Its not mysterious at all, its just (likely) a simple thing/setting in the code that they need to change with the series S, (since the series s vs ps4 pro where the series S is better at all things though they have tweaked it for ps4 sweetspot), though differences with PS5 vs XB seriesX is more readily explained, the ps5 GPU is better than series X GPU at certain things. And as every programmer knows you are only as strong as your weakest spot, each tenth of a milllisec counts
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2021]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I really doubt it's about anything being better or worse.
It's about resources and time when moving old software with all its pieces to completely new hardware and software chain. (While creating yearly sports title..)
It certainly will be interesting to see how the Xbox versions evolve in future revisions.
If there has been performance pitfalls, they will most likely be ironed out and we might even see new hardware features being used properly at some point.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Although I am certain things are vastly improved, back when the last generation consoles launched there were instances where Xbox One could be much slower than PS4 with some API calls. This following is from Digital Foundry's interview with 4A Games about what it was like to work with the [then] new consoles.
Oles Shishkovstov said:
At last gen console settings and player numbers?
This doesn't add up as here's a 7700k running at 144fps average at max settings:
https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/
I'd expect the console CPUs to be faster, but not 2x faster.
CHAOSHACKER
Newcomer
I'm pretty sure thats an SDK thing since BF4 most likely uses the old draw call limited DX11 mono driver SDK which has notoriously bad cpu performance. Which also points to that direction is that the newer BF1 and BF5, which run higher resolution and better graphics have a basically perfect framerate.
They test on Norvick map. Performance is highly variable depending on what part of map and how many enemies are there. A 6700k/7700k has absolutely no chance of a 90 fps minimum in many areas of the map, especially in breakthrough mode. It's a terrible experience. I'm not sure what you mean by last gen player numbers but the settings in BFV don't have a big impact on CPU performance.
Last edited:
Kugai Calo
Regular
It might be even harder for you to imagine how easy it is to write bad, inefficient code.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
More than easy, it's so tempting!
I wonder how much they have to cut back RT on the consoles in order to get playable FPS...in before "RT does not look worth it to me" crowd.
I think it's going to come down to what they want to release with consoles. Since they redid all the lighting in the game just for RT lighting it's a whole new game. If players are looking to increase frame rate by dropping RT, then it would have to be a different game entirely. So I'm not sure what developers are going to choose for their release here.
Seeing the amount of time artists can save with this method, is really all we discussed in theory of the advantages of RT lighting and getting rid of traditional lighting. Man really happy with this video. Very good potential for the future to see more of these developers with smaller budgets keep up with those bigger studios. Goodbye baking
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
RT will also present some issues. If your game is aiming for a particular lighting aesthetic then game directors, much like lighting directors in movies, will be fighting realistic light using diffusers and colours that mute reflections.
That's fine and I'm sure there are work around items for that. As artists are freely available to add in back fixed lighting points as required. But they don't need to add them to fix lighting in the room.
So start with RTGI, then do whatever you need.
The overall benefits outweigh the costs.
Pretty much my take! Really curious how this would run on my RTX2060.
- Status
Similar threads
