stutter,) but an old beast can break a team even when it still has its strengths. (Also your parent company may fall for the promise of greener grass, which may or may not be found on the other side.)
Why spend man power to enhance an aging engine for a new generation when you can just throw Epic some licensing fee to rent Unreal Engine
I'm assuming most of this will get worked out next year (although 120FPS mode may be a forgotten dream, they're fighting for 60 still here and even a move to UE5 next year plus internal refinements would still take a lot to get there,) and Epic keeps trying things to alleviate the stuttering issues so there's hope they'll have some answers next year.
...Fat lot of good that does people spending $70 this year though.
Last edited:
CamHostage
Member
Heh, I don't think so. There are plenty of challenges to be found and ways to flex creative technical muscles in game development, even if your company is blueprinting its way to a finished product. I can't imagine what boss is out there going, "No, let's not adopt an industry standard toolchain, that's no fun... there's got to be a ways to make this harder?" Even the elite coders out there are best suited figuring out how to build their cool futureshit within familiar frameworks wherre it would get used the most, few can go it alone.
There are reasons still to go with a proprietary engine, but it gets tougher and tougher these days to hold those reasons up against the ever-increasing benefits of the shelf stuff (and don' forget, UE isn't just an engine, it's a full creative studio with collaborative tools and a bevy of tested third-party plugins.)
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
The problem is not the engine, it’s the devs behind, it just happens that you’re most likely with devs who have no idea how it works with an external engine than one made in-house.
Assetto Corsa Competizione uses UE4 and has none of those problems.
Assetto Corsa Competizione uses UE4 and has none of those problems.
Racing games this gen so disappointing
Lysandros
Member
I think a potential side effect of this can ironically be less time spend on PS5 versions because it 'just works' relying on the high level GNMX API, instead of spending additional time optimizing and going deeper using the lower level GNM, thus leaving significant performance on the table because there is no such a luxury left in the context of time and resources. I think Microsoft's two SKU approach is also hurting PS5 quite a bit in multiplatform area in the matter of maximizing its potential.
King Dazzar
Member
You're probably best only using a bit of the 5hr trial and then saving the rest for when its been patched loads. The advantage of the trial is that, unlike a demo of course, you can revisit when updated. Assuming the trial doesn't expire by date...
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
UE4 is incredible in the right hands and UE5 is even better.
UE4
UE5
How do you of all people not know that Hellblade 2 is UE5?? Must be a momentary lapse. ..
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
These kind of disappointing visuals just should NOT be happening 3 years into an entirely new generation. I don't get it.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Sure but l can't imagine the EGO engine team wanting UE4, it would have been out of their hands as would have been an upper management decision to go UE.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
yea, this engine has been around since DIRT 1 on PS3, it's been upgraded and enhanced many times, the idea that they had to make this massive switch to UE just to get "larger maps" doesn't hold water. This is EA meddling, probably because they pay for one engine team in the company and don't want to pay for another.
eNT1TY
Member
In none of these pictures is there a greater density of vegetation favoring XSX, the pictures on top where its circled the x has an extra tuft of grass but opposite of the circled area on the other side of the road its missing half of the bushes compared to ps5, on the bottom set of pictures the circled part shows more vegetation on ps5, and both sets of pictures demonstrate much higher detailed shadows favoring ps5 as well as missing highlights and shadows in vegetation in the x version as if it had a poorer implementation of ao for vegetation. On the pictures in your post above this one with the roadside barrier on the right side of the road in the circled part the x version has 2 extra tufts of grass directly under the barrier but is missing the grassy patches behind the barrier present on PS5 the tufts are taller on ps5, also further up the road beyond the circled area the barrier shadow is completely missing on X. I don't know if it was intentional but with your tunnel vision trying to find differences favoring X you missed a whole bunch favoring PS5 even in the circled areas. All the pictures managed to do was show how poor the shadows look on X and perhaps different ao settings.Yeah, I'm not sure it has an impact on performance, but in the video the foliage seems to be a little richer on XSX in general. Sometimes it is the same or there are variable differences, I checked if it was something related to the LOD but on PS5 there are times where the vegetation does not appear:
It is not a very big difference, but when comparing XSX vs PC we can see similar differences (although in favor of the PC). The problem is that this is in motion, and such a subtle difference is impossible to perceive if it is not from side to side. but it is relatively easy to observe that there are moments where XSX has a greater density of vegetation, very subtle, but noticeable. The other way around doesn't seem to happen, at least I haven't seen it. I don't know if it's something random, it doesn't seem like it's something like going from medium to high, or from high to ultra. If it were related to graphics settings, it would be something like high vs high+. The difference is too small, between XSX and PC it is much larger, and it is supposed to be high vs ultra.
