VG Tech: Far Cry 6 PS5 & Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Test

Topher said:
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods
Click to expand...

As I am happy with the S, as soon as I can upgrade with a retail grab/trade, I'm doing it.
 
guiltyofbeing said:
As I am happy with the S, as soon as I can upgrade with a retail grab/trade, I'm doing it.
Click to expand...

It is a fun game. I bet it will run/look just fine on your XSS.

I'm playing it on PC with Ubisoft+. I do find it a bit funny though with all this resolution talk and here I am lowering my resolution on PC to 1440p so I can get 100+ FPS.
 
Mr Moose said:
Game looks kinda shit, and that AI walking in the first 10 seconds... 2006 NPCs.
Series X takes this one with the higher res (though I think there are a few settings that are a bit higher on PS5?).
Fuck screen tearing.
Click to expand...
It looks abysmal next to Battlefield. The lighting and foliage is from the PS3 era. It's that bad.
 
Topher said:
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I can easily tell the difference but no one in their right mind would get the game on both consoles and run them at the same time on two identical panels, so it doesn't matter at all.
 
Topher said:
You would have to run the games side by side and going back and forth to try and find the smallest difference and even then, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to tell one from the other.

This is just a scorecard in the console war. XSX has the highest score. Warriors rejoice!


mad season 2 GIF by American Gods
Click to expand...
I think both versions are equally bad. Screen tearing and really dated looking graphics. It somehow looks worse than FC5.
 
rushgore said:
I'm pretty sure I can easily tell the difference but no one in their right mind would get the game on both consoles and run them at the same time on two identical panels, so it doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know, man. That resolution is dynamically adjusting all the time. We are really only talking about the edge cases. There is a reason why we have to folks like DF and VG Tech tell us what the resolutions are. We simply wouldn't know otherwise. DF has even questioned if all this pixel counting is worth the effort.

But yeah, like you said, no one is going to have the games running simultaneously anyway so....

Seinfeld Whatever GIF by MOODMAN
 
rushgore said:
1908p vs 2160p may seem a small difference (and actually mathematically small) but a 2160p framebuffer will result in a 1:1 pixel match. That's what creates this noticeable difference when both consoles render at their possible highest resolutions.
Click to expand...
99.9% of the people on this forum or in the comment section of DF videos wouldn't be able to tell when DRS is active or what current resolution is running at without help.
 
Alright so, 8% resolution advantage at minimum for Series X, the only console that reaches 4K in this game, and at best it holds a 28% resolution edge over PS5 while also demonstrating better framerate by about 2%.

The Series X version of the game tears just 2% of the time in the frames tested. The PS5 version of the game tears just 4% of the time in the frames tested.

And I'm going to be fair and consistent and not act like a fanboy on this one.

NONE of these consoles have bad performance. Not one. Would we maybe like to see some improvements if possible, especially in those cutscenes? Certainly, but what we have here is the PS5 maintaining 60fps 95% of the time while going no lower than a resolution in the range of 2944x1656p and as high as 3392x1908. THAT IS AN EXCELLENT SHOWING IN THIS GAME! This is a demanding game. This isn't shit performance. Anyone suggesting it is is trolling.

Series X is doing its damn thing here also. 97% of the time Series X is maintaining 60fps while delivering a full 3840x2160 at best and around 3072x1728 at worst. This is fucking fantastic in this game looking like it does, doing what it does during gameplay, and the way the player can interact with the world.

This is a great fucking sign for both of these consoles for where we are headed in this gen.

And what do we have here... little man Series S in my eyes meeting its promise as an entry level next gen console with flying fucking colors. Topping out at 1440p and only dropping to around 1080p while delivering superior 60fps performance 99% of the time compared to both consoles, and does so with only 0.15% tearing compared to PS5's 4% and Series X's 2%.

I don't wanna hear anyone else tell me Series S doesn't belong. If you target this thing correctly it will perform!

Ubisoft did not do a bad job here. Just clean up them cutscenes plz.
 
Last edited:
DForce said:
99.9% of the people on this forum or in the comment section of DF videos wouldn't be able to tell when DRS is active or what current resolution is running at without help.
Click to expand...
Depends on how often the resolution is that low. I would totally be able to tell the game isn't running at an optimal resolution if it constantly looks soft.
 
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.

Looking at it from a production issue, you're giving a lot of attention to a bunch of guys who are making a living spending all day testing video game pixel and frame rate counts. And it's not even them counting it. They got software to do the analysis. All they are doing is writing an article based on the results.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
It is a fun game. I bet it will run/look just fine on your XSS.

I'm playing it on PC with Ubisoft+. I do find it a bit funny though with all this resolution talk and here I am lowering my resolution on PC to 1440p so I can get 100+ FPS.
Click to expand...
This so much!

Drop that res, max that framerate and then bump those settings if you have headroom!
 
StreetsofBeige said:
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.

Looking at it from a production issue, you're giving a lot of attention to a bunch of guys who are making a living spending all day testing video game pixel and frame rate counts. And it's not even them counting it. They got software to do the analysis. All they are doing is writing an article based on the results.
Click to expand...

I respect your post, but they're definitely doing analysis of the frames manually cause there's no easy way to do that automatically. They're putting in some work for us, gotta give them their props for that. Yes, this stuff is mostly used for console wars nonsense, and I won't say I'm completely innocent of that because I'll be honest I went and rubbed the 4K texture pack stuff in some people's faces on twitter after these results in my pettiest way possible, but I was just having fun. Other than that, I think all three consoles did a fantastic job on this game. I feel Ubisoft made an excellent decision with this game's performance and opted to not go with Ray Tracing.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
I respect your post, but they're definitely doing analysis of the frames manually cause there's no easy way to do that automatically. They're putting in some work for us, gotta give them their props for that. Yes, this stuff is mostly used for console wars nonsense, and I won't say I'm completely innocent of that because I'll be honest I went and rubbed the 4K texture pack stuff in some people's faces on twitter after these results in my pettiest way possible, but I was just having fun. Other than that, I think all three consoles did a fantastic job on this game. I feel Ubisoft made an excellent decision with this game's performance and opted to not go with Ray Tracing.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Maybe it's not as automated as I think, but still a weird way to try to make a living. Its not like they are doing it for free for shits and giggles after dinner.

As for RT, they might add it in with a patch. What they could had done is add an RT mode right off the bat. I dont follow UBI games, so I dont know their track record of recent games regarding RT in or not, and RT patched in or not.
 
Last edited:
Impressions after 1.5 hours of gameplay on Xbox Series X:

PROS
  • Game looks gorgeous, (much better than I thought it would!); the colorful environments of Yara look stunning on Dolby Vision.
  • Framerate has been silky smooth and locked to 60fps, no slowdowns so far or screen tearing.
  • Loading times are fast - from main menu (or fast travel) to gameplay in ~5 seconds.
  • Game supports Quick Resume (pleasant surprise given the lack of QR support lately in new games)
  • Tons of accessibility options - from larger text sizes to highlighting enemies and/or items that can be picked-up.
  • Story is interesting so far, cut scenes are well made, nice voice acting so far.
  • Controls are tight and responsive.
CONS
  • No FOV slider; current FOV is locked to 75 with no option to increase; not a dealbreaker but I wish I could see more.
  • The confusion and misinformation around the HD texture pack and whether it's already included in the digital download really annoyed me this AM.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
For this game comparison, Series X won. I know some guy on the first page brought up reflections are supposedly better on PS5 according to him. Who knows. Maybe they are.

But at the end of the day, the majority of games will look and run pretty similar. Hell, even the loading times are going to be pretty similar. If the game has a Switch version to compare against, or it's PS5/Series X vs last gen systems, thats a different story. They'll be big gaps there.

I have my laughs with console war DF/VG/NX Gamer threads too, but arent you guys tired of it? I am.
Click to expand...

I agree, who cares who won. The differences are small, they won't matter for most of us. But at least some of us can have other motivations. For myself, I like to understand things as I'm able, and have things make sense.

The results on this game do make sense. That's actually pretty cool.

avin
 
Last edited:
I think its pretty cool that this game is performing exactly how most of us thought these generation of consoles should perform. I wonder if this is potentially the point that we will see this as standard throughout the gen......

....Who the fuck am I kidding we will still get outliers acting strange on each platform and the wars will rage on!

haha!
 
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728

XSS:
Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080

The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656

Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
 
Last edited:
avin said:
I agree, who cares who won. The differences are small, they won't matter for most of us. But at least some of us can have other motivations. For myself, I like to understand things as I'm able, and have things make sense.

The results on this game do make sense. That's actually pretty cool.

avin
Click to expand...

Yea, ultimately it doesn't matter, both platform owners are well served, and this does seem, to me at least, one of the more interesting far cry games recently. We do know, however, if ever the results were the opposite this would be an entirely, entirely different type of thread. :P
 
Playing on Series S and I'm impressed. Seems MS is putting some effort in those tools. Looking forward to see how Infinite turns out.
 
Md Ray said:
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728

XSS:
Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080

The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656

Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
Click to expand...
I would assume max res is 2160 but just very rare.
 
Md Ray said:
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728

XSS:
Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080

The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656

Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
Click to expand...

ps5 has worse FPS and torn twice as much as XSX shows ps5 needs to be downscale some more
 
I played this yesterday on my Series X and I didn't think it was near 4k at all. I was thinking it was around 1440p (which I was happy with)
I will check it out again later.
 
Bogroll said:
I played this yesterday on my Series X and I didn't think it was near 4k at all. I was thinking it was around 1440p (which I was happy with)
I will check it out again later.
Click to expand...
Looked 4K to me. It may be the form of anti-aliasing they're using that may give it a "softer" appearance, but I quite like it. Looks really organic. I DO wish all games had a letterboxed ultra-wide mode like Death Stranding Def. Edition on PS5. It's sooooo good.
 
Md Ray said:
Judging by VGT's pixel count data, Ubisoft's dynamic resolution setting for FC6 looks something like this on Xbox Series X | S:

XSX:
Target resolution: 3840x2160
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 80%

80% = 3072x1728

XSS:
Target resolution: 2560x1440
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value 100%
Min res value: 75%

75% = 1920x1080

The Series S gets a bit more aggressive dynamic res setting along with cutbacks to draw distances, so it makes sense that it has the most stable 60fps in comparison, which is great.

For PS5 though, it's kinda odd...

PS5:
Target resolution: 3392x1908
Target frame rate: 60
Max res value: 100%
Min res value: 87%

87% = 2944x1656

Unless the PS5's max target res is also 2160p and VGT failed to notice, the min res value based on VGT's data is 87%. So under heavy GPU load conditions, PS5 gets less wiggle room to adjust its res, hence there's more tearing, less consistent 60fps than both the versions.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the DRS is set for 2160p on PS5.
 
Negotiator101 said:
Did you not see the video? It's not 2160p on PS5.
Click to expand...
That is not what I said.

The DRS is set for 2160p in this game… that is how DRS works… you set a target resolution (2160p) and how aggressive it will be… after that the resolution is dynamic choose by runtime based in how much the GPU can do to reach the target framerate.

That doesn't means the target resolution will be reached… the GPU can stay below that making you think the highest resolution is lower than target resolution.
 
Last edited:
ethomaz said:
That is not what I said.

The DRS is set for 2160p in this game… that is how DRS works… you set a target resolution (2160p) and how aggressive it will be… after that the resolution is dynamic choose by runtime based in how much the GPU can do to reach the target framerate.
Click to expand...
That would mean the PS5's highest resolution is 2160p but VG tech only found 3392x1908 as the highest resolution, so where are you getting the 2160p from?
 
Negotiator101 said:
That would mean the PS5's highest resolution is 2160p but VG tech only found 3392x1908 as the highest resolution, so where are you getting the 2160p from?
Click to expand...
Both are unrelated.

The DRS is set to 2160p and the max resolution depends how much the GPU can do… so it can even be way lower than 1908p.

The fact the max resolution he found was 1908p already tells you the DRS is set to 2160p… it it max was below 1800p I could be doubt between 1800p or 2160p but he already found resolution way higher than 1800p so 2160p is the right guess.

Hugest resolution found has nothing to do with how the DRS is set.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS5 getting price hike in Europe and AUS
2 3
143
4K
xcalibersa replied
LTTP: Gears of War 2 (2008) via Series X BC
5
272
HRK69 replied
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle on PS5 Pro: Ray traced native 4k at 60 fps
2 3 4 5
240
9K
DenchDeckard replied
Indiana Jones PS5 Physical Edition requires Internet to Install
News Platform  2
59
1K
vodka-bull replied
DLSS 4.0 Super Resolution Stress Test: Does The Transformer Model Fix The Biggest Issues?
Analysis Hardware 
24
1K
BennyBlanco replied
Top Bottom