Digital Foundry: Heard that Xbox Series S Is A "Pain" For Developers Due To Memory Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not denying anything, I'm saying show me the games. Where are these groundbreaking games. Where? Show me a game that's on the ps5 that is different to anything we have seen in the last 30 years. It's all the same kind of levels, same gameplay, same tech. Even ratchets portals seemed like nothing he explained. It was parlour tricks. Ive not seen anything but some faster loading.

Thank you for bringing logic into this. The ps5 can't even run ff7 at 4k 60 fps. Great example. Returnal is an amazing game but literally 1080p. None of these boxes are as mind blowing as some people want to act when ripping the series s. I'm not even defending the series s, I'm just saying think logically what the other boxes that advertise 8k. 4k 60 fps are actually doing in reality. It's a broken record every week. Arguments from all sides.

Unreal engine 5 is sub 1440p and under 30fps on ps5 and series x and that's next gen. Look at these boxes in reality, that's all I'm trying to get at.
Just FYI -- the two games you're downplaying are widely regarded as the best visual experiences. Also appears as #1 and #2 in Digital Foundry's best-looking console games for 2021.
 

Lysandros

Member
Metro Exodus result is an outlier, that's not the norm. The norm is that PS5 and XSX generally perform similarly, so no "xsx is not about 6700 XT", it's more like in the 2080/6650 XT region, sometimes it's even below that.


Yes, PS5 has higher quality setting than XSX in FC6 according to Digital Foundry.
Exactly. As to Cyberpunk 2077, funny how he completely ignores lower base resolution on XSX in RT mode and lower FPS in performance mode compared to PS5 as if the "10% lead" is a true lead and comes without any additional performance cost. It seems he has complete disregard for performance since this side of things doesn't go well with his 'vision'.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
Then why aren't all publishers making ports for the Switch? Why ending cross-gen support?
switch is an extreme case. even then, it was possible to port w3/doom eternal on it somehow. a game that was primarily designed for xbox one/ps4. and somehow they ran on switch. would you say switch hindered the design of those games?

games can still be designed for sx and ps5 purely, and ported to series s. its just that devs call it a pain. and its true. its a pain. but thats it.

if some devs choose to go to the route where making series s as a basis, that's on them.

im sure w3/doom eternal ports were also a pain. but they did it anyways. why? bcoz it was worth it.

the reason they dont say it was a pain because it was worth it financially. these devs probably think that it wont be worth financially, and i can see their honest view on this. series s is a game pass oriented console with no disk drive and limited storage space. non-game pass AAA games will have trouble making some serious buck from series s owners, considering they're broke gamers who couldn't buckle up an extra 200 bucks for the stronger console. therefore they publicly state its a pain, not because purely its a pain, because its a worthless pain for them. these people cant even muster up the money to save them from the now-dead 1080p screens.

of course that may change in the future. then again, i know that none of series s friends buys AAA games. its simply too expensive for them. imagine going through the pain of making re village run properly on series s only to come across a weak sales, especially from the series s users.

because that's the harsh reality. people like to speak and defend series s owners and ask people like me to give them 200 buckz for series s also likes to ignore that most of them wont buy games even for 30/40 bucks. its a game pass machine, and game pass do not cover all AAA games. there's a reason most game pass game developers are not stating stuff about this pain, because they get money from Msoft directly for making their game into game pass. they get their money from msoft so the pain is justified. (and in theory, msoft makes that money back from game pass sales. hopefully)

thats why id tech developer deleted his tweet after the acquisition.

thats why metro exodus dev states its a problem because its not on game pass. i have at least 10 friends that have a series s and none of them bought the game on series s. they wait for the game to drop on game pass.

literally, almost none of my friends buy actual games on xbox store. they simply don't have the economical power to do so. they simply rely on game pass and game pass alone.
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
geometry levels and lods are a CPU thing. and at this point its clear that ps5 has better CPU efficiency due to their custom chip

for me, its the norm. its not an outlier. it happened. it happened in multiple games. it will keep happening in future titles.

and i gave three "outliers". if i do some research, i can find more examples. but you would call them outliers anyways.

