His videos get worse. Comparing PS5 to 3090 performance (with the PS5 winning obviously) on the basis of the PC running maxed out at fixed native 4k while the PS5 is running at both lower settings and DRS (which the PC also supports) as low as 1080p. But since the PS5 looks "close enough" by his reckoning, the enormous settings gulf can be washed over and instead we can focus on how the PS5 is faster. And while we're at it we'll mention why this is fine because the PS5's resolution reconstruction is so great, but we won't turn DLSS on in the PC version (which it support) because, reasons.
Value of NXGamer technical investigation videos *spawn
- Thread starter pjbliverpool
- Start date
His videos get worse. Comparing PS5 to 3090 performance (with the PS5 winning obviously) on the basis of the PC running maxed out at fixed native 4k while the PS5 is running at both lower settings and DRS (which the PC also supports) as low as 1080p. But since the PS5 looks "close enough" by his reckoning, the enormous settings gulf can be washed over and instead we can focus on how the PS5 is faster. And while we're at it we'll mention why this is fine because the PS5's resolution reconstruction is so great, but we won't turn DLSS on in the PC version (which it support) because, reasons.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yeah, that's some pretty piss poor commentary. Hopefully noone uses that video to make any judgements about either version of the game. Either they should compare compare like for like or they should not offer obviously biased opinions.
Regards,
SB
I don't even think he's the one that did the capture of the PC version. I think he got to footage from another IGN employee. It's not my favorite analysis but I don't want to pile on his content, though. It's definitely got opinions and odd choices mixed in with the facts, but there are still facts to perspective to be gleamed from it.
The OpenSurprise video, the contrast and color grading is different in the Series S footage, though. It's somewhat expected that PS5 and Series have slight differences there, but S and X are different and X and 5 look closer. S looks more washed out and lacks contrast, and the color temperature looks different as well. Not sure if that's because of setting being different, or just a side effect of the capture method.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I'd like to see a link to the video in question because to be honest, this sounds like a biased commentary to a video where the minimal returns of the higher settings made possible on PC versions are mentioned.
This is pretty much what all the most influential videogame reviewers have been saying about almost all games with PC + 9th-gen console releases. It's hardly an unpopular or unpredictable statement to make.
Even SkillUp says that pretty frequently in videos that are sponsored by Nvidia.
The video is already linked in my post in the quote from see colon.
There's a big difference between mentioning the diminishing returns of ultra settings (which is something I prefer judge for myself from a quality analysis like those from Digital Foundry that properly compare said settings), and using Ultra settings and fixed 4k res to drag down the performance of the competing system even though NXG claims they offer nothing in the game. If they offer nothing then why is he using them as a basis for a performance comparison in what is specifically titled a PS5 vs PC analysis. And why are performance saving options like DRS and reconstruction (both of which are available) not being used on the PC side when both are in use on the PS5? This is clearly nothing but platform wars fodder.
Last edited:
What in the world?
According to him the native resolution is 1080p on PS5, reconstructed to 4K with some exceptionnal reconstruction tech, looking comparable to native 4K (but native 4K still being better). He also said he was very impressed by PS5 performance as he didn't catch one single framerate drop and he tested the worst conditions.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I saw nothing of the platform wars fodder you mentioned in the video linked by @see colon, which is why I asked for the video that sparked all that criticism.
If it's that video then my suspicions are true. The platform wars weren't triggered by NXGamer. IMO they're being triggered by you.
You claim he "used ultra settings and fixed 4k res to drag down the performance of the competing system". This is your personal and IMO erroneous interpretation that twists what was done and its intent. NXGamer maxed out his PC settings at 4K, and when he saw that his setup still maintained a framerate well above 60 FPS, he kept it like that without resorting to reconstruction methods -> so that he could analyse the temporal reconstruction in the game and compare it to native rendering.
Here's what NXGamer actually said about the PS5 vs. PC comparison (link is timestamped):
So far he's just praising the temporal reconstruction in the game when comparing TAAU vs. native 4K. There's no PC bad Console good here as suggested. Moving on:NXGamer said:
Praising the temporal reconstruction while pointing out the advantages of the native 4K rendering. I.e. pointing out where the PC @4K60 is better.NXGamer said:
Here it is. The PC criticism. The clearly nothing but platform wars fodder. Three sentences that last around 15 seconds in a video that has around 900 seconds total, that refers exclusively to the game's real time cinematics.NXGamer said:
Moving on.
