• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Analysis [DF] Marvel's Avengers: PlayStation 5 vs PS4 Pro - Every Upgrade Explained

Jan 11, 2019
1,681
5,448
545
Zeus’ butthole
EDIT: NOTE - THIS IS PS5 vs PS4 Pro, this is NOT a PlayStation vs Xbox analysis


Alex, from DF, with the PS5 version analysis

Marvel's Avengers finally receives its PlayStation 5 upgrade! In this detailed video, Alex goes through all of the upgrades the next-gen consoles reveal and shows the game is improved over the last-gen consoles.

Summary incoming:
- Higher resolution textures across the board on PS5
- Texture filtering upgraded, but not full 16x
- Higher quality particle effects
- Load times greatly enhanced - around 4 seconds at most to load a save on PS5



Performance Mode
- 1800p common - 1440p low (checkerboarded)
- 60 fps target, holds 60fps pretty well but does have dips to 57 in cutscenes, small stutters when navigating through the environment at points, small dips in particle heavy combat. Notes that when VRR is added, these small dips won't be noticeable on compatible displays
- Same shadows as PS4 Pro
- Similar post-processing as PS4 Pro (motion blur, DoF, etc)
- SSR same as Pro

Quality Mode
- native DRS, non checkerboarded
- Low native 2088p, common native 2160p (4k)
- 30 fps locked
- much higher post processing (motion blur, DoF, etc)
- Better shadow filtering than Performance, higher resolution shadows


- Better SSR than Performance mode
- Slightly better draw distance than Performance mode
- enhanced destruction/debris



dj khaled sip GIF by Apple Music

not in this video but should be noted:

PS5 install size is 75 gigs
XsX install is around 104, last I heard

also, game has full DualSense support and I actually had to turn down the adaptive trigger feedback from 10 to 6, is very strong

Be sure to turn on 3D audio in the game menu, sounds great on my headphones
 
Last edited:

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,769
8,647
885
23
Earth
CB 4k at 60, dynamic 1440p-1800p typically. Good 60 but not perfect

True 4k at 30, holds 4k well. locked 30


30 FPS also has higher quality Post processing, Shadows, and far LOD, in addition to the better destruction system
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tickle My Tendies
Jul 15, 2020
366
578
330
Just played it and u'd be hard pressed to notice any graphical differences apart from slightly enhanced reflections.( in quality mode) I expected a lot more from this version. Bummer. Another letdown with this game.
 
Sep 18, 2019
1,226
3,171
345

Alex, from DF, with the PS5 version analysis



Summary incoming:
- Higher resolution textures across the board on PS5
- Texture filtering upgraded, but not full 16x
- Higher quality particle effects
- Load times greatly enhanced - around 4 seconds to load a save on PS5



Performance Mode
- 1800p high - 1440p low
- 60 fps target, holds 60fps pretty well but does have dips to 57 in cutscenes, small stutters when navigating through the environment at points, small dips in particle heavy combat. Notes that when VRR is added, these small dips won't be noticeable on compatible displays
- Same shadows as PS4 Pro
- Similar post-processing as PS4 Pro (motion blur, DoF, etc)
- SSR same as Pro

Quality Mode
- native DRS, non checkerboarded
- Low 2088p, high native 2160p (4k)
- 30 fps locked
- much higher post processing (motion blur, DoF, etc)
- Better shadow filtering than Performance, higher resolution shadows


- Better SSR than Performance mode
- Slightly better draw distance than Performance mode
- enhanced destruction/debris



dj khaled sip GIF by Apple Music

not in this video but should be noted:

PS5 install size is 75 gigs
XsX install is around 104, last I heard
Performance mode is 4K CBR with DRS min being 1440p, max 2160p. It actually holds 2160p CBR more often than Pro using the quality mode.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,249
2,113
340
It has both modes, the same as PS5, just checked myself.
2 modes.

4k60 and 4k30, totally unsure about the stability of those frame rates though.

