• 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:Elden Ring Last-Gen PS4/PS4 Pro vs Xbox One/One X: Do You Really Need A Console Upgrade?

Arioco

Member



- One S version is the worst of the bunch (surprise! You didn't see that coming, did you?). Settings are paired back and it runs at sub 30 fps pretty much all the time. There's a huge gulf in visual quality between One S and One X. Series S runs at native 900p against the dynamic 1800p on One X (fixed 4K for Series X).

- PS4 is better. Resolution is 1080p, grass density is boosted. Frame rate is better than on Series S but still not ideal.


- PS4 Pro improves several things compared to base PS4. Most visual settings appear identical to base console, but resolution is 1800p checkerboard like Sekiro, while having an advantage in frame rate over PS4. In general this is the best performing version of the last gen machines.

- As for One X, all setting are matched with PS4 Pro, the major change is One X targets dynamic 1800p, dropping to 1512p in taxing areas. Average frame rate is lower than on Pro, but generally runs at 30-40 fps.

- Loading times are similar on all last gen consoles (in their first test they got 24 seconds on Pro, 26 on One X, and 29 on One S and PS4). Not too bad compared to previous FromSoftware games.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Gold Member
Text article:


-


XBO: 900p/30 FPS. Drops between 20~30 FPS. Has frame pacing issues.
PS4: 1080p/30 FPS. Drops between 25~30 FPS. Has frame pacing issues.
Pro: 1800p CB/ Unlocked 30~50 FPS
XBX: 1512p ~ 1800p native / Unlocked 30~40 FPS

-

XBO | XBX change settings like Ambient occlusion on foliage, motion blur very aggressively depending on load.
PS4 | Pro leave those settings as they are

-

PS4 Pro has higher average performance than XBX, but XBX is comparable.
Load times in order of fastest to slowest on average: Pro -> One X -> PS4 -> XBO

-

DF does not think you need a next gen upgrade if playing on Pro or One X, base PS4 is iffy and base XBO is the only one they outright recommend an upgrade on.

So, do you need to upgrade your console to get a satisfying Elden Ring experience? Surprisingly, no! The frank summary is that PS4 Pro and Xbox One X deliver serviceable takes on the game if you're happy with lower grass and shadow settings next to Series X and PS5 versions, and if higher performance and longer loading times aren't a deal-breaker. If you're OK with that, the enhanced consoles work just fine, with Pro taking a lead on the frame-rate side. The standard PS4 isn't quite as refined, but its 1080p30 target is met to an overall acceptable degree - dodgy frame-pacing notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:

Portugeezer

Member
Text article:


-


XBO: 900p/30 FPS. Drops between 20~30 FPS. Has frame pacing issues.
PS4: 1080p/30 FPS. Drops between 25~30 FPS. Has frame pacing issues.
Pro: 1800p CB/ Unlocked 30~50 FPS
XBX: 1512p ~ 1800p native / Unlocked 30~40 FPS

-

XBO | XBX change settings like Ambient occlusion on foliage, motion blur very aggressively depending on load.
PS4 | Pro leave those settings as they are

-

PS4 Pro has higher average performance than XBX, but XBX is comparable.
Load times in order of fastest to slowest on average: Pro -> One X -> PS4 -> XBO

-

DF does not think you need a next gen upgrade if playing on Pro or One X:
Well they're being a bunch of cunts because most people own a base PS4, so the answer is yes, according to them.
 

Darsxx82

Member
It seems that load times have seen an improvement on XBO since the Network test. Now matches the PS4 versions. What is still shocking is that with HDD they load so close to XSeries with SSD.....

Then, it is the confirmation (although it was already intuited from the Network test) that the XBOX platforms have seen their performance degraded compared to what was seen in Sekiro. Very sensitively on XBO X and unacceptably on XBO. On PS platforms the performance target has remained intact.

It is clear that XBO were the least commercially interesting platforms for Fromsoftware. But with the technical advantages and capabilities of XBO X, it shouldn't be difficult to make it the best OldGen version by far and yet it is far from it.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Unlocked 30-50 is the dumbest shit. But FromSoft don't know how to properly implement a framerate cap, so I guess this was the lesser evil.
 