Its a bit ironic today that proprietary engines like RE Engine and even Frostbite are regarded as much better performance than Unreal today, back then a lot of studios were switching because their tech was too outdated and started to age.
I agree that Unreal is definetely far easier to use and a suite of tools, but you can count on one hand how many developers actually delivered good performance with UE 4-5, a very stark contrast compared to UE3, it feels that studios are really lacking with manpower to deal with it and proprietary engines could attract people who are more interested in challenge than their normal work flow these days. I can only recall The Coalition which is probably the biggest third party supporter of the engine and Dambuster with Dead Island 2 being phenomenal at optmization.
SKYF@ll
Member
I also checked the video in slow playback.
There doesn't seem to be any difference in the vegetation settings considering the difference in camera angle, the poor image quality on Youtube, and the difference in shadow quality.
Depending on the scene, I could see more vegetation on PS5 and more vegetation on XSX.
Vergil1992
Member
No, in the first image in the area on the right it seems that PS5 has more vegetation due to the light and shadows, but if you look at the video you will see that they look exactly the same there, the Xbox ones are simply in complete shadow and are less visible, but if you advance in the video you can clearly see that they are there (this is just a few seconds after what you point out):
The foliage in the area on the right is exactly the same, or at least very very similar. In the screenshots I took just in the XSX version they are under a shadow, but they are definitely there.
In the areas where I pointed out, the PS5 foliage does not appear, neither before nor after, nor is there anything to "disguise" it. It's just less dense.
However, the parts I said were missing vegetation on PS5 no matter what angle you look for, it's just not there.
The differences that you say are only caused by the shading, which on PS5 is better and the light is filtered more precisely while on XSX it is completely obscured by shading, but the foliage is exactly the same if you watch the video.
But the absent vegetation that I point out on PS5 on the left has nothing to do with that, it does not appear at any time, it is not unloaded, nor is it under a shadow and it is difficult to observe it, it is in an illuminated area and where in XSX there is foliage On PS5 there is only one texture.
Maybe it's not even relevant to performance (in fact, it's most likely), but what you're saying is completely wrong.
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
We also had cases of lower quality RT reflections on XSX in Ghostwire Tokyo (along with higher overall resolution and performance) and Callisto Protocol. Considering the performance state of other titles such as Atomic Heart and Hogwarts Legacy i think it's fair to state that the engine is noticeably friendlier to PS5. Jumping to younger UE5 in a similar context (again multiple titles with differing asset quality there) we have Immortals of Aveum developer tying the difference in fidelity to slightly higher performance headroom (and memory) offered by PS5, a deliberate choice. I think the reasons can be broad indeed.
Last edited:
Vergil1992
Member
It is worth clarifying that the developer you are referring to was from Reddit, in the interview with DF they did not say anything about there being differences in fidelity:
Inside Immortals of Aveum: the Digital Foundry tech interview
Ahead of the launch of Immortals of Aveum, Alex Battaglia and Tom Morgan spoke with Ascendent Studios' Mark Maratea, Julia Lichtblau and Joe Hall about the game
www.eurogamer.net
In fact, when they ask about the graphic settings and if PS5/XSX use medium settings, they say that there is parity between them (PS5 and XSX), they just did things differently.
The only differences found in Immortals of Aveum is a sharpening filter on PS5 (which does not affect performance) and that in the intro menu on PS5 there was SSR. Actually, Immortals of Aveum had a wide performance difference in favor of Series X. We are talking about 45fps vs 55fps at times. I don't understand why you constantly omit the huge performance advantage of XSX here when it is practically the only truly differentiating aspect between the two.
If there really were memory or performance differences, Alan Wake 2 wouldn't perform better on XSX, when it's a VRAM guzzler and one of the most GPU-demanding games on the market (even without RT). Remedy is one of the few developers who, despite complaining about XSS, worked correctly on this version and instead of reducing its quality dramatically, they made more subtle concessions such as reducing the quality of the texture in the mental room. If XSX had a memory or power deficit, there would not be as many games with better versions on XSX (Alan Wake 2, Dead Space Remake, Dying Light 2, The Talos Principle, The Witcher 3, A Plague Tale Requiem). Remedy would definitely take advantage (if any) of the PS5, because its games tend to be very dependent on GPU power and VRAM.
In Immortals of Aveum the only differences they found are that CAS was activated on PS5 and not on XSX, and a difference of 5-10fps in favor of the Microsoft machine. At this point, I think it doesn't matter what a supposed studio developer on Reddit said. He also said that PS5 had a performance similar to that of the 6700XT when it is a graphics card that in any game on the market surpasses the performance of PS5 . The reality is different.
Last edited:
SKYF@ll
Member
I played Immortals of Aveum on PS5 and XSX, and there seems to be a big difference in texture quality.
It looks like there is a difference in texture resolution or reconstruction, not just the sharpening filter.
Images from the latest versions of my consoles.
Will the IQ of XSX improve when the FSR3.0 patch arrives?
adamsapple
said"holy shit the IQ on console looks like I'm playing with vaseline smeared over my eyeballs."
Vergil1992
Member
I'm sorry, it's nothing personal against you, but I no longer believe any comparison that isn't from some specialized media. In this forum I have seen that trend: in the comparison of DF, VG Tech, NX Gamer they do not highlight differences but here there is almost always someone who puts screenshots that always favor PS5.I played Immortals of Aveum on PS5 and XSX, and there seems to be a big difference in texture quality.
It looks like there is a difference in texture resolution or reconstruction, not just the sharpening filter.
Images from the latest versions of my consoles.
Will the IQ of XSX improve when the FSR3.0 patch arrives?
Even assuming the comparison is true, it could be something that happens occasionally and the texture resolution be the same in 99% of the areas, or it could happen the other way around, etc. If DF and the developer in the interview say that the graphic settings are the same, I see no reason to doubt here.
If we look in all the nooks and crannies of the games, we are sure to find some texture with poorer quality on one platform or another, whether due to bugs, slow streaming, etc. On the other hand, it is truly surprising the difference you see in the textures of the posters there, and then in the game I can't find those differences in videos:
PS5:
XSX:
PS5:
XSX:
At the moment the information we have is that Immortals of Aveum has similar graphical settings and better performance in XSX. I have seen that there is a demo available, and I am going to also check it out of curiosity on PS5, XSX and PC. But from what I have seen, I think that if your comparison is true, it is something specific, and in no way can be extrapolated to the quality of textures of the entire game.
EDIT: Okay, downloading the demos. I'm going to take a lot of screenshots. Let's see if you're right or not. I'll also try the PC version with the typical texture settings (low, medium, high and ultra).
Last edited:
SKYF@ll
Member
Images captured from Youtube are low quality and are not suitable for comparing details.I'm sorry, it's nothing personal against you, but I no longer believe any comparison that isn't from some specialized media. In this forum I have seen that trend: in the comparison of DF, VG Tech, NX Gamer they do not highlight differences but here there is almost always someone who puts screenshots that always favor PS5.
Even assuming the comparison is true, it could be something that happens occasionally and the texture resolution be the same in 99% of the areas, or it could happen the other way around, etc. If DF and the developer in the interview say that the graphic settings are the same, I see no reason to doubt here.
If we look in all the nooks and crannies of the games, we are sure to find some texture with poorer quality on one platform or another, whether due to bugs, slow streaming, etc. On the other hand, it is truly surprising the difference you see in the textures of the posters there, and then in the game I can't find those differences in videos:
PS5:
XSX:
PS5:
XSX:
At the moment the information we have is that Immortals of Aveum has similar graphical settings and better performance in XSX. I have seen that there is a demo available, and I am going to also check it out of curiosity on PS5, XSX and PC. But from what I have seen, I think that if your comparison is true, it is something specific, and in no way can be extrapolated to the quality of textures of the entire game.
EDIT: Okay, downloading the demos. I'm going to take a lot of screenshots. Let's see if you're right or not. I'll also try the PC version with the typical texture settings (low, medium, high and ultra).
If you can't trust others, they can't trust you either.
It is important to pursue the truth without relying on the media.
We have our own consoles, eyes and brains.
Let's continue with the correct analysis.
Vergil1992
Member
PS5:
XSX:
I think you've been quite dishonest here. The texture quality is identical, but due to the blurriness of XSX in the distance if you zoom in it will look blurrier, if you get closer you can see that the texture resolution is 1:1.
PS5:
XSX:
PS5:
XSX:
I'm looking texture by texture and they are exactly the SAME. The only difference is that in XSX at a distance, having much lower sharpness, they look more blurry, especially if you take screenshots and zoom in from a distance, but they are NOT differences in the quality of textures. Absolutely not.
Your comparison is correct, but it doesn't tell the whole story and you confuse texture resolution with image quality itself. The image quality on Xbox is worse (or blurrier) and it affects everything. Textures in the distance with zoom are obviously no exception. But you can see that they are the same and they do not have a lower resolution nor is it a question of texture streaming, the texture simply looks more blurry and the further away it is, the more noticeable it is.
In my comparison you can see that up close they are identical.
Example:
PS5:
Xbox:
The texture quality is identical, correct? but if we go as far away as in the PS5 capture...
The sign becomes VERY obviously blurrier if you move away from it a few meters. This has nothing to do with texture quality nor does it seem like a streaming issue. It's as if there is some very aggressive AA on Xbox or the PS5's sharpening filter keeps the texture looking more uniform in the distance.
But there are no fidelity differences here. I have looked carefully and they are exact versions.
More comparison:
PS5:
XSX:
There is no different story here than what DF told. They have more or less the same settings (both DF and the developer in the interview say so), on PS5 it looks noticeably more defined, in theory due to a sharpness filter because its resolution is not higher, and the performance is considerably more stable in XSX. The differences seen in your comparison are not the result of lower texture resolutions, or lower fidelity, it is because the game looks blurrier in XSX and the greater the distance, the more noticeable it is. Something we already knew.
Now I'll try the PC version to see if I can find the explanation for the difference in sharpness.
Last edited:
Vergil1992
Member
For those interested in investigating, I am getting VERY disconcerting results on PC. I'm diverting the topic a lot and for my part the debate ends here, but as I said I would test the PC version, here they are.
In this screenshot, I'm playing at 1080p and with FSR 3 disabled. That is, it would be playing at native 1080p. However, then I activated FSR 3 and the result will surprise you:
Surprisingly, with FSR 3 activated I get a result extremely similar to the PS5, and with FSR 3 disabled it happens EXACTLY THE SAME as in the Xbox Series X version.
Anyone can verify that I'm not lying. I had to make sure several times that I was not wrong. In case anyone doubts my honesty here, I also put the two screenshots with unlocked framerate and FSR 3 activated and deactivated:
FSR 3 off:
FSR ON:
Why does it look sharper with FSR 3? More tests, I find it very interesting. This shot is of the game with the textures on low and with FSR activated, it still does not match XSX.
Then I tried downgrading to 720p with FSR disabled (textures high), and the image almost fully matches the XSX:
Now, the same shot with FSR 3 in Quality and at 720p:
What I'm seeing here really doesn't make sense. But in short, trying to replicate the PS5 and XSX versions, this is what I get. The XSX version looks very similar to native resolution, and on PS5 it looks like any FSR usage. I miss him? Performance with FSR 3 does not increase, neither in quality nor in balance, only if I activate frame generation.
It doesn't make much sense, it's like FSR doesn't work the way you expect. But the blurring of some textures on Xbox Series X is clearly related to image quality, not related to texture quality. In summary, this would be the "equivalent" way to XSX and PS5 on PC:
XSX/PC 720p/Native Resolution:
¿PS5?/PC 720p/FSR balance:
Performance with and without FSR barely varies, but notice how GPU utilization drops with FSR.