by that logic, i can say a 5600xt is stronger than ps5 and sx combined becuase you can run thousands of games at 1440p 60 fps with that card (back to 2006s), . and you can give 50 examples where ps5/sx wrecks the 5600xt, but i can give 500+ examples where 5600xt wrecks the ps5. then i would call every example you show an outlier. how would that sound for you?

i only care about most recent, highly ambitious AAA titles. and three of them is there.

i wont bother further. dont bother answering back. i cant be bothered further in your plastic box comparisons.

you asked benchmarks. i provided them. that's it.
False. Geometry and LOD levels tax GPUs as well. Also, I asked for benchmarks where XSX is directly compared against a 6700 XT. You didn't provide any.
 

Riky

MSFT$
Then why aren't all publishers making ports for the Switch? Why ending cross-gen support?

We're talking about PC minimum specs, the Series S is on the same GDK so that is what makes it important. No publisher is going to want a game that doesn't hit the average PC owner and the Steam hardware survey points us towards what that is.
 
because that's the harsh reality. people like to speak and defend series s owners and ask people like me to give them 200 buckz for series s also likes to ignore that most of them wont buy games even for 30/40 bucks. its a game pass machine, and game pass do not cover all AAA games. there's a reason most game pass game developers are not stating stuff about this pain, because they get money from Msoft directly for making their game into game pass. they get their money from msoft so the pain is justified. (and in theory, msoft makes that money back from game pass sales. hopefully)

Blanket statement and factually incorrect.

I have bought 10-15 games since I got Series S. Had Elden Ring pre-ordered digitally.

Bought at 24" 1080p VRR 120 hz monitor to make the most of it. And use audiophile HPs costing $300-1000 for total immersion.

I bought Series S cause I like the concept of it, been brought up playing games at 10 fps on Intel integrated graphics cards.
 

FrankWza

Member
Literally the same 5 to 6 people every thread who obviously have no interest in the series s or series x probably but to shit on it. Especially the series S.
Here We Go Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 

Topher

Gold Member
it is easier to show clear differences on PC space. no dynamic resolution, no frame caps, completely same settings (we don't know if some devs enable extra settings on series x). can you prove that sx runs the games at completely same settings as ps5 does? we don't nothing about internals. at least i know that metro exodus and cyberpunk uses exact same settings on both consoles. and how shocking, a consistent %10-15 res/performance bump on both games

That is an important point. Without DRS, the differences are noticeable with PC games (to a point) where the frame rate is what is dynamic and the shifts are noticeable. Contrast that with consoles where the resolution is always adjusting and no one can even tell. The variances in resolution between PS5 and XSX are often right in line with the differences in GPU power, but ultimately, these differences are only useful for the purposes of console war banter. My PC has a 3070 ti and I'm always struggling to find reasons to justify running games higher than 1440p and that's on a 55" LG C1. That's why I find these comparisons between PS5 and XSX as fairly pointless.
 

adamsapple

Banned
Exactly. As to Cyberpunk 2077, funny how he completely ignores lower base resolution on XSX in RT mode and lower FPS in performance mode compared to PS5 as if the "10% lead" is a true lead and comes without any additional performance cost. It seems he has complete disregard for performance since this side of things doesn't go well with his 'vision'.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Lower DRS instance is not lower base resolution.

We have seen examples where lower DRS bound was lower on SX but average resolution was still higher than PS5.
 
Last edited:

Amiga

Member
And there in lies the problem. The console was designed in a board room by PR and marketing guys like Panello.
Story of X-Box in a nutshell

Then why aren't all publishers making ports for the Switch? Why ending cross-gen support?
More accurate to say "as big as possible". The market is diverse, the most safe money is on top of current gen consoles. This is where to find majority of hardcore gamers who purchase a lot of games and play a lot of time.
Plasystation is one platform that has half the market for 3rd party AAA games. So that is the base and then developers see what platforms they can port to. They can port to X-BoxSS+SX practically almost a completely. And they would dismiss designing the game in a way that adds cost to porting to X-Box like over-customizing for the PS5 IO pipeline (unless it is easy and cheap).
But it's not one strategy for all. Some publishers find their target gamers are mostly on Switch and that porting to any other platform is not worth to cost
 

adamsapple

Banned
Pretty sure he means "bound" when he says "base".

