Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]

[BRiT]

I still don't know if BC mode on XSX|XSS means the CPU runs at 3.6, 3.8, or developer's choice, and how much that alters the thermals of the console.

Very good point. From the earlier comments from Xbox Engineering, I think the default for BC would be with disabled SMT and running at the higher CPU. This is from an assumption that older titles were developed around Jaguar cores so the game code would not have dynamic threaded subsystems, so slightly higher clock would win out over SMT-enabled from performance perspective.

It's unknown if any of the following are possible, but they don't seem improbable:

1. XDKGen9Aware allows developers to specify behavior on Gen9 systems
2. Xbox Firmware allows for title specific profile behavior overrides for any given Xbox One BC titles

 

[Jay]

gears tactics uses tier 1 vrs, while gears 5 uses tier 2. I would imagine first party is going to be using tier 2 from here on out.

On pc tactics used tier 1, it's possible on XS it got upgraded to tier 2.
I've got a feeling that may have been the case.

 

[liams]

On pc tactics used tier 1, it's possible on XS it got upgraded to tier 2.
I've got a feeling that may have been the case.

That would be a bit weird, its a common implementation because its using DX12, seems like a lot of work to have two different versions with differing featuresets

 

[Jay]

That would be a bit weird, its a common implementation because its using DX12, seems like a lot of work to have two different versions with differing featuresets

Not really, and wouldn't mean it wouldn't get back ported back to the pc version.
The same way gears 5 was updated on XS and some of those features are being backported. I assume gears 5 tier 2 vrs will get ported back also.

Not saying it's definitely the case as I can't remember, but it was actively being updated for XS, would seem like a reasonable update given how aggressive tier 1 could be on pc.

 

[PSman1700]

AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Review vs RTX 3090/ RTX 3080/ RX 6800 XT!

Great video as usual, thanks DF

 

[Shortbread]

Full disclosure here - we received Cyberpunk 2077 code significantly later than other outlets and we've only really just begun our examination of the game. We have a raft of PC and console analysis incoming, but please be patient with us - the stuff we want to produce will take time. This video is a 'prologue' of sorts, where we share our first impressions of the PC game, using b-roll footage provided by CD Projekt RED. We'll be back soon with everything you need to know.

 

[chris1515]

The funny things the b roll movie is looking not as good as the game. This is crazy probably the game to play on PC.

 

[Shortbread]

Just because of this video, I'm pushing my vendor to hurry the fu** up with my RTX 3090. My SLI cards are so outdated...

 

[Shortbread]

The funny things the b roll movie is looking not as good as the game. This is crazy probably the game to play on PC.

PS5/XBSX are going to look good after they're patched... but PC gamers are going to have the ultimate experience for quite some time.

 

[steveOrino]

Not even touching this game until I can actually find a 30 series card to buy.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Not even touching this game until I can actually find a 30 series card to buy.

Same, and an ultrawide monitor in my case too. I've got my eye on a 38" model, just trying to pluck up the courage to spend that much on a monitor!

 

[see colon]

This is what Digital Foundry can tell us. Does PC performance decrease the same amount in the latest version as in PS5 ver. 1.04?
If yes, then the comparison is right.

If no, for example only PS5 is negatively impacted in ver 1.04, then ver. 1.04 is not fully representative of PS5 performance.
Digital Foundry should use ver. 1.00 to compare PS5 & PC in this case.

Why should they use version 1.0 for one console and 1.04 for another? Just because 1.04 has performance issues on one set of hardware doesn't mean that it isn't the must current release of the game, and likely fixes issues elsewhere in the game.

 

[Rootax]

Not even touching this game until I can actually find a 30 series card to buy.

Honestly maybe even the gen after that.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Why should they use version 1.0 for one console and 1.04 for another?

Sometimes the version number reflects the overall code build number regardless of platform and sometimes it's specific to that platform.

Currently the Xbox version of Cyberpunk is on 1.0.0.6 and PlayStation is on 1.02. Ignoring the different format of version numbers which I think is just a platform thing, this may mean one console has had more builds than the other - perhaps for testing purposes. But in terms of code and fixes they could be running the same code. Sometimes a new version will needed to be released only for one platform to address platform-specific features and where you won't see an update on other platforms.

 

[turkey]

Sometimes the version number reflects the overall code build number regardless of platform and sometimes it's specific to that platform.

Currently the Xbox version of Cyberpunk is on 1.0.0.6 and PlayStation is on 1.02. Ignoring the different format of version numbers which I think is just a platform thing, this may mean one console has had more builds than the other - perhaps for testing purposes. But in terms of code and fixes they could be running the same code. Sometimes a new version will needed to be released only for one platform to address platform-specific features and where you won't see an update on other platforms.

I believe the spirit of the question was not on the numbering but more.

Why should they ignore the patch for one console rather than the latest patch for both consoles.

In the case of AC Valhalla the latest patch appears to help Xbox and introduce a slight frame hitch on PS5.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Not even touching this game until I can actually find a 30 series card to buy.

Yeap, after watching it running on PC and the on consoles, I wouldn't spent 60 bucks in the console version at least until the patches come out. In PC looks ridiculous, in next gen consoles looks very blurry. I don't think it's reaching above 1440p in the 60fps mode on any console.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Why should they ignore the patch for one console rather than the latest patch for both consoles.

I don't follow. Who is they and what is meant by ignoring the patch?

In PC looks ridiculous, in next gen consoles looks very blurry. I don't think it's reaching above 1440p in the 60fps mode on any console.

Don't be fooled by the shiny graphics on high-end PC, the game is as much of a mess technically as the console versions.

 

[PSman1700]

Played it abit (2080Ti/zen2), gameplay wise not really my thing.... But graphically, i agree with DF last video its the best looking game ever so far.

 

[turkey]

I don't follow. Who is they and what is meant by ignoring the patch?

.

Now I am questioning myself.

As I saw the conversation, which may be totally different to everyone else now

They being DF. This was initially concerning DF should be comparing PS5 launch version with Xbox/PC patched version, not both being patched as the PS5 patch introduced a hitch into its frame rate. This is to ascertain performance comparisons between two separate systems.

see colon I believe was asking why should DF test with mixed versions (1 and 1.04) rather than the latest version on each platform.

I did not follow exact build numbers but other things may change in the patch, so cherry picking the best performing revision of one system will not work if you want a useful comparison between two systems. Unless we have knowledge that they are feature comparible with only system specific changes.

I am even more lost now tbh.

 

[PSman1700]

cherry picking the best performing revision of one system will not work if you want a useful comparison between two systems.

True, patched versions of games is what everyone is going to experience. If a patch actually decreases performance it can be said though.