Support NeoGAF

[Darsxx82]

"Later this generation the series X more CUs will start to show its difference"
Richard Leadbetter

You've got almost 5-7 of the latest major releases that Richard could possibly use to answer you...

But you've chosen to use a pathetic port (and everything points to it) based on the (also terrible) PC port to make some kind of proclamation

 

[Karim]

Damn, it already looked like crap on Ps5 in performance mode .
The tech at Square has been absolutely trash this gen.



Plenty of games this gen with equally good visuals and more impressive worlds and environments than this running at better resolutions and 60fps.
This is just Square and/or their engine being garbage.

The engine was intended to run 30 fps to be fair.

 

[adamsapple]

Damn, it already looked like crap on Ps5 in performance mode .
The tech at Square has been absolutely trash this gen.



Plenty of games this gen with equally good visuals and more impressive worlds and environments than this running at better resolutions and 60fps.
This is just Square and/or their engine being garbage.

To be fair to .. and I can't believe I'm saying this .. Forspoken of all games.

That game shipped with a host of options, things like 40hz that Square really should have implemented in XVI, Remake and Rebirth as well.

 

[Karim]

You've got almost 5-7 of the latest major releases that Richard could possibly use to answer you...

But you've chosen to use a pathetic port (and everything points to it) based on the (also terrible) PC port to make some kind of proclamation

I haven't seen anything of drastically improved later this generation on Series X compared ps5 but sure. Continue to live the dream.

 

[Idleyes]

Every time I read those messages, I walk away feeling like I just watched a series of sexting in corporate lingo. They were defiantly getting each other off with that corpo yap.

 

[intheinbetween]

Cheap ass port, what a surprise coming from SE

 

[rofif]

Are there counts for PRO?
I just launched it... it's such a good game. just walking around hideaway and it looks so good.
Quality mode seems sharper than it did on base. Performance too but still quite lower res but not as bad as I remember on base

 

[adamsapple]

I haven't seen anything of drastically improved later on this generation on Series X compared ps5 but sure. Continue to live the dream.

There are sufficient examples on both sides.

Intensive games like Space Marine 2 and Alan Wake 2 show pretty big SX advantages, for example.

-

For FF16 it's impossible to do a 1 : 1 comparison cause of the way Square has it running on fixed res on SX and DRS on PS5. Pretty dumb move on someones part there and I hope a future patch lets the SX version run higher than 720p.

 

[mckmas8808]

The CEO of Microsoft using the Windows 10 Mail app instead of like Outlook or something never gets old to me

Totally embarrassing LOL!

 

[Wolzard]

The CEO of Microsoft using the Windows 10 Mail app instead of like Outlook or something never gets old to me

Mail was simpler and more to the point, while Outlook is full of features. It's like Notepad vs Word, it would be overkill if the idea was to make something simple. Plus, Mail integrated with Windows, so you had notifications and could access things faster.
Nadella probably used it on some laptop (like Surface) for quick use.

 

[Skifi28]

PS3/360 resolutions AI upscaled. Pretty cool, right?!

That would have actually been pretty cool, except there's just basic FSR1 here so it looks very rough.

 

[Three]

Second, the performance drops way out of the VRR range very frequently in exploration and set piece encounters. Including w/ patches.

That's nonsense, it doesn't happen "very frequently" at all. The set pieces are the realtime cutscenes I'm referring to.

And finally, when you say this:



it is frankly BS, it achieves a notably higher frame rate in exploration for a lower res, they showed the initial town and the swampy marsh exploration as reference, the only place they're comparable is when PS5 drops to 720p in combat, where they're both locked 60.

Define notably here, this is the swamp section framerate:

Well within range

And I don't even know where you cooked up the the 'lower framerate for same res' part from, that's not even possible to check the way the game is at the moment.

Better stick to subjective opinions like how DF are teh bias, cause objectively speaking, that's three for three, Three.

Because I'm not clueless. Simple question, why do you think the quality mode looks like crap and runs at a lower res on Xbox Series X?

Because the game graphically doesn't perform as well on Series X hence why they had to lock it to 720p to begin with since it was incapable of maintaining it near 60fps. Framerate and resolution are almost interchangeable here unless you're limited by something else like CPU but if you were you wouldn't make quality mode look like crap by lowering resolution because it wouldn't help in any other bottleneck.
What makes you believe that somehow at the exact same resolution Series X would magically have better framerate now?