In this screenshot, I'm playing at 1080p and with FSR 3 disabled. That is, it would be playing at native 1080p. However, then I activated FSR 3 and the result will surprise you:
Surprisingly, with FSR 3 activated I get a result extremely similar to the PS5, and with FSR 3 disabled it happens EXACTLY THE SAME as in the Xbox Series X version.
Anyone can verify that I'm not lying. I had to make sure several times that I was not wrong. In case anyone doubts my honesty here, I also put the two screenshots with unlocked framerate and FSR 3 activated and deactivated:
FSR 3 off:
FSR ON:
Why does it look sharper with FSR 3? More tests, I find it very interesting. This shot is of the game with the textures on low and with FSR activated, it still does not match XSX.
Then I tried downgrading to 720p with FSR disabled (textures high), and the image almost fully matches the XSX:
Now, the same shot with FSR 3 in Quality and at 720p:
What I'm seeing here really doesn't make sense. But in short, trying to replicate the PS5 and XSX versions, this is what I get. The XSX version looks very similar to native resolution, and on PS5 it looks like any FSR usage. I miss him? Performance with FSR 3 does not increase, neither in quality nor in balance, only if I activate frame generation.
It doesn't make much sense, it's like FSR doesn't work the way you expect. But the blurring of some textures on Xbox Series X is clearly related to image quality, not related to texture quality. In summary, this would be the "equivalent" way to XSX and PS5 on PC:
XSX/PC 720p/Native Resolution:
¿PS5?/PC 720p/FSR balance:
Performance with and without FSR barely varies, but notice how GPU utilization drops with FSR.
Last edited:
SKYF@ll
Member
I shot at the same distance and angle with PS5 and XSX.PS5:
XSX:
I think you've been quite dishonest here. The texture quality is identical, but due to the blurriness of XSX in the distance if you zoom in it will look blurrier, if you get closer you can see that the texture resolution is 1:1.
PS5:
XSX:
PS5:
XSX:
I'm looking texture by texture and they are exactly the SAME. The only difference is that in XSX at a distance, having much lower sharpness, they look more blurry, especially if you take screenshots and zoom in from a distance, but they are NOT differences in the quality of textures. Absolutely not.
Your comparison is correct, but it doesn't tell the whole story and you confuse texture resolution with image quality itself. The image quality on Xbox is worse (or blurrier) and it affects everything. Textures in the distance with zoom are obviously no exception. But you can see that they are the same and they do not have a lower resolution nor is it a question of texture streaming, the texture simply looks more blurry and the further away it is, the more noticeable it is.
In my comparison you can see that up close they are identical.
Example:
PS5:
Xbox:
The texture quality is identical, correct? but if we go as far away as in the PS5 capture...
The sign becomes VERY obviously blurrier if you move away from it a few meters. This has nothing to do with texture quality nor does it seem like a streaming issue. It's as if there is some very aggressive AA on Xbox or the PS5's sharpening filter keeps the texture looking more uniform in the distance.
But there are no fidelity differences here. I have looked carefully and they are exact versions.
More comparison:
PS5:
XSX:
There is no different story here than what DF told. They have more or less the same settings (both DF and the developer in the interview say so), on PS5 it looks noticeably more defined, in theory due to a sharpness filter because its resolution is not higher, and the performance is considerably more stable in XSX. The differences seen in your comparison are not the result of lower texture resolutions, or lower fidelity, it is because the game looks blurrier in XSX and the greater the distance, the more noticeable it is. Something we already knew.
Now I'll try the PC version to see if I can find the explanation for the difference in sharpness.
Your images are lower than the actual resolution and difficult to distinguish.
Your XSX version image was taken at a closer distance than the PS5.
If the textures are exactly the same, the Nanite quality may be different.
Image quality is too degraded for a sharpening filter.
If you want to compare, please shoot at the same distance without changing the resolution.
These are other sample images. (indoors at close range)
Vergil1992
Member
You're "cheating" again, you're using zoom. If you get closer you will see that the texture is the same (without zooming in). I want to think that you are not doing it consciously and you simply do not know how it works.
I have already explained it, and also, you have a "possible" explanation above using the PC version. It's something to do with FSR and upscaling, not texture quality.