Oh I don't know based on their post history :messenger_beaming:

In either case, VGTech didn't mention any difference in averages there and just said 1440p is common on both, so likely a single dip or two. The mode is 100% locked to 30 FPS on both consoles anyway, so a momentary drop in 4~ % pixel count is inconsequential.

They went out of their way to mention differences in the Perf. mode which means it was more prevalent there.
 
Last edited:

Lysandros

Member
That is an important point. Without DRS, the differences are noticeable with PC games (to a point) where the frame rate is what is dynamic and the shifts are noticeable. Contrast that with consoles where the resolution is always adjusting and no one can even tell. The variances in resolution between PS5 and XSX are often right in line with the differences in GPU power, but ultimately, these differences are only useful for the purposes of console war banter. My PC has a 3070 ti and I'm always struggling to find reasons to justify running games higher than 1440p and that's on a 55" LG C1. That's why I find these comparisons between PS5 and XSX as fairly pointless.
There are plenty of games having fixed resolutions with the majority of them being the same res. between PS5/XSX and slight performance edge (if there is any) goes both ways.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

Banned
Wow, I wonder what they say about PC then seeing as how it's actually the lowest common denominator. 🤔
Not in this way, though. If a developer is struggling to make a game work on PC with a lower memory configuration they can just up the requirements, and plenty of PC game do require more memory than Series S' min.
 
The only real 3rd party next gen experience we have is Matrix (I won't count Metro because last gen assets). It runs on the Series S and seems to be mostly CPU bottlenecked anyway. Looks like there's a bright future ahead for Little Beast :messenger_beaming:
 

Bogroll

Likes moldy games
Not in this way, though. If a developer is struggling to make a game work on PC with a lower memory configuration they can just up the requirements, and plenty of PC game do require more memory than Series S' min.
What games are these ?
Not saying your wrong but I ain't come across any yet with a minimum of 16gb.
 

Lysandros

Member
The variances in resolution between PS5 and XSX are often right in line with the differences in GPU power, but ultimately, these differences are only useful for the purposes of console war banter.
Sorry to quote you on the same post again but do you mean 'when this variance is in favor of XSX' and by 'GPU power' are you talking about XSX' compute lead in isolation not taking the rest of the GPUs into account?
 

adamsapple

Banned
The only real 3rd party next gen experience we have is Matrix (I won't count Metro because last gen assets). It runs on the Series S and seems to be mostly CPU bottlenecked anyway. Looks like there's a bright future ahead for Little Beast :messenger_beaming:

Yep. The single most advanced engine tech we've seen this gen running on console hardware so far runs well on Series S with minor expected visual cut backs.

s'all good man.
 

arvfab

Member
We're talking about PC minimum specs, the Series S is on the same GDK so that is what makes it important. No publisher is going to want a game that doesn't hit the average PC owner and the Steam hardware survey points us towards what that is.
Riky my friend, I know you have to adhere to your contractual obligations, but we are talking about specs and development, while you are the one to bring business decisions into the discussion.

Purely talking about business, cross-gen and Switch are the best possible way to make loads of money, but yet last gen is slowely being left behind and Switch was barely considered for multiplatform games.

And yes, publishers surely won't ditch Series consoles because of the S, which means that they will take whatever compromises are necessary on design/tech level because of it.

And this, imho, justifies the concern regarding the Series S holding back multiplatform games/Xbox exclusives for the whole generation.
 

FrankWza

Member
And this, imho, justifies the concern regarding the Series S holding back multiplatform games/Xbox exclusives for the whole generation.
Unless they’re planning on making the Coalition a UE5, series s assisting studio. Took a gargantuan effort just to get the matrix running. And that’s just a demo.
 

Topher

Gold Member
What games are these ?
Not saying your wrong but I ain't come across any yet with a minimum of 16gb.