This is off the DF article BTW. I am slumming next gen life with a series s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

Thief1987

Member
Jan 8, 2018
521
1,306
455
Why this game need so much overhead for only 2x framerate? It drops to 1440p with checkerboard(!), has lower graphics settings and still has drops below 60fps.
 

Kuranghi

Member
Apr 17, 2015
4,704
8,366
780
Nope.

The left side is so bad compared with the right one to the point that just one looks good.

I definitely agree the right side is better, not sure why I assumed that, sorry. I think most people won't consider that a big enough difference so that was in the back of my mind I guess.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ethomaz
Sep 18, 2019
1,226
3,171
345
Why this game need so much overhead for only 2x framerate? It drops to 1440p with checkerboard(!), has lower graphics settings and still has drops below 60fps.
It's not 2x framerate, it's can be up to 3x the framerate. From ~20fps to 60fps.

Don't forget the game on Pro in the framerate mode could drop down to 20fps (even lower), 1320p 1080p and the framerate mode was not solid 60fps like here. It was averaging mid-40s according to VGTech. Finally they improved basically every assets here like the resolution of textures, effects, better AF, water and such.

So Pro:
- min 1320p 1080p, min 21fps, low settings, average 44fps
PS5
- min 1440p CBR (usually >1800p during combat), mostly locked 60fps during gameplay, high settings, average maybe like 59.9fps

This is a big improvement vs Pro.

EDIT: the Pro actually had a resolution of 1080p in the performance mode. The gap is even bigger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

Thief1987

Member
Jan 8, 2018
521
1,306
455
It's not 2x framerate, it's can be up to 3x the framerate. From ~20fps to 60fps.

Don't forget the game on Pro in the framerate mode could drop down to 20fps (even lower), 1320p and the framerate mode was not solid 60fps like here. It was averaging mid-40s according to VGTech. Finally they improved basically every assets here like the resolution of textures, effects, better AF, water and such.

So Pro:
- min 1320p, min 21fps, low settings, average 44fps
PS5
- min 1440p (usually >1800p during combat), mostly locked 60fps during gameplay, high settings, average maybe like 59.9fps

This is a big improvement vs Pro.
Oh, i should've clarified that i meant in comparison to quality mod, which is 4k native(with slight drops) and locked 30. So in 1440p with CB it renders more than 4x less "native" pixels on top of lower settings, seems like too much for me. But i don't watch video and if, like you said, it's mostly in 1800p range maybe it's not so strange.
 

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,460
12,408
805
Why this game need so much overhead for only 2x framerate? It drops to 1440p with checkerboard(!), has lower graphics settings and still has drops below 60fps.
Game has a lot going on in it. And the heroes is taking up a large amount of GPU cycles. FX are killer and it has really nice PBR shaders. The only reason I can run it above 60FPS is because they patched the game with DLSS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Moose

paulyboy81

Neo Member
Feb 5, 2021
19
46
110
Have you had a chance to play a bit in both modes? How do you feel about their performance?

Both modes seem really solid on Series X from what I can gather having played 2 campaign missions.

Just a small sample of the game though, can't vouch for every game mode/level.
 

Irobot82

Member
Apr 21, 2012
3,752
1,136
835
South Florida
What's up with consoles never using 16x texture filtering when it's cost is next to zero.

Never in my life of PC gaming have I ever went "Let me lower my texture filtering to 8x" this is too intense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart360

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,460
12,408
805
What's up with consoles never using 16x texture filtering when it's cost is next to zero.

Never in my life of PC gaming have I ever went "Let me lower my texture filtering to 8x" this is too intense.
Because the consoles need every ounce of texture sampling they can get. I'm sure the game devs have computed how much it takes to sample the textures @ 16x vs. the lower settings. They will squeeze every ounce of performance they can. Like I said before, the consoles are bandwidth limited in pushing pixels through the pipeline out to the screen.
 

Tchu-Espresso

likes mayo on everthing and can't dance
Apr 14, 2006
4,645
1,407
1,700
Outside of the destruction physics in quality mode (which look really nice), you don’t lose anything of merit at 60fps.