Of course there is a way to test it too but you've bought the crap analysis and seem to believe it's locked 60fps at 720p on XSX when it isn't. it drops too and you can test those sections like I already mentioned to you:

It's normally in the VRR range and DF didn't even show or test any sections that were taxing during those realtime cutscenes on Series X where it occasionally drops below. It will suffer the same if not worse because as I said this game is poorly optimised on Series X.

You didn't get that comprehensive comparison though, unfortunately

 

[rkofan87]

The PS5 literally locks the performance mode at 720p during each combat encounter. the rest of the time it runs at 1080p 40-50 fps.

This isnt really that unexpected.

wtf i played the whole game and both dlcs in 720p i did not know that.

 

[adamsapple]

That's nonsense, it doesn't happen "very frequently" at all. The set pieces are the realtime cutscenes I'm referring to.

It happens frequently enough that DF and a bunch of people posting in the OT preferred the 30fps mode. Entire stretches of town exploration run in the high 30s, low 40s, it's well documented enough that I'm surprised you're even bothering to debate it.

Because I'm not clueless. Simple question, why do you think the quality mode looks like crap and runs at a lower res on Xbox Series X?

Because squarw enix is kinda bad?

Once again, neither mode can be compared linearly so your opinion is wishful thinking at best.

Because the game graphically doesn't perform as well on Series X hence why they had to lock it to 720p to begin with since it was incapable of maintaining it near 60fps.

More unsubstantiated stuff.

What makes you believe that somehow at the exact same resolution Series X would magically have better framerate now?

When did I say better? I said even if it has exactly the same drops, the wider VRR will be more beneficial.

Also, keep in mind the PS5 version with Drs that touches 720p, still drops to 40s in simple town exploration.

For all of its other faults, the segments Df show of the SX are locked to 60 in town exploration.

Kinda sus you missed this, 'not being clueless ' and all.

You didn't get that comprehensive comparison though, unfortunately

No, but the places we did get show a notable difference.

It is what it is

 

[Three]

It happens frequently enough that DF and a bunch of people posting in the OT preferred the 30fps mode. Entire stretches of town exploration run in the high 30s, low 40s, it's well documented enough that I'm surprised you're even bothering to debate it.

DF again but those sections are not very frequent and it's mostly limited to the realtime cutscene showpieces.

Because squarw enix is kinda bad?

Once again, neither mode can be compared linearly so your opinion is wishful thinking at best.

You've missed the entire point of a GPU performance bottleneck. The quality mode is showing you that it is a rendering bottleneck.

More unsubstantiated stuff.



When did I say better? I said even if it has exactly the same drops, the wider VRR will be more beneficial.

Your VRR range PR nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with what you were disputing or my reply. This was what you said:

And I don't even know where you cooked up the the 'lower framerate for same res' part from, that's not even possible to check the way the game is at the moment.

Do you believe that XSX running at a lower resolution to maintain framerate in both framerate and quality mode would mean at the same resolution xbox will somehow run it the same or better? It's a rhetorical question because clearly the answer is no to anybody who has a clue.

Also, keep in mind the PS5 version with Drs that touches 720p, still drops to 40s in simple town exploration.

For all of its other faults, the segments Df show of the SX are locked to 60 in town exploration.

Kinda sus you missed this, 'not being clueless ' and all.


No, but the places we did get show a notable difference.

It is what it is

Yes with a way more notable difference in resolution of up to 2x which you keep forgetting. That has nothing to do with the simple fact I stated and you disputed. For the same resolution PS5 performs better, no DF did not show any taxing sections of the game on XSX nor any section where PS5 would be hitting 720p and 40fps as a comparison.

 

[omegasc]

Are there counts for PRO?
I just launched it... it's such a good game. just walking around hideaway and it looks so good.
Quality mode seems sharper than it did on base. Performance too but still quite lower res but not as bad as I remember on base

It's a lot better on the Pro. Still has drops out of VRR on intense eikon battles, and populated open fields but a lot less.
DF did a round up of Final Fantasy on the Pro like they did for Resident Evil.
As for the port... it probably doesn't really like slower clock since it was tailored to the PS5 with help from PlayStation even. PC will PC brute force, they didn't care to review the code for the Series S/X and went with the basic lower res and call it a day strategy, I guess.

 

[adamsapple]

DF again but those sections are not very frequent and it's mostly limited to the realtime cutscene showpieces.

I don't know why/how you keep saying this despite being shown pictures of towns running in mid to high 30's.

It is impressive.

I'll post it again but I'm fully expecting you to ignore it in the next post quote barrage.

You've missed the entire point of a GPU performance bottleneck. The quality mode is showing you that it is a rendering bottleneck.

No it doesn't. The quality mode shows that whoever ported it, messed things up, as simpler elements like foliage rendering is also effected.

Do you believe that XSX running at a lower resolution to maintain framerate in both framerate and quality mode would mean at the same resolution xbox will somehow run it the same or better? It's a rhetorical question because clearly the answer is no to anybody who has a clue.

Yes, the answer is obvious to anyone who has a clue , they're not running at the same metrics so it's not possible to do a linear comparison.

They both have ups and downs, PS5 currently runs with DRS to 1080p but with frequent drops and the DRS also reaches lows of 720p, SX runs at a static 720p but in the tested areas showed locked 60. The same tested field exploration areas showed drops to 40's in the video on PS5, this is an un-disputable fact.

I'll repeat it the third (fourth?) time in this topic since you seem to do performative elective reading: The SX's VRR range being broader (40hz vs 48hz) will give it an inherent advantage if the SX and PS5's performance were running at the same resolution and the same drops. It will stay within that VRR range a lot more often.

Yes with a way more notable difference in resolution of up to 2x which you keep forgetting. That has nothing to do with the simple fact I stated and you disputed. For the same resolution PS5 performs better, no DF did not show any taxing sections of the game on XSX nor any section where PS5 would be hitting 720p and 40fps as a comparison.

It doesn't, repeating the same incorrect thing over and over won't make it true.

 

[Three]

No it doesn't. The quality mode shows that whoever ported it, messed things up, as simpler elements like foliage rendering is also effected.

"Messed things up". amazing scientific/quantitative analysis there of the situation. What was that you were saying about "subjective opinions" again? What did they mess up exactly? they had a typo when entering the rendering resolution of 720p or 1200p? Everything is affected because it's at a lower rendering res overall.

Yes, the answer is obvious to anyone who has a clue , they're not running at the same metrics so it's not possible to do a linear comparison.

They both have ups and downs, PS5 currently runs with DRS to 1080p but with frequent drops and the DRS also reaches lows of 720p, SX runs at a static 720p but in the tested areas showed locked 60. The same tested field exploration areas showed drops to 40's in the video on PS5, this is an un-disputable fact.

It wasn't in the 40s in the same areas but again nobody is even disputing the idea that at "up to 2x" the resolution it can have a lower fps. What you are disputing is the fact that the rendering performance of this game is worse on Series X not that the resolution and framerate differ.

I'll repeat it the third (fourth?) time in this topic since you seem to do performative elective reading: The SX's VRR range being broader (40hz vs 48hz) will give it an inherent advantage if the SX and PS5's performance were running at the same resolution and the same drops. It will stay within that VRR range a lot more often.

Again I know you love to PR for xbox but what the fuck has this got to do with you disputing the idea that series x would run at a "lower framerate for same res". the game is poorly optimised on Series X. It runs at a lower res for the same framerate in the 30fps mode. It runs at 720p at all times in performance vs PS5 which can have up to 2x the resolution.

It doesn't, repeating the same incorrect thing over and over won't make it true.

It's impressive that you can't understand a very simple concept. You still haven't answered the easy question but love to deflect and set up a strawman about VRR range. Do you believe that it will run better on Series X at the same res when at the same framerate in both 30fps and 60fps the series X is running at a lower resolution? If you believe so why do you believe so because there is no logical way it makes sense. Even if you assume it is a CPU bottleneck it wouldn't explain why they opted for a lower resolution in the 30fps mode. "Whoever ported it messed things up in that mode" fucking ridiculous idea. It's because it isn't running as well on the Series X and pixel performance and framerate are almost interchangeable with this type of bottleneck. Other times when you're CPU bottlenecked sure but this isn't that when you've dropped to 30 and having to lower rendering resolution.