It is a good question. What are the highest minimum requirements for the currently most demanding games? Personally I haven't seen anything yet requiring a GPU greater than a GTX 1060. Guardians of the Galaxy requires the 1060 with 6 GB VRAM and 8 GB of system RAM. Of course, that is with Windows running in the background so more system RAM is needed, but GotG seems to be pushing XSS hard and as a result, it runs at 1080p with frame rates averaging between 40 and 60 uncapped. I guess if I were a XSS owner then I might be concerned as the generation moves along about the sacrifices needed to keep games running on XSX. But for now, seems ok even if it is a "pain" for some devs.
 

FrankWza

Member
The budget SKU is a pain because of hardware constraints? Say it ain't so :messenger_crying:
Well, don’t say this if you can’t deliver :
The Xbox Series S will play every game that can be played on Xbox Series X, just at a lower resolution with lower quality textures. This means whether you're interested in third-party games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War or titles from Xbox Game Studios such as Halo Infinite, they can be played on Xbox Series S with next-generation features like seamless loading, 120 FPS support, and more. You'll also be able to play backward compatible games from the original Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. Of course, there are exceptions: It can't play your physical copies of those games.
So either it’s not capable or it is perfectly capable but requires too much work. And that’s where “holding back” comes in. There are only so many resources to be allocated to any game.
So it’s either holding back technically or holding back because it requires too much time and effort. But as of today, there is proof of both.
 

Riky

MSFT$
Riky my friend, I know you have to adhere to your contractual obligations, but we are talking about specs and development, while you are the one to bring business decisions into the discussion.

Purely talking about business, cross-gen and Switch are the best possible way to make loads of money, but yet last gen is slowely being left behind and Switch was barely considered for multiplatform games.

And yes, publishers surely won't ditch Series consoles because of the S, which means that they will take whatever compromises are necessary on design/tech level because of it.

And this, imho, justifies the concern regarding the Series S holding back multiplatform games/Xbox exclusives for the whole generation.

I have no idea why you're talking about Switch, irrelevant.
I'll repeat we're talking about Microsoft now having a unified GDK, on that basis all their games are coming to PC day and date, the average PC owner has a machine less powerful than Series S as the hardware surveys shows. That's it, any publisher will want to hit that audience, it couldn't be more simple as a business argument.
 
Has Lego Star Wars been patched on ps5 yet? That’s the largest difference we have seen this gen. Series s performs amazingly well on that game For what it is.

I don’t believe so nor do I think it accurately represents the hardware difference between the two. There’s obviously something weird going on with that title and I doubt it will become the standard.
 
Again, they still have more memory than XSS.
The XSS has techniques to deal with memory management. Techniques that have yet to be used. PCs have OS overhead consoles don't have to deal with but of course you knew that.

I have no idea why you're talking about Switch, irrelevant.
I'll repeat we're talking about Microsoft now having a unified GDK, on that basis all their games are coming to PC day and date, the average PC owner has a machine less powerful than Series S as the hardware surveys shows. That's it, any publisher will want to hit that audience, it couldn't be more simple as a business argument.
They are clearly just posting to get a reaction. The information about the XSS has been posted over and over again including that interview you posted earlier from Jason Ronald himself. They know the truth but prefer to be 'concerned'. This is especially cute from Sony fans. We'll see what the market decides.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
And yet somehow my son didn't seem to care about any of this when I moved the S into his room and slipped it behind his 1080p monitor to play nba2k22. 4k didn't matter. Playing xbox did, and size did.
He didn't even mention Jason Arnold, it's weird right?
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
more "outliers" people.

Doom eternal
"PS5 and Xbox Series X in Balanced Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2720x1530. Pixel counts below 3840x2160 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 3456x1944 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3840x2160. Xbox Series S in Balanced Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1813x1020. PS5 and Xbox Series X in Raytracing Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3200x1800 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2266x1275. Pixel counts below 3200x1800 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 2986x1680 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3200x1800."

Both modes are a perfect 60 FPS/120 FPS lock

3456*1944 = 6.71 mil
3840x2160 = 8.29 mil

%23 difference

2986x1680 = 5.01 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%14 difference

Star wars
mostly a solid 60 fps lock. mostly drops frames because of CPU (both consoles)

Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2112x1188. Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. PS5 in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2026x1140. PS5 in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

PS5 in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3072x1728. PS5 in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3200x1800. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

2026x1140 = 2.30 mil
2112x1188 = 2.50 mil

%8 difference

3072x1728 = 5.30 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%8 difference

wd legion
another near perfect 60 fps game on both consoles

In some scenes the resolution difference between PS5 and Xbox Series X can be smaller than it is at the highest and lowest resolutions found, with one scene rendering at approximately 3100x1744 on PS5 and approximately 3392x1908 on Xbox Series X and another scene rendering at approximately 2800x1575 on PS5 and approximately 2951x1660 on Xbox Series X.

3100x1744 = 5.40 mil
3392x1908 = 6.47 mil

%18 difference

2800x1575 = 4.41 mil
2951x1660 = 4.89 mil

%10.8 difference
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
"Designed" that's the key phrase, no promise. The same way the bigger consoles are "designed" for 4k and up to 120fps but rarely do, it's simple when you think about it


It's irrelevant because the 2gb is reserved for the OS and is not available to developers, why pay for very fast ram when it isn't needed your just unnecessarily increasing the cost of the machine.
Try again riky.
Read what he said.

Anyone with a brain knew it wasn't possible when MS said this.
Heck I bet we have threads talking about this before the xss launched.

We didn't know this because of the tools or software spin you and your buddies are trying to spin.
We knew it because of the significantly weaker specs.
 
more "outliers" people.

Doom eternal
"PS5 and Xbox Series X in Balanced Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2720x1530. Pixel counts below 3840x2160 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 3456x1944 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3840x2160. Xbox Series S in Balanced Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1813x1020. PS5 and Xbox Series X in Raytracing Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3200x1800 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2266x1275. Pixel counts below 3200x1800 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 2986x1680 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3200x1800."

Both modes are a perfect 60 FPS/120 FPS lock

3456*1944 = 6.71 mil
3840x2160 = 8.29 mil

%23 difference

2986x1680 = 5.01 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%14 difference

Star wars
mostly a solid 60 fps lock. mostly drops frames because of CPU (both consoles)

Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2112x1188. Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. PS5 in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2026x1140. PS5 in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

PS5 in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3072x1728. PS5 in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3200x1800. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

2026x1140 = 2.30 mil
2112x1188 = 2.50 mil

%8 difference

3072x1728 = 5.30 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%8 difference

wd legion
another near perfect 60 fps game on both consoles

In some scenes the resolution difference between PS5 and Xbox Series X can be smaller than it is at the highest and lowest resolutions found, with one scene rendering at approximately 3100x1744 on PS5 and approximately 3392x1908 on Xbox Series X and another scene rendering at approximately 2800x1575 on PS5 and approximately 2951x1660 on Xbox Series X.

3100x1744 = 5.40 mil
3392x1908 = 6.47 mil

%18 difference

2800x1575 = 4.41 mil
2951x1660 = 4.89 mil

%10.8 difference

That’s still pretty minimal IMO. Both systems are very close to each other.
 
And yet somehow my son didn't seem to care about any of this when I moved the S into his room and slipped it behind his 1080p monitor to play nba2k22. 4k didn't matter. Playing xbox did, and size did.
He didn't even mention Jason Arnold, it's weird right?
Did you EVER get an answer why the XSS receives such criticism when it's games don't run at 1440p but when XSX and PS5 don't run at 4K it's not a problem? I always thought it was a great question.

Has Lego Star Wars been patched on ps5 yet? That’s the largest difference we have seen this gen. Series s performs amazingly well on that game For what it is.
Excellent question. Do you think it was because of the XSS that the game had a lower resolution on PS5? It seems to cause lots of people concern.

more "outliers" people.

Doom eternal
"PS5 and Xbox Series X in Balanced Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2720x1530. Pixel counts below 3840x2160 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 3456x1944 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3840x2160. Xbox Series S in Balanced Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1813x1020. PS5 and Xbox Series X in Raytracing Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3200x1800 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2266x1275. Pixel counts below 3200x1800 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 2986x1680 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3200x1800."