Sleepwalker

Gold Member
Why did you write Series S a bunch of times in the OP? Is the series S being compared here to last gen consoles? (I didnt watch the video but im confused lol)
 

Ezekiel_

Member
thor GIF
chicago bulls GIF
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
Base ps4 is fine.

I love DF but they're videophiles and their analysis is largely geared towards that mindset. Most people won't be hung up on variable framerates or even notice it for the most part. Hell, most people don't have TVs that can even output max display settings for last gen consoles.

#PanasonicPlasma
 

Lone Wolf

Member
From Software never puts effort into the Xbox versions. It’s obvious that if you want to play this game on a console, you do it on a PlayStation. No reason the One X should be running worse than the PS4 Pro other than that.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
From Software never puts effort into the Xbox versions. It’s obvious that if you want to play this game on a console, you do it on a PlayStation. No reason the One X should be running worse than the PS4 Pro other than that.

Ding ding ding.

Why does the One X version need to run native and aim for 4K when Pro is doing well wit CB ? Why does One X need to push higher visual settings over performance ?

The short answer as DF covered is that the Xbox version (both generations apparently) just run the game on the PC equivalent preset where you have Auto determine best settings on, which DF didn't like using.

It was the easiest solution rather than putting in the bespoke effort like PS4/5 got.

Bit of a shame cause the Xbox console base does make a sizable number of From's install base.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Xbox One version is really substantially worse than even PS4. That GDDR5 and 176 GB/s bandwidth really do help a lot here.

I feel it shouldn't be, though. It is impressive as-is that 2013 tablet level SOC's run a thing like Elden Ring (Or CP2077 for that matter) but i do think that XBO can atleast support similar visuals and at a PS4-level 30 fps with a few patches here and there.

So i hope for a follow up much in the same vein they should do one for the latest Cyberpunk patch. Because its just utterly fascinating seeing those almost 10 year old consoles run these games.
 

onQ123

Member
Xbox One version is really substantially worse than even PS4. That GDDR5 and 176 GB/s bandwidth really do help a lot here.

I feel it shouldn't be, though. It is impressive as-is that 2013 tablet level SOC's run a thing like Elden Ring (Or CP2077 for that matter) but i do think that XBO can atleast support similar visuals and at a PS4-level 30 fps with a few patches here and there.

So i hope for a follow up much in the same vein they should do one for the latest Cyberpunk patch. Because its just utterly fascinating seeing those almost 10 year old consoles run these games.

I think it's the fact that Xbox One is the odd man out with the memory setup + the lower specs but being the only device with it's memory setup while all the other consoles have GDDDR means that devs are not going to waste too much time trying to optimize for it.
 
Ahh it all makes sense now, the PS4 loading times we were seeing before are the ps4 version on the PS5, thats why its close to the XsX loading. Looks like the difference in loading isn't the result of neglect from FS.
 

Clear

Gold Member
It runs basically the same as Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne did when they came out on PS4, and all their PS3 releases before them*. Like, seriously its exactly -exactly- what you'd expect.

FROM have been putting out great titles for years that run at dodgy frame-rates and generally aren't technological showcases. Its pretty much their signature style; and that's fine. Its like a band with a lo-fi sound but killer tunes.

*Using Playstation only because its the lead/sole platform for most of their output historically.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Gold Member
It runs basically the same as Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne did when they came out on PS4, and all their PS3 releases before them*. Like, seriously its exactly -exactly- what you'd expect.

FROM have been putting out great titles for years that run at dodgy frame-rates and generally aren't technological showcases. Its pretty much their signature style; and that's fine. Its like a band with a lo-fi sound but killer tunes.

*Using Playstation only because its the lead/sole platform for most of their output historically.

It's true, but it doesn't have to be 'fine'. It feels like they're focused solely on new concepts and just slap the same engine on it with little to no optimization done over the years.

Look at something like Mass Effect, where the engine got progressively better with each new game in the franchise. I guess expecting something like that out of From is too much.
 
Top Bottom