Thus ends his PS5 vs PC comparison, with boasting how good both the PC and PS5 versions look. There's not one anti-PC comment, not one anti-RTX3090 comment. Not one everyone-must-buy-the-PS5-version comment.NXGamer said:
There's 15 seconds of comments on the PC version dropping the framerate during the cinematics, where he doesn't even suggest it's related to the GPU as it could even be related to some other chunky stuff on Windows 10 that Sledgehammer couldn't control.
So here it is, the source material for NXGamer's videos getting worse , and the piss poor commentary with obviously biased opinions.
All the work NXGamer had with frametime counting across 4 different platforms, pixel counting across 4 different platforms, pointing out differences in shadow resolution, texture resolution, shader quality, or anything else that constitutes the 99% of the video that isn't pointing out a framerate dip during cinematics on the PC (and is served to us for free), gets tossed away because of this false platform warring accusation.
More than the posts I've answered to, I'm mostly disappointed by the fact that they're the most liked posts in the page (and by whom).
B3D should be better than this IMO.
Especially in a time when we're talking about increasing the level of discussion in the forum and yet here we are following some facebook-esque mob judgement and crapping on the work of the people who should be of greater interest to the forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
davis.anthony
Veteran
That rock solid 60fps frame rate.
I actually find it quite remarkable that you could have taken all that time and effort to transcribe everything he said and yet still completely failed to miss the obvious bias in both the words and emphasis. Take the following NX gamer quotes kindly provided by you, but with a different emphasis:
NXGamer said:
"ToTTenTranz said:
Except it isn't the only "real difference" as he himself explains further down. The settings differences are in fact numerous and significant, but making this statement effectively allows him to claim graphical parity between the two versions to set the tone for his later head to head performance comparison. If the extra settings make no difference, why is the later performance comparison still using them?
In addition, he states that the PC version doesn't use reconstruction, yet it supports both DLSS and FSR. Why is he not using them while simultaneously praising how the PS5's reconstruction makes the native resolution of the PC unnoticeable?
Yes he mentions the technical differences in passing so that his loyal fans can trot them out in his defence in discussions just such as this, but then he instantly dismisses those differences entirely, while still keeping these apparently completely useless and unnoticeable improvements active for the performance comparison. And that's the issue here. That's the bias.
NXGamer said:
"ToTTenTranz said:
One doesn't have to make overtly "anti-anything" comments to still give a biased commentary. All you have to do is misrepresent or underrepresent one side while not doing the same to the other. He clearly washes over all the graphical differences to the point of saying they are unnoticeable and yet while still having all of those apparently unnoticeable graphical enhancements turned on, proceeds to emphasise how the PS5 is running much faster than a "top of the stack" PC.
In fact not only that but he absurdly claims the PS5 runs 3x faster which means he's comparing the PS5 performance mode to the PC's maxed out 4k native presentation as if they're somehow fairly comparable. This is despite his earlier comparison between the PS5 performance and quality modes where he shows very clearly the obvious resolution differences between the two and states that performance mode tends to run at 1080p with other lowered settings.
Let me emphasise that again. As quoted by yourself above, he highlights the PS5 running 3x faster than the 3090 while dismissing the graphical differences between the two as "little to no difference". This is with the PS5 running at 1080p and the PC running at 4K and significantly higher settings.
How on Earth did you take that from anything he said? And are you seriously suggesting that regardless of graphics settings it's impossible to run those cut scenes above 40fps on a top end PC?
Last edited:
Its quite intresting and very surprising to even see that video or lines like that on here. The PS5 doesnt even match the 3060 in rasterization in most titles, often representing RX6600. Seems like the uploader found the odd game with altered settings to make some absurd claims. NXGamer has been discussed on here before, and while its allowed to post videos like that, its not really desirable.
Anyway, Gamers Nexus findings on PS5 vs equal pc hardware.
Surely NXGamer knows 2160p is 4x 1080p, not “twice the amount of pixels.” Did he simply misspeak or is he counting reconstruction as a multiplier? That would make effects like SSR at least 8x higher res on PC (assuming he didn’t also misspeak there and they’re not also half res in each dimension). Didn’t watch the video, just going by the quotes.
Those cutscenes must be I/O bound
7.5Gb/s wont cut it.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
And I find it remarkable that you couldn't bother to provide context or valid data for your initial accusations (that we eventually found out referred to the cutscenes alone). And when faced with the actual proof that your accusations of NXGamer's platform warring are wrong you decide to selectively bold different parts of the text that still only shows that he purely focused on praising the game's temporal reconstruction.
During the cutscenes! In a 15 second commentary out of praising the game on console and PC for the other 850 seconds!
Lol this is ridiculous. I'm out.
I just hope the other users can see how much of a bad faith is being thrown here on the platform warring accusations, all in some weird quest to pan and discredit someone else's work.
He probably misspoke, as in the next sentence he mentions half width and height.
Or maybe I didn't hear it right. The guy speaks so fast with a hard English accent (to me at least..).
Yup, like many other cutscenes in games it probably has nothing to do with the GPU but rather the PC version being limited by the latency that Windows 10 has at the moment.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic -- I dont think that's very likely/possible
He mispoke. Elsewhere he was very clear about his quarter native resolution claims.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
What a shame that some credibility was lost.
Cutscene stuttering is a very well known problem on PC games, and one of the more successful solutions to those is to disable Control Flow Guard in Windows.
It’s a recurring mistake. At 1:45, he says the PS4 Pro res is “double that [of the base PS4], and targets 2720x1530, which gives us a half resolution of 1360x765.” (Is the “half” res the min res that he pixel counted, and the “target” the max?) Unless this is A/V shorthand where all resolutions are quoted as vertical (not so useful with rendering as sometimes resolution is reduced on only one axis), he’s forgetting an axis and so off by a factor of two.
I’m a little unclear as to what’s happening with the res. He says the game “targets” the reconstructed res, the Pro (~1:58) “looking close enough to 4k on a 4k screen to never be offensive. Remember, this is resolving to that native target [1530p?] most often but at fast movement, camera cuts and the edge of screen, that’s when you can see this breakdown of it [765p?] resolving back in[to 1530p?].”
The PS5’s 120hz mode “likely scales at 1080p, which it’s most often at in action, then up to 3840x2160 with that reconstruction method when it’s at quieter sections.” I guess he’s using “resolving” and “scaling” interchangeably? Isn’t the game always reconstructing to 4k, no matter the native rendering resolution (from 1080p min to 2160p max)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The PC footage is credited as captured by someone else. The repeated resolution goof makes me wonder if he’s viewing raw or compressed footage when he’s comparing with the presumably raw PS5 footage he’s capturing. PS5 may well look close enough as to be equivalent to PC 4k to the average gamer at TV distances and the IGN audience may be less discerning than other tech analysis outlets, but it’s sloppy.
He is a fast talker, but I’m more confused by his terminology. And my brain is working at half res today, but I set nitpick to ultra in my settings.
Edits: He does mention “half width and height” at 7:00. But then he shortly follows that with “pushing twice the amount of pixels” at ~7:30. I understand he’s probably under more time pressure than, say, DF, but why make a technical analysis narrated at breakneck speed more confusing than necessary?
If I can judge from a 4k YT video, I agree with his opinion that it’s hard to distinguish between PS5 “4k”60 and PC 4k max settings. The PS5 apparently made smart sacrifices to hit 60fps. Pity he didn’t have the time to qualify the “third of the framerate” by at least enabling DRS on the PC to see if that alone can bring the min up in that one scene. Was the PS5 rendering at 1080p there? Surely quartering the res could get the PC to 60. I’m sure if Alex’s does a recommended PC settings video we’ll find out.
11:40 The PS4 Pro “can get some streaming judder on the train section but it is loading a lot of detail and it is [pushing?] twice the pixel throughput of the PS4.” It’s asking a lot for me to realize that he means the PS4 Pro’s 1320x765 (base? min?) res is 2x the PS4’s 960x540 and assume they’re both bottoming out there in the five seconds it takes him to say that.
I watched the whole video and still can’t tell if the game always renders at his “half” resolutions or uses DRS. ~12:00 “The cutscene cinematics obviously again ramp up that resolution quality [?!], lowering the reconstruction to give you a sharper, cleaner image.” Sounds like DRS.
Maybe his FH5 perf analysis is easier to follow.
Last edited:
Similar threads