Both modes are a perfect 60 FPS/120 FPS lock

3456*1944 = 6.71 mil
3840x2160 = 8.29 mil

%23 difference

2986x1680 = 5.01 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%14 difference

Star wars
mostly a solid 60 fps lock. mostly drops frames because of CPU (both consoles)

Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2112x1188. Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. PS5 in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2026x1140. PS5 in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

PS5 in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3072x1728. PS5 in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3200x1800. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

2026x1140 = 2.30 mil
2112x1188 = 2.50 mil

%8 difference

3072x1728 = 5.30 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%8 difference

wd legion
another near perfect 60 fps game on both consoles

In some scenes the resolution difference between PS5 and Xbox Series X can be smaller than it is at the highest and lowest resolutions found, with one scene rendering at approximately 3100x1744 on PS5 and approximately 3392x1908 on Xbox Series X and another scene rendering at approximately 2800x1575 on PS5 and approximately 2951x1660 on Xbox Series X.

3100x1744 = 5.40 mil
3392x1908 = 6.47 mil

%18 difference

2800x1575 = 4.41 mil
2951x1660 = 4.89 mil

%10.8 difference
Can you do a breakdown of the different versions of the Lego Skywalker Saga game?
 

Riky

MSFT$
Try again riky.
Read what he said.

Anyone with a brain knew it wasn't possible when MS said this.
Heck I bet we have threads talking about this before the xss launched.

We didn't know this because of the tools or software spin you and your buddies are trying to spin.
We knew it because of the significantly weaker specs.

Everyone knew we weren't always going to get 8k or even 4k at 120fps, that's the reality.
This is not exclusive to Series S, there are games like Far Cry 6 that have released with Ray Tracing on PC that have no such feature on Series X or PS5, yet both consoles are "designed" to have Ray Tracing, it's the same situation, developers decide what suits their game in the power budget they have, that's how it should be and extends to all consoles.
 
Last edited:

sircaw

Banned
Literally the same 5 to 6 people every thread who obviously have no interest in the series s or series x probably but to shit on it. Especially the series S. Weirdos man. Weird.

When I see alerts now I can 90 percent guess who it is that's quoted me if it is concerning a series S thread.
i bet you did not guess it was me quoting you :messenger_heart:
 

Riky

MSFT$
more "outliers" people.

Doom eternal
"PS5 and Xbox Series X in Balanced Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2720x1530. Pixel counts below 3840x2160 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 3456x1944 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3840x2160. Xbox Series S in Balanced Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1813x1020. PS5 and Xbox Series X in Raytracing Mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3200x1800 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2266x1275. Pixel counts below 3200x1800 were found more often on PS5 than Xbox Series X. As an example, in one scene the PS5 dropped to approximately 2986x1680 and the Xbox Series X rendered that scene at 3200x1800."

Both modes are a perfect 60 FPS/120 FPS lock

3456*1944 = 6.71 mil
3840x2160 = 8.29 mil

%23 difference

2986x1680 = 5.01 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%14 difference

Star wars
mostly a solid 60 fps lock. mostly drops frames because of CPU (both consoles)

Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2112x1188. Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. PS5 in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2026x1140. PS5 in Performance Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

PS5 in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3072x1728. PS5 in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 3200x1800. Xbox Series X in Resolution Mode uses temporal upsampling to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering natively below this resolution.

2026x1140 = 2.30 mil
2112x1188 = 2.50 mil

%8 difference

3072x1728 = 5.30 mil
3200x1800 = 5.76 mil

%8 difference

wd legion
another near perfect 60 fps game on both consoles

In some scenes the resolution difference between PS5 and Xbox Series X can be smaller than it is at the highest and lowest resolutions found, with one scene rendering at approximately 3100x1744 on PS5 and approximately 3392x1908 on Xbox Series X and another scene rendering at approximately 2800x1575 on PS5 and approximately 2951x1660 on Xbox Series X.

3100x1744 = 5.40 mil
3392x1908 = 6.47 mil

%18 difference

2800x1575 = 4.41 mil
2951x1660 = 4.89 mil

%10.8 difference

It's a trend even with cross gen games and not all Series features being used, you can go through all of the VGtech videos go find it over and over again.
 

yamaci17

Member
That’s still pretty minimal IMO. Both systems are very close to each other.
i'm not arguing with that, though :) 6700xt and 6600xt is also close to each other, only separated by a small %14 margin on average. %14 is a small change, but they're different models regardless, hence named differently. ps5 is closer to 6600xt, and series x is closer to 6700xt. but people refuse to accept / acknowledge.

some people are so defensive on ps5 that they cannot even accept that there can be a correlation between ps5 and sx performance that amounts to a %10-25 difference (mind you, if a game is compute heavy, it is very normal for series x to have a %20 difference. since console games lock to 60 fps and use DSR all the time, they became more geometry bound, which helps PS5 more than Series X. On PC, you can just unlock FPS and fill all the shaders that RDNA2 can provide to games, and you can see that 6700xt can fly high. series x gets that chance with VRR unlocked modes

i'm not trying to say that %8-10-12-14 is a huge difference. i'm just matching consoles with their counterpart GPUs on PC. i originally gave that example to put series s in picture, and i said that it would be more cool if it was racing with a rx 6600, instead of a 6500xt (mind you, 6500xt is gimped by pcie 4 only and 4 gb vram, therefore it will have misleading benchmarks. but it does not change the fact at its core, its a 5.7 tflops RDNA2 GPU, and purely it is %35-40 faster than series s on equal terms. yet someone also ignored that and refused to accept it. on desktop, most people are overloading the 6500xt with ultra textures and settings and the GPU just buckles down. 4 GB is too small, it should at least had 6 GB though)

for a more honest and fair comparison, we need games that have VRR uncapped mode on both consoles. I hope DL2 gets a PS5 unlocked VRR cap mode so we can see the actual difference between sx and ps5 there aswell

as a matter of fact, I said in this very same topic that PS exclusives tend to have better graphics overall. I don't even know why people are so defensive of PS5 when it comes to hardware. you already have the best software, better games. PS exc developers will end up create games that push PS5 to its boundaries that Xbox SX won't have a chance to run. i'm not saying this difference is meaningful or means anything, I don't even consider this difference as a choosing factor between consoles. i'm just saying it is there. i firmly say that i have no preference over both consoles, i'm just an outsider that analyzes the data. and data tells me that sx seems stronger than ps5, between %8 and %23 (if the game is compute heavy, as i've said again).

data also tells me that sx is akin to 6700xt and ps5 is akin to 6600xt

literally, sx is a 12.15 tflops rdna 2 GPU (peak). 6700xt is a 13.2 tflops rdna 2 gpu.
literally, ps5 is a 10 tflops rdna2 GPU (peak), 6600xt is a 10 tflops rdna 2 gpu

why would i say sx is closer to 6600xt. it is closer to 6700xt in terms of pure, raw specs. and it shows.

I have a 3070. i use xbox series x equivalent settings WHENEVER I can. And I can testify that the performance I'm getting is very close to what series x provides. forza horizon 5, halo infinite, ac valhalla, you name it.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Everyone knew we weren't always going to get 8k or even 4k at 120fps, that's the reality.
This is not exclusive to Series S, there are games like Far Cry 6 that have released with Ray Tracing on PC that have no such feature on Series X or PS5, yet both consoles are "designed" to have Ray Tracing, it's the same situation, developers decide what suits their game in the power budget they have, that's how it should be and extends to all consoles.
We are talking about xss.
1440p was claimed and we get as low as 500(and change)P.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Did you EVER get an answer why the XSS receives such criticism when it's games don't run at 1440p but when XSX and PS5 don't run at 4K it's not a problem? I always thought it was a great question.


Excellent question. Do you think it was because of the XSS that the game had a lower resolution on PS5? It seems to cause lots of people concern.


Can you do a breakdown of the different versions of the Lego Skywalker Saga game?

Nope, that question ussually just gets ignored or says something silly like they never advertised 4k 120 or 8k.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
It is a good question. What are the highest minimum requirements for the currently most demanding games? Personally I haven't seen anything yet requiring a GPU greater than a GTX 1060. Guardians of the Galaxy requires the 1060 with 6 GB VRAM and 8 GB of system RAM. Of course, that is with Windows running in the background so more system RAM is needed, but GotG seems to be pushing XSS hard and as a result, it runs at 1080p with frame rates averaging between 40 and 60 uncapped. I guess if I were a XSS owner then I might be concerned as the generation moves along about the sacrifices needed to keep games running on XSX. But for now, seems ok even if it is a "pain" for some devs.

GotG is a bad example since the console version just isn't optimized all that well. PS5/XSX were struggling to do 1080p 60 there with reduced settings when even a lowly 6500xt can nail 1080p/60 without moving the settings down as much.
 

FrankWza

Member
any publisher will want to hit that audience
*have to because of this:

The Xbox Series S will play every game that can be played on Xbox Series X, just at a lower resolution with lower quality textures. This means whether you're interested in third-party games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War or titles from Xbox Game Studios such as Halo Infinite, they can be played on Xbox Series S with next-generation features like seamless loading, 120 FPS support, and more. You'll also be able to play backward compatible games from the original Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. Of course, there are exceptions: It can't play your physical copies of those games.
GotG is a bad example
Has Lego Star Wars been patched on ps5 yet?
Try to get on the same page guys. You’re trying to deflect from the series s and you’re contradicting each other.
Is it ok to use one example either way?
Because plenty of people have provided more than one developer that have complained and more than one game that has failed to live up to the prelaunch expectations on what series s was supposed to do in relation to series x.
 

SlimySnake

The Contrarian
Dude, I think you're great but the one X was an absolute beast of a console and was worth every penny. Are you saying Microsoft didn't have such an incredibly designed console tapped out and known when they announced it at E3?

The one X will be known in history as a geniusly thought out box that was everything the pro should have been. Every part of its GPU and memory set up was designed to deliver as close to a 4k experience for ps4/xbox one games as possible. Then add the first vapour chamber cooler in a console in a box that was barely bigger than a one S and tiny compared to the poorly designed ps4 pro console with its less than ideal memory set up.

This is why I trust MS a little more. The series X is a beast and so is the series s for its size. see only issue I can see is potentially the speed of the memory in the series s. I'd not looked that up before this thread. Games seem to consistently deliver so far but I have no idea for the future.
I think you misunderstand my point. X1x is clearly the better designed console but only when compared to the Pro. And XSX is an incredible console for its price to tflops ratio. I am sure you have seen my posts where I have listed those charts. I also think the XSX's high CU count and lower clocks are a bottlenecked that is holding back its GPU. I am sure you have seen me call the PS5 overengineered and not as good as it could've been for a $500 console. And yet, I also believe both the PS5 and XSX are the most powerful consoles Sony and MS have ever released.

There is nuance to my argument that I'll admit is hard to get across at times. X1x can be the an incredibly designed console, but also not as good as it could've been a year after the Pro and $100 more expensive. I can forgive Cerny for sticking with the Pro in 2016 when Zens were still relatively new, and he had a strict $399 budget to adhere to, but MS? Polaris was already over a year old by then and they had an extra $100 to play with. Do you remember Senjustsu Sage? He was told by MS people that they would be upgrading the CPU. Poor guy risked his account because he was mislead by some MS exec. But to me, that shows that Zen was in the discussion at some point, and the X1x despite its high ram bandwidth, suffered from the same issues are the Pro when it came to running games at 60 fps. It was bottlenecked by the same shitty jaguar CPU.

Im sure the MS engineers who had to get 6 tflops in a console did a bang up job, but are you telling me that MS engineers didnt want a better CPU in there? Of course they did, but they couldnt have gotten 6 tflops and a zen cpu in one SOC and had to settle for a big jump in GPU likely because beating Sony's tflops count was the main driver there.

Same thing with the XSX. It's a phenomenal console. In some ways, better designed than the PS5, but clearly those 1.8 ghz clocks are way too low for an RDNA 2 card which routinely go over 2.2 ghz. thats where all the gains come from. Someone brought up the 13 tflops 6700xt in this thread, and that GPU has no problems giving a linear 1:1 performance increase over the 10.7 tflops 6600xt. So why dont we see that for the XSX? Because they wanted to hit that 12 tflops and instead of going with the 40 CU 6700xt and pushing clocks to 2.2 ghz and coming in around 11 tflops, they chose the high CU count just to hit the 12 tflops 'marketing' buzzword and ended up creating a bottleneck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom