• 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] Alan Wake 2 PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Comparison

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Windows and xbox run on same dx12 dev platform

That's a bit reductive.

AW Remastered has higher average FPS on PS5 (at least at launch, no one has done a follow up comparison) and Control was also better on PS5 at launch, although in that games case it changed over time and DF, in a later video, stated that the SX version became the better one.
 
Last edited:

Vergil1992

Member
That's a bit reductive.

AW Remastered has higher average FPS on PS5 (at least at launch, no one has done a follow up comparison) and Control was also better on PS5 at launch, although in that games case it changed over time and DF, in a later video, stated that the SX version became the better one.
AW I think it didn't have better overall performance on PS5 than on Xbox Series X, it had slightly worse performance but without tearing.




Control was more or less the same, in quality mode there were no differences, and in performance mode sometimes PS5 and other XSX had better performance. The problem that XSX had (which was fixed) was that it had a strange stutter. The "raw" performance was always superior, even at launch.


 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
AW I think it didn't have better overall performance on PS5 than on Xbox Series X, it had slightly worse performance but without tearing.



Gotdamn. I'm glad I played AW Remastered on VRR lol.

1400 out of 2100 tested frames were torn. That's a much higher ratio than even Capcom's MT Framework games on the X360.

Comparatively AW2 has only 40 torn frames in 2100 tested. They tightened that shit up pretty good.
 
Last edited:

SenkiDala

Member
I like when the PS5 version is the best one, 2 fps is "a huge gap, a game changer", and 10/15fps at the advantage of Xbox is "a minuscule difference".

The amount of false excuses here is so funny. "Anyway a game like this is better at 30fps", damn usually everyone think "60fps or burst" even for a RTS or city builder game, but in an action game now, 30 fps is best. I get that it's a cinematic game but... Come on guys.

PS : I OWN THE GAME ON PS5 AND PLATED IT ON IT. CALM DOWN.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
anyone can reply my questions?
1) So does the PS5 version performance is fine now?
2) Quality or performance mode, which is better for this game?
 

Vergil1992

Member
I like when the PS5 version is the best one, 2 fps is "a huge gap, a game changer", and 10/15fps at the advantage of Xbox is "a minuscule difference".

The amount of false excuses here is so funny. "Anyway a game like this is better at 30fps", damn usually everyone think "60fps or burst" even for a RTS or city builder game, but in an action game now, 30 fps is best. I get that it's a cinematic game but... Come on guys.

PS : I OWN THE GAME ON PS5 AND PLATED IT ON IT. CALM DOWN.
I have literally read some people saying that Assassin Creed Mirage was a better version on PS5 because it dropped 1fps more in XSX in some quick area changes, or that it is the more consistent version by 1-2fps. The differences in Alan Wake 2 are not very common, at least not in AAA games.


However, when it is a difference of 10fps they don't even appear in the threads. I don't understand why there are people here saying that "it's a difference in a specific scenario", it's completely false, Alan Wake 2 is below 60fps on PS5 quite frequently (it's the version I have), especially in any area of forests. It is true that where it suffers the most is in the swamp area, but the other places also have framerate drops. I'm sure that for example when near the end of the game (Alan's part) when there is heavy rain the game seems to run in quality mode, I'm pretty convinced it runs at about 40fps. In all these situations the XSX will probably stay at 60fps or in the mid-50fps.


Adamsapple, yes, Alan Wake Remastered is more inconsistent than DF suggested in my opinion. On both PS5 and XSX I experienced crashes. It was definitely more stable than AW2 though.
 

DinoD

Member
I like when the PS5 version is the best one, 2 fps is "a huge gap, a game changer", and 10/15fps at the advantage of Xbox is "a minuscule difference".

The amount of false excuses here is so funny. "Anyway a game like this is better at 30fps", damn usually everyone think "60fps or burst" even for a RTS or city builder game, but in an action game now, 30 fps is best. I get that it's a cinematic game but... Come on guys.

PS : I OWN THE GAME ON PS5 AND PLATED IT ON IT. CALM DOWN.

You are forgetting one thing mate. PS5 has 2TF deficit. That's why it's always bigger deal when it performs same or little better than SX. Initial expectations were that SX will almost always perform better on multiplatform games.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
anyone can reply my questions?
1) So does the PS5 version performance is fine now?
2) Quality or performance mode, which is better for this game?

1. The performance mode runs at long stretches of 50~ FPS. Almost the entire forest area seen in the video runs at 50.
2. Quality is more stable, Performance is obviously higher FPS. But it's also missing some other effects and geometrical detail. Pick your poison.

They have improved the IQ of the performance (or improved anti aliasing) mode since launch in one of the earlier patches so cleaner now than it was at day 1.
 
Last edited:

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
I like when the PS5 version is the best one, 2 fps is "a huge gap, a game changer", and 10/15fps at the advantage of Xbox is "a minuscule difference".

The amount of false excuses here is so funny. "Anyway a game like this is better at 30fps", damn usually everyone think "60fps or burst" even for a RTS or city builder game, but in an action game now, 30 fps is best. I get that it's a cinematic game but... Come on guys.

PS : I OWN THE GAME ON PS5 AND PLATED IT ON IT. CALM DOWN.
so is the ps5 performance is ok most of the time?
 

SenkiDala

Member
You are forgetting one thing mate. PS5 has 2TF deficit. That's why it's always bigger deal when it performs same or little better than SX. Initial expectations were that SX will almost always perform better on multiplatform games.
I agree with you the PS5 is impressive for this. But it doesn't change that when the PS5 version of a game have 1 or 2 fps (literally) more than the XSX version it is a game changer and people are "wondering how you can play on XSX" but when it's the opposite like now with 10+ fps difference then it is just a detail without any importance. :p Bias.

That said I still had a good experience on PS5 and I enjoyed the game a lot, it is even my GOTY (by far).
 

SKYF@ll

Member
Alan Wake series uses Adaptive V-Sync in the Xbox version.
*At high framerates, VSync is enabled to eliminate tearing. At low frame rates, it's disabled to minimize stuttering.
It would be better if players could change the adaptive V-Sync and VRR(etc.) settings to their liking.
 

shamoomoo

Member
Very curious as to what explains the performance disparity. The PS5 performs in-line with an RTX 2080S/RX 6700 but the Series X is closest to a 2080 Ti, perhaps even outmatching a 3060 Ti.

Granted, Turing is significantly outperformed by Ampere and Lovelace in this game. The 3070 for instance is 11% faster than the 2080 Ti and even up to 15%, when they are usually equal.
Maybe the memory bandwidth advantage is working in favor of the Series X.
 

Unknown?

Member
Was thinking the patches would have helped but looks like even after the first couple of them the PS5 version is almost always 8~10 FPS behind in practically the entire cauldron lake forest area.


bC7vQbT.png
The developers are waiting on updated tools.
 
They need to fix the ps5 version man, it's fucking terrible!

Not just performance mode but quality mode too. The shimmering issue combined with the framerate just tanking every time there's a lot of effects happening I think is really unacceptable. This game has possibly the worst performance of any aaa game I've played this gen and I've played all the big games.
 
1. The performance mode runs at long stretches of 50~ FPS. Almost the entire forest area seen in the video runs at 50.
2. Quality is more stable, Performance is obviously higher FPS. But it's also missing some other effects and geometrical detail. Pick your poison.

They have improved the IQ of the performance (or improved anti aliasing) mode since launch in one of the earlier patches so cleaner now than it was at day 1.

Been playing since launch and the iq is still aliased and shimmery in quality mode on ps5
 

Zuzu

Member
I’m happy with the Series X’s performance here. If I get it I’ll do my first play through on quality mode on my Oled and then I’ll do a second play through on performance mode maybe on that New Game+ mode they just announced.
 
Was thinking the patches would have helped but looks like even after the first couple of them the PS5 version is almost always 8~10 FPS behind in practically the entire cauldron lake forest area.


bC7vQbT.png
Software hacks cannot always save the day. This is logical improvement of Xbox Series X over PS5. When ever the engine is built or the game is built around current features Xbox Series X will be ahead in terms of perforrmance compare PS5.

I will not be surprised if Avatar performance on Xbox Series X is better than PS5.
 
This is the true power of Series X extra shader units and memory bandwith that Phil wanted.
The issue is that games are being build around PS5 features and PS5 port in mind because of market share PS5 and safe investment ,therefore, whatever features DX12 and Xbox Series X has are not utilized and it is left behind.

When ever you see PC port first than you see that Xbox Series X will be ahead of PS5 due to DX12 features utilizing properly.
 

Darsxx82

Member
Software hacks cannot always save the day. This is logical improvement of Xbox Series X over PS5. When ever the engine is built or the game is built around current features Xbox Series X will be ahead in terms of perforrmance compare PS5.

I will not be surprised if Avatar performance on Xbox Series X is better than PS5.
?? A game with total marketing control on the part of PlayStation in the manner of what would be an exclusive.... Really, what would not be surprising is that the XSX version is launched with a polish that leaves something to be desired and needs several extra patches for bugs or errors if we stick to the history of games that or had the same treatment (Hogwarts Legacy, Callisto Protocol, EldenRing....)

I'm not talking about performance/FPS or resolution itself, both consoles are too even to see significant differences there. Rather to the extra polish (Bugs, errores..that need special patches) that I do not doubt that in the case of Avatar PS5 has had special attention. We will see.
 

Lysandros

Member
Lysandros Lysandros will probably be able to break this down for us and provide some insight into why the series x likes this next gen Northlight engine.
I don't have a sofisticated/unique explanation. In the end that is one game/engine favoring one platform to a noticeable degree like you said. That is not that unusual for the generation regardless of which platform comes at top. My personal guess is a combination of factors including the developers' higher familiarity with PC/directx API, the use of full Vsync vs adaptive Vsync (to a slight degree) and the engine being particularly compute bound.

On a different note i really wish that Vgtech's comparison coverage were much broader especially regarding UE4/5 titles, he is missing a very big part of multiplatform releases on that front. The only UE5 game that he ever tested was Talos Principle 2 for example.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I like when the PS5 version is the best one, 2 fps is "a huge gap, a game changer", and 10/15fps at the advantage of Xbox is "a minuscule difference".

The amount of false excuses here is so funny. "Anyway a game like this is better at 30fps", damn usually everyone think "60fps or burst" even for a RTS or city builder game, but in an action game now, 30 fps is best. I get that it's a cinematic game but... Come on guys.

Nah....it is the same either way. One side has excuses while the other side beats their chest. Let's not pretend Xbox fans don't do the same dance when PS5 outperforms XSX. They absolutely do.

The power delta has been the biggest non-story this generation.
 
Last edited:

Lysandros

Member
Xbox is 22,7% better in this game:

JpPWtVr.jpg
That is the difference 'in this moment', by saying 'in this game' you are falsely presenting it as the general difference. The actual average difference for the sections tested is indicated in Vgtech's stats.
 
The power delta has been the biggest non-story this generation.

Yep neither system destroys the other. And what's worse for some people is that there is no impact in sales.

With that said both the PS5 and the Series X are great options to play games on. And if your strapped for cash maybe the Series S is the best option for you.
 

Lysandros

Member
You are forgetting one thing mate. PS5 has 2TF deficit. That's why it's always bigger deal when it performs same or little better than SX. Initial expectations were that SX will almost always perform better on multiplatform games.
XSX' GPU deficits are certainly less marketable as per the general audiences, that is true.
 

Bojji

Gold Member
That is the difference 'in this moment', by saying 'in this game' you are falsely presenting it as the general difference. The actual average difference for the sections tested is indicated in Vgtech's stats.

Stats are fucked up because game has locked framerate. In the same scene with exact same engine load Xbox is performing almost 23% better, that's how you benchmark things.

If game had unlocked framerate average number could be used but not in this case.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Stats are fucked up because game has locked framerate. In the same scene with exact same engine load Xbox is performing almost 23% better, that's how you benchmark things.

If game had unlocked framerate average number could be used but not in this case.

Any time the video shows the Bright falls area (city, day time), they're both essentially locked to 60.

But any time the video shows Cauldron Lake, especially at night time, there's a difference. Cauldron Lake is basically 1/3rd of the game, you spend hour(s) there at various points in the game.

It's more than 'in the moment', it seems like entire stretches.
 

Neo_game

Member
Does anyone know if console are able to keep up with RTX 2070S or 3060 in this game ?

For PS5 I guess 30fps is ok but for 60fps they should just lower the resolution or use dynamic resolution. 1080P 40fps would be ideal for this type of game
 
Does anyone know if console are able to keep up with RTX 2070S or 3060 in this game ?

For PS5 I guess 30fps is ok but for 60fps they should just lower the resolution or use dynamic resolution. 1080P 40fps would be ideal for this type of game
Even Turing is slow is a bit slow in this game. RTX 3070 is 15% faster than RTX 2080 Ti in this ,however, RTX 2080 Ti is a bit faster than RTX 3070.
 

ManaByte

Rage Bait Youtuber
Lysandros Lysandros will probably be able to break this down for us and provide some insight into why the series x likes this next gen Northlight engine.

Mesh shaders?


On Alan Wake 2, we not only started using mesh shaders but rewrote the whole geometry rendering pipeline, starting from material definition to culling and rasterizing triangles.

I think this is the first major release to use mesh shaders like this.

 

Neo_game

Member
Even Turing is slow is a bit slow in this game. RTX 3070 is 15% faster than RTX 2080 Ti in this ,however, RTX 2080 Ti is a bit faster than RTX 3070.

I just saw some benchmark those 2 cards seems on par with each other in this game.

But as far console is concerned it seems even 3060 has a big advantage over console in this game 😲
 

SenkiDala

Member
Nah....it is the same either way. One side has excuses while the other side beats their chest. Let's not pretend Xbox fans don't do the same dance when PS5 outperforms XSX. They absolutely do.

The power delta has been the biggest non-story this generation.
Well that's possible but I see them less, probably because less people are Xbox fanboys than PS fanboys. But that's pathetic in both situations, of course. :messenger_grinning_sweat:

And yeah when you were there at the PS2/Xbox/DC/NGC era, that's even more pathetic, because back at that time, differences WERE meaningful and yeah you could pick a version above another because the difference was HUGE, DOA2 was WAY better on Dreamcast than on PS2, the PS2 was famous to add insane amount of aliasing to everything. Yet people, including myself (Silent Hill 2/3/4, ZoE, Onimusha, MGS2/3, FFX, etc) loved to play on the PS2. But let's remember the PS2 vs Xbox versions of Splinter Cell... THAT was a game with meaningful differences.
Now this DF shit site (who's mostly not even 100% sure of their mesures) push people to fight at each others for differences that are so small that you need a x500 zoom to barely start to see something... Or a few FPS gap, so little that human eye won't tell a difference without a measuring tool. They're just adding oil to the fire (we say that in France, do you say this in English ?), that is just stupid.

Yeah the Xbox version seem to be a little better on this one, 10fps isn't a so tiny difference, but in the end I don't think it totally changes the experience, for me a meaningful difference here would be if one version was 60fps locked, and the other between 50 to 60, but here on both consoles the frame rate isn't stable, so the result will look about the same to human eye. 42fps to 60 or 50fps to 60... At the end it is just not stable.
 

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Well that's possible but I see them less, probably because less people are Xbox fanboys than PS fanboys. But that's pathetic in both situations, of course. :messenger_grinning_sweat:

And yeah when you were there at the PS2/Xbox/DC/NGC era, that's even more pathetic, because back at that time, differences WERE meaningful and yeah you could pick a version above another because the difference was HUGE, DOA2 was WAY better on Dreamcast than on PS2, the PS2 was famous to add insane amount of aliasing to everything. Yet people, including myself (Silent Hill 2/3/4, ZoE, Onimusha, MGS2/3, FFX, etc) loved to play on the PS2. But let's remember the PS2 vs Xbox versions of Splinter Cell... THAT was a game with meaningful differences.
Now this DF shit site (who's mostly not even 100% sure of their mesures) push people to fight at each others for differences that are so small that you need a x500 zoom to barely start to see something... Or a few FPS gap, so little that human eye won't tell a difference without a measuring tool. They're just adding oil to the fire (we say that in France, do you say this in English ?), that is just stupid.

Yeah the Xbox version seem to be a little better on this one, 10fps isn't a so tiny difference, but in the end I don't think it totally changes the experience, for me a meaningful difference here would be if one version was 60fps locked, and the other between 50 to 60, but here on both consoles the frame rate isn't stable, so the result will look about the same to human eye. 42fps to 60 or 50fps to 60... At the end it is just not stable.
You're not wrong about this but the context surrounding these "discussions" needs to be acknowledged. Prior to their release, the narrative was largely that the Series X would consistently and noticeably outperform the PS5. When the PS5's Gonzalo and Oberon were leaked, people dug around and I think it was found that the GPU was around 9 TFlops or something of the sort.

When it was revealed that the PS5's GPU would be clocked at 2.2GHz, rumors began circulating that Sony got spooked by the mighty 12 TFlops of the Series X and that the clock boost was a panicked, last minute response to their rivals. Some even went as far as saying that RDNA couldn't be clocked that high and that the PS5 would thermal throttle or simply run at those frequencies in heavy GPU-bound scenes where the CPU would practically be sitting idle. It got so bad that some Crytek engineer (ex?) chimed in and said that TFlops were meaningless and that he had never met a single developer use it as a metric to represent power. The guy got piled on for being a Sony shill.

Fast forward 3 years later and it turns out that the whole TFlops narrative had been blown out of proportions and that the engineer was right. Who woulda thunk? So whenever the PS5 performed close to or even slightly better than the SX, it was seen as a big win because the Series X was supposed to easily outmatch it. There was this whole wide and slow vs narrow and fast debate and a bunch of dumbshit by people who knew nothing about hardware trying to peddle a false narrative.

PS5 having a much user base naturally results in many more people thumping their chests because based on the pre-release discourse, the PS5 matching the Series X is effectively a win. It's a bit like the underdog getting a draw vs the heavyweight champ. It's basically a win for the underdog and a loss for the champion. As pathetic and silly as it sounds. This is what's going on.
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
You know, i know, everybody knows.
I mean.... the crying came from you, so that's what the confusion was.

That anyone can celebrate a minor win for an XSX game in 2023 is telling in and of itself. It wasn't the slam dunk many Xbox fans beat their chests about. Of course, those of us who understand how this stuff works knew these consoles were virtual equals once all specs were announced, but there were a select chunk that just had to cackle like drunk school girls over a slight theoretical advantage (even when the competitor's machine had its own advantages).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom