Sseklebeast
Member
Little over 2gb.
-
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.
VG Tech: Dark Souls 3 Patch 1.11 PS4 Pro Frame Rate Test (Unlocked Frame-rate)
- Thread starter LelouchZero
- Start date
Little over 2gb.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ok but it literally cannot be worse than 30 FPS w/ drops AND worse frame pacing issues, there's also more to this than just the maths. General improvement in response and latency matter too. Otherwise every 60 FPS game with slowdowns would be considered a mess.
For the few people in this topic who seemingly have downloaded and tested it, they've reported it's much smoother to play now. I think that needs to be mentioned more, the actual results of the patch.
phantasmic_glaive
Member
If they left the frame rate unlocked wouldn't it be better with boost mode on? I know they say it doesn't overlap in some ways.. but Battlefield did, didn't it? They should have clarified if it was also running boost mode or not. Ima try it and bet that's why some users are saying it's good.
Boost mode has to be able to work with this. There is no other reason I see to just randomly unlock a frame rate.
Boost mode has to be able to work with this. There is no other reason I see to just randomly unlock a frame rate.
kristianity77
Member
Boost mode won't do anything. This game has now had a pro patch which means it's already using the higher clock speeds and extra power of the PS4 by default. You can't tap into unused power twice.
phantasmic_glaive
Member
Oh.. thanks. I could've sworn there were pro patched games seeing different results on boost, why I cited BF1. But I'll take your word it.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Digital Foundry video for this patch is up. Mostly info we already derived from this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrR3ak6dMwM
- No resolution or graphical effects upgrades.
- Unlocked Frame rate (no option to cap it).
- 36 ~ 60 FPS depending on on-screen load.
- Crisper control response due to unlocked frame rate.
- Lowest frame rate: 36 during a boss battle.
- Averages around 45~50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrR3ak6dMwM
- No resolution or graphical effects upgrades.
- Unlocked Frame rate (no option to cap it).
- 36 ~ 60 FPS depending on on-screen load.
- Crisper control response due to unlocked frame rate.
- Lowest frame rate: 36 during a boss battle.
- Averages around 45~50.
LelouchZero
Member
Cool, thanks for posting a link and another summary!
brickarts295
Member
Better this than frame pacing I guessing.
From never said that, and Sony said it in general, not for Bloodborne.
The excuse for Bloodborne is clear, game is dead content wise. Dark Souls 3 got patched because there's a new DLC coming next week and a GOTY edition coming next month. Bloodborne has been more than a year without any content. FROM is not going to bother.
JetSetRadio
Banned
It does feel kinda different, more responsive but if it's better? I don't remember the camera being as janky. I enjoyed ds3 on ps4, I mean if you're able to complete it solo it shouldn't have bothered you.
Without a tech like Gsync you're stuck with highly unstable, juddery image and due to it being unlocked you have stupidly borked frame times making everything feel like shit.
It's the worst of both worlds.
I really don't know why Sony didn't include free sync compatibility with the pro. Would have been an easy solution to the problem and it comes for free due to the gpu they're using.
Please put me in a timeline where Gsync is integrated into all TVs and optimized to function with all console games.
2 years from now?
You don't need adaptive sync, just disable v-sync. Add support for high refresh rates where tearing is greatly reduced and call it a day. Don't need special hardware for that. Doesn't matter what the performance is like, locked 30, variable 30-60, it's always better with v-sync off on higher refresh rates.
Fbh
Member
Just tried this one out for like half an hour going to various locations.
To me, honestly, it feels great.
You can tell it's not locked 60fps but to me it felt a whole lot smoother and more responsive than before.
I still think there needs to be an option to lock it at 30fps, but even if it was there I'd personally not use it.
Is it the ideal pro support? No, but I think it offers a notorious improvement and I'm happy I'll be able to play both DLC's like this.
To me, honestly, it feels great.
You can tell it's not locked 60fps but to me it felt a whole lot smoother and more responsive than before.
I still think there needs to be an option to lock it at 30fps, but even if it was there I'd personally not use it.
Is it the ideal pro support? No, but I think it offers a notorious improvement and I'm happy I'll be able to play both DLC's like this.
Around 2 gb
What a huge improvement over what I played 200 hours of up until last night. If they did this for Bloodborne I would be SO happy. It is a night and day difference in such a positive way. People want other options and that's fine, I want them too, but I will take this patch any day compared to what we had before.
ISee
Member
I reinstalled DS3 today on PC just to check out PC cpu performance and the engine seems to be very reliant on one thread (CPU load on a 7700k @4.8ghz can go up to 80% on one core).
Seeing this it is even more surprising how well the game runs on ps4pro tbh, while giving a clue why the game isn't able to reach 60fps there. But granted maybe the engine is better optimized on consoles when it comes to multi-threading.
example 1
example 2
edit:
BTW the GPU isn't even boosting to it's max clock speed of 2038mhz @ 1440p.
Seeing this it is even more surprising how well the game runs on ps4pro tbh, while giving a clue why the game isn't able to reach 60fps there. But granted maybe the engine is better optimized on consoles when it comes to multi-threading.
example 1
example 2
edit:
BTW the GPU isn't even boosting to it's max clock speed of 2038mhz @ 1440p.
Jose92
[Membe
Dark souls 3 engine is inherently last gen on the way threading is handled .
pretty done
Member
God damn shame Bloodborne came out before the PS4 Pro. Greatest Souls will be forever stuck with garbage performance and the laggiest of controls.
LelouchZero
Member
At lower clock-speeds the load appears to be spread across the cores more. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.
This is my i7 4790K dropped from 4.7GHz to 1.3GHz.
This is it at 4.7GHz.
ISee
Member
Hmm interesting so the engine just doesn't bother to use all threads in some cases because it is sure that one core will be able to do all the work?
thelastword
Banned
Thank you, so surprised when I see some people say they don't want FROM to touch BB if this is the sort of patch it gets......I'd take an unlocked framerate of BloodBorne over a (non-framepacing) 30fps line of the game anyday....
Yes, I agree these guys should get their capped 30fps option, but I want devs to continue to offer and prioritize unlocked framerates too. As it stands, this is a very basic, no optimization patch..If they continue to work on the game they will improve performance even more. The only way we can see and appreciate future improvements in via an unlocked option...,..
If BB is better with boost mode on, how much better is it going to be with the full hardware unlock of PRO...I just wish FROM could do a bit more optimization work to hit that locked 60fps on that one...
Hmm...seems like the game is mostly 50+ in that video and it's hitting 60 in many areas....It's looking like it stays between 53-58 fps for quite a bit of the time....
I still feel some of these dips are not all CPU related and some optimization work could help this title to round up even better to 60fps if FROM is up to it...
Well, I've always said that the jaguars are not as bad as people paint them, not suggesting they are I7 tier either, but they can definitely hold their own. It would be great if FROM used GPGPU compute to aid in jaguar CPU deficiencies, but we know that's not happening...It's FROM afterall.....One thing I will say, I'm pretty impressed with this unoptimized patch...It's much better than FFXV and it looks like they can continue to improve that metric going forward....(in future patches)
But as you said, if this game is not greatly multithreaded, it speaks of some of the issues it's been having and of the engine itself, even on PC with i7's, which makes PRO's performance here pretty admirable......
I say, bring on that Bloodborne patch.....Eh, let Bluepoint or Hexadrive do it though....I think the hardware is capable of running this better, but we need some tech experts like Hexadrive to shift some of that CPU load over to more of the Jaguar cores and include the use of GPGPU......I don't think we can judge the hardware here for not holding a locked 60fps...That little extra push it needs is being held over by the devs and the engine itself...
LelouchZero
Member
I'm not quite sure.
I gave the process a brief look and the scaleform middleware was consuming a sizable amount of CPU time, perhaps that was spreading some the load? I'm not sure really.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
NXGamer weighs in on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjE_G2SfR5k
- Pro patch has drastically reduced frame-pacing issues.
- Pro patch has zero frame spikes as opposed to 157 50ms spikes (in sample video)
- NXG declares this patch as the best console version of the game.
- "There's no way I'l go back and you'd really be struggling to see anyone who would also chose the same (older version)"
For those complaining, don't use FFXV as reference, the frame rate there sticks in high 30's to low 40's hence the uneven feel. Frame rate is mostly above 50 fps here, it's a huge improvement regardless of the lessened framespikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjE_G2SfR5k
- Pro patch has drastically reduced frame-pacing issues.
- Pro patch has zero frame spikes as opposed to 157 50ms spikes (in sample video)
- NXG declares this patch as the best console version of the game.
- "There's no way I'l go back and you'd really be struggling to see anyone who would also chose the same (older version)"
For those complaining, don't use FFXV as reference, the frame rate there sticks in high 30's to low 40's hence the uneven feel. Frame rate is mostly above 50 fps here, it's a huge improvement regardless of the lessened framespikes.
Yeah this is why I don't understand why people are upset about this. People always talk about PC games playing at a smooth 60 fps and that's rarely the case unless you have really powerful hardware. I would generall be able to play games that would fluctuate between 40-60 and hardly even noticed. It's only noticeable when things really would start to crawl. Often times the framerate dips are quick so you don't really notice either. To me there is nothing wrong with a fluctuating framerate.
It's funny hearing this for a console version.
Anyways, I also believe it's better than the regular PS4 version, yes it's not IDEAL and the framerate range is at a weird spot, but unless you're super susceptible to framerate issues (and if you were, why would you be playing this on anything but a PC?) It won't bother you.
Plus, stamping out the framepacing problems is issue #1.
LelouchZero
Member
Awesome, thanks for posting!
One of the main reasons people PC Game is to have better performance, and there is no rarity when it comes to sticking to a locked frame-rate on capable hardware unless the software has notable performance issues and scales poorly across hardware.
Providing the system is well equipped for the software, and you're using sensible graphical settings then there wont be much trouble sticking to a locked frame-rate.
There's even scalability options to improve the performance in the form of things such as graphical settings.
Locked frame-rates are not an impossible feat, there are many console games that run at locked frame-rates, and many PC games can run at locked frame-rates on capable hardware as-well, it doesn't even have to be 'really powerful hardware' such as the latest high-end GPUs and CPUs, it could be mid-range or high-end GPUs that released over 2 years ago like 2014's GTX 970, or 2012's Radeon 7970/7950, with CPUs that predate the current generation consoles such as the i7 2600K or 2500K of 2011.
dynamitejim
Member
It can't be the GPU holding it back. The game does 1080p60 on a PC with a similar GPU just fine. OTOH, I don't see anything in DS3 or BB that seems more intense than DS2 in terms of game logic so I don't see why SOTFS can run at 60 but the newer games don't. Very strange.
It probably is more of the CPU. My i5 4440 can hit up to ~80%+ when running with a RX 470, so Jaguar probably doesn't fair quite as well.
thelastword
Banned
Many of the things I've been saying, it's great that NXgamer confirms it....Input and controller response is much better here than the 30fps option and it's pretty much how DS3 would run with boost mode on.....(if it was uncapped)
There's no touch on resolution, graphics or anything, but the hardware is good enough to get it to average at 50fps without any real effort from FROM.....I hope they continue to update this title and provide further improvements however, but as it stands the performance here is pretty noteworthy....and is the best way to play on consoles. I'm not sure how any one can contest that...
pretty done
Member
Don't think you're looking hard enough lol
AgentOtaku
Member
Nice to see the analysis and I certainly feel much better about picking it up now
What are you suggesting is more complex in terms of gameplay code? He's not talking about fancy graphics etc. Because yeah, there might be more advanced animations and cooler looking particle effects for spells etc, but swinging a sword is still just swinging a sword.
Risk Breaker
Member
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Could someone please explain to me why anyone would want this on a fixed refresh, 60Hz display. Please. Anyone. Unlocked framerates make absolutely zero sense. Why are console developers doing this so much now. So they can claim it's 60fps?
Frostman
Member
It sounds a lot worse than it is. This patch beats the frame-pacing problem anyday.
JetSetRadio
Banned
1.12 is out?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
As stated, the wording makes it sound much worse than it actually is. 33 is the lowest reported frame during heavy stress, mostly the game sticks to 50~52 FPS range during exploration and less-hectic combat which is a huge improvement over 30 anyway ... and then the patch pretty much eliminates frame spikes which is the cherry on the cake.
Yes, one can argue that a butter smooth 30 FPS with no framer pacing and maybe some visual enhancements may have been the better way to go for this game .. but considering the developer it's a huge positive that they addressed frame pacing, something prevalent in their engine, one way or another.