• 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.

[DF] Destiny 2 PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S - A True Next-Gen Advantage

Beer Baelly

Al Pachinko, Konami President
Why?

I mean it's not like it's playing games badly and it's certainly a good value at it's price point.

a8c.jpeg
 
I mean it's not like there's a massive difference between the two. If I bought a 499$ console and it was vastly inferior to another 499$ I would be mad. But that's not happening here.
Well that other console is also sold for $399.99, with a next-gen controller that provides an experience differentiator to boot. All things relative if you have to give up one product for the other due to time constraints on playtime (life) or financial reasons then one product is a superior proposition to the other. That's the purpose of being informed. Who knows what OP's situation is.

But as you've said yourself in the past, a win is a win. I do agree that the differences here, while clear, are not as significant as previous games like AC: Valhalla or Dirt 5.
 
Last edited:

Entroyp

Member
I mean it's not like there's a massive difference between the two. If I bought a 499$ console and it was vastly inferior to another 499$ I would be mad. But that's not happening here.

If he has been listening to Phil and his minion’s propaganda he was expecting a generational leap and 40-60 fps advantage on every multiplat game out there.

It’s easy to be disappointed when in reality both perform virtually the same.
 
Usually DRS is tied with GPU usage. If it's a CPU bottleneck reducing the resolution won't help much to improve the framerate.

That's possible also, but there are drops in 60fps mode, and I think they are only due to GPU usage as the game is running at higher frame rate level in other mode.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
You know that on XSS in Dirt 5 in 120fps mode resolution dips to 540p. Yes, people are asking for 540p in 120fps mode. Probably makes sense. :messenger_beaming:
Literally nobody wants 720p or less in something like destiny.
In Dirt 5 sure it kinda makes sense its a racing game small details dont actually matter all that much, reacting to other cars, the track matter more.

But imagine trying to shoot at someone who is comprised of 12 pixels how do you even know where their head is?

If it dropped to 540p id assume the person is playing on a 1080p144 monitor so maybe the screen size isnt so bad it could be passable.
But ive tried dropping resolutions to 6800GS(Ultra) days.......and its bad, its really bad going down below 1 megapixel in resolution.

Good on bungie for not forcing that mode here.
No one was going to use it.
 
Well that other console is also sold for $399.99, with a next-gen controller with an experience differentiator to boot. All things relative if you have to give up one for the other due to time contraints (life) or financial reasons then one product is a superior proposition to the other. Who knows what OP's situation is.

But as you've said yourself in the past, a win is a win. I do agree that the differences here, while clear, are not as significant as previous games like AC: Valhalla or Dirt 5.

I do say that a win is a win. But sometimes it's so small that it doesn't even matter.

If he has been listening to Phil and his minion’s propaganda he was expecting a generational leap and 40-60 fps advantage on every multiplat game out there.

It’s easy to be disappointed when in reality both perform virtually the same.

Well if someone is extremely disappointed with the XSXs power they only have themselves to blame. Both systems are powerful and I don't believe people should be disappointed with either one. Although I do admit that Microsoft should have restrained themselves with that marketing a bit. If they left it as "our most powerful Xbox" there wouldn't be an issue here.
 

Snake29

RSI Employee of the Year
Imagine having bought the Series X solely based on the notion that it was going to run multiplatform games better.

The warning signs were there for months but hey, what do developers (or those with close ties to developers) know?

Because everyone was stuck in MS bullshit Power hype and fancy words nonsense. Sony was just laughing all that time when people created threads like "Why is Sony quiet about the PS5".

With the launch of both consoles, Sony was like "hold my beer it's time".
 

Md Ray

Member
Cross posting from the next gen speculation thread.

once again, Tom and Alex are baffled by the performance drops in the XSX version. Alex literally says they dont know why Bungie would allow these drops. Like are you fucking kidding me? Bungie isnt allowing shit. The XSX simply isnt able to run the game at that framerate at all times. Imagine if Alex reviewed a GPU where the GPU isnt able to do locked native 4k 60 fps in a benchmark test and then blamed the benchmark instead of the GPU for the poor performance.

This is getting ridiculous tbh. This is like the 15th game they have reviewed which has performance problems on the xsx and while I am open to the tools conspiracy theory or excuse or whatever you want to call it, I think it's fair to say that at the moment the XSX isnt as capable as the PS5. There is no need to appear surprised or shocked or make excuses or blame developers. Very bizarre.
They allowed those drops by running XSX version at 2160p though. They should've just dropped the resolution a bit below PS5 to bring the perf back up to the same level as PS5.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
They allowed those drops by running XSX version at 2160p though. They should've just dropped the resolution a bit below PS5 to bring the perf back up to the same level as PS5.

Then he would just say he doesn't understand why the resolution is lower.

It's like some people don't want to accept the reality due to months and months of obsessing over teraflops in the time leading up to launch.
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
Whats more bizarre is why the 60 fps mode is only 1080p? The x1s is 1080p at just 1.3 tflops. This thing has 4 rdna 2.0 tflops and an 8 core 3.4 ghz cpu. It should be able to run it at 1440p 60 fps easily. Surely there is a bottleneck somewhere in the system.
Series S' pixel fillrate, triangle rasterization due to low GPU frequency, and memory bandwidth especially are dogshit.
 
Last edited:

Fake

Member
Yeah its bizarre, its like 'why aren't we getting the performance and results we thought would happen'.

Ps5 is just more efficient, its better designed.

There's so much to performance so everyone who jumped on teraflops alone has been shown up and continues to be so in every comparison.

All the clever things Sony has done Some still unconfirmed are why its performing similar or better.

Cache scrubbers, everything running faster, etc.

I wonder if it was the other way round and ps5 was slightly less performing would they question why bungie would allow this or just say its the expected power gap (lol) showing.

Isn't it about time these tech sites actually properly investigated why ps5 is perforimgn better and trying to understand the results and the hardware in all its intricacies.


I hate to admit (and little tired of consoles war in fact), but you made a damn valid point. Either they're expecting to Series X beat PS5 or if PS5 don't match/hold the frame rate with Series X they would say 'thats fine, Series X is more powerful so the results make sense'.

Maybe 'this is the way that should be, Series X is more poweful, so the drops on PS5 are valid'.

I guess they're in this perpetual Teraflops cycle. Nothing can be done about. Until PS5 loss in perfomance, they will not question the dev works about 'why the drops' just because 12TF.

Is just like all the Digital Foundry staff are on the first page of our Neogaf Next Gen Thread, imprision by the Teraflops differential.
 
Last edited:
Then he would just say he doesn't understand why the resolution is lower.

It's like some people don't want to accept the reality due to months and months of obsessing over teraflops in the time leading up to launch.
A more cynical person would say reality is already well established. It's however part of the implied job description to behave that way - purposefully naive. That "cynical" view is a harder pill to digest in discourse for other users - makes the argument too confrontational, forces to pick a stand. It just makes folks too uncomfortable so other, weaker, probabilities are explored as the source of motivation.
 
Last edited:
People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.
 
People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.

Either it's the tools or some weird bottleneck. That's what many are trying to determine from these comparisons.

Something definitely isn't right with the XSX but we don't have confirmation of anything yet. All we can do is guess.
 

J_Gamer.exe

Member
Honestly I would love it if Digital Foundry made a video summarizing the differences in multiplats and why it's happening. I'm getting tired of their caveman syndrome.

i don't know idk GIF't know idk GIF


At least use your technical knowledge to guess at what's going on.
Exactly, Richard was happy to guess at loads of stuff, ps5 clocking system and the 'boost clock' he calls and it still did.

I think any pre launch fud worrying about how it might downclock has been shown up to be complete bollocks.

Just as a lot of us said it was, the ps5s innovative variable clocks are a major boost for it, very clever add in smartshift and its another win in the efficiency gains.

How is it many of us were speculating on here with only the info available to us all and largely got it right, seemingly a lot more correct that somewhere like DF with their insider access etc etc.

Bizarre situation. All the relevant info was there, we had the devs saying closest systems ever, also devs saying its a shame as ps5 is actually better in ways not portrayed after the road to ps5.

Things like cu utilisation with cache scrubbers and all other clever things made sense to me and others of how that would improve efficiency and effectively allow it punch above its teraflop number, which alone is a daft measure as proven. Sony has made some incredible gains in efficiency and that was clear from the ssd and io alone. To remove all bottlenecks was no easy task showed the level they were going to go with efficiency to me.
 

Fake

Member
People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.

You're forgetting many others factors in your post, not to mention using 'brute force' as an argument never was valid.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.
Maybe, just maybe....there is something about the way the Series X is designed?

At this point this has to be considered a reason. Ppl cant keep dismissing this.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, Richard was happy to guess at loads of stuff, ps5 clocking system and the 'boost clock' he calls and it still did.

Just as a lot of us said it was, the ps5s innovative variable clocks are a major boost for it, very clever add in smartshift and its another win in the efficiency gains.

How is it many of us were speculating on here with only the info available to us all and largely got it right, seemingly a lot more correct that somewhere like DF with their insider access etc etc.

Bizarre situation. All the relevant info was there, we had the devs saying closest systems ever, also devs saying its a shame as ps5 is actually better in ways not portrayed after the road to ps5.

If you want someone that codes for a living, with a semblance of authority on the matter that knows his stuff then you go for NXGamer NXGamer ... not glorified tech journalist with an affinity for tech who found a niche to exploit. And no authority on the matter will ever remove personal bias.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Banned
Cross posting from the next gen speculation thread.

once again, Tom and Alex are baffled by the performance drops in the XSX version. Alex literally says they dont know why Bungie would allow these drops. Like are you fucking kidding me? Bungie isnt allowing shit. The XSX simply isnt able to run the game at that framerate at all times. Imagine if Alex reviewed a GPU where the GPU isnt able to do locked native 4k 60 fps in a benchmark test and then blamed the benchmark instead of the GPU for the poor performance.

This is getting ridiculous tbh. This is like the 15th game they have reviewed which has performance problems on the xsx and while I am open to the tools conspiracy theory or excuse or whatever you want to call it, I think it's fair to say that at the moment the XSX isnt as capable as the PS5. There is no need to appear surprised or shocked or make excuses or blame developers. Very bizarre.
Series X better at doing calculations, but has slower GPU clocks, slower ROPs and no cache scrubbers?
 

GHG

Gold Member
People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.

We've seen the same thing happen in a PC space where AMD GPU's will lag behind less powerful (on paper) Nvidia GPU's when running the same game at the same settings. Why? 9 times out of 10 it's drivers.

Ultimately it's not the spec sheet that matters because that's only one part of the equation, it's the end result and how the hardware performs in real world gaming scenarios. If all everyone cared about was spec sheet wars and specifically focused on teraflops while ignoring everything else then the Vega 64 would have been a resounding success and outsold the high end Nvidia alternatives available at the time.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Series S is not pulling it's weight. 60fps is a given due to the new CPU, but the GPU should be able to do more than 1080P.
My 1.5 tflops GTX 570 and a 4 core single threaded AMD CPU from 2010 was able to run Destiny 2 at 720p 60 fps easily. a 4 tflops next GPU with a 16 thread CPU shouldnt have any issues running it at 1440p 60 fps.

People who believe that it's normal for the Series X to fall below 60 in this game have clearly never played the game on PC.

An overclocked GTX1080 was already able to push 4k at almost flawless 60 with high settings (I should know, I've played it like that - downsampled to 1440p). A 1080ti was hitting locked 60 at 4k... with even higher settings (3D Ambient Occlusion).

Both these cards are quite a bit slower than the Series X and this console version is still not using 3D Ambient Occlusion but it struggles to hit a rock solid 60fps? Yeah, that is totally understandable. Nothing weird going on here. Keep on console warring guys.
I can confirm this. I didnt play it much but I ran it on my rtx 2080 at native 4k 60 fps and had no issues. I will run some more tests tonight but i dont think i ever updated the game since the latest versions came out.

One quick correction though, the 1080 Ti is roughly on par with the 2080 sans RT cores, and MS themselves told DF to expect 2080 performance from the xsx based on their gears 5 benchmarks. 1080 is quite a bit slower than the XSX GPU yes, but 1080 Ti should be on par when it comes to standard rasterization.
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
I regret buying the Series X with each passing day

I don't in the least.

The problem isnt so much the machine its the expectations people had for it.

So many people pushed 12 tf would destroy the PS5 and people bought into it when certain people close to devs said all along the PS5 was going to surprise people.

For me the Series X is an amazing replacement for my Xbox One X which all it was ever meant to be.

These videos of how close these machines are in the end (TO ME) means buy which one you prefer and enjoy it.

Want Gamepass and play a shit ton of games but Xbox.

Want a true next gen console buy PS5.
 

Leyasu

Banned
So the fps dips are because of lazy devs™ and are nothing to do with the hardware?

Interesting theory.
No to both.

They did what they could on both systems within the time allotted. Both have drops, one apparently holds a higher res longer, no AF etc. It is what it is.
 

clintar

Member
So Alex's mention of "considering XBox Series X is running at a more static 4K resolution in comparison to PS5" is confusing. I didn't notice that they established PS5 resolution drops more often up to that point. Is there some point in the video they go over that? All I saw was when Thomas talking about the where you walk down a straight on XSX, framerate drops but resolution doesn't drop so he's questioning if there is a DRS scaler on these versions (PS5 and XSX), it doesn't work as you'd expect. But he never mentions PS5 dropping res more than XSX that I can see. Noticed when PS5 dropped in 120 fps mode, it could go lower than XSX down to 80, so even though XSX drops more often, that's a big drop on PS5.
 
Top Bottom