Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2020-2021] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

I propose a test. Load said same save game at different times of the day and look for loading time differences on Xbox.

Geography may matter as well as closeness to data centres may also matter.

I am in no rush to test this; still wrapping up hzd. I may get around to buying RE8 much later down the line.

 

if it's a cloud check thing, maybe just try loading a save while offline VS online ?

 

Matt insider from resetera said that i/o on ps5 is just on another level comparing to xsx or pc tough not sure how credible he is.

 

Good thing to try, make sure you are truly offline mode and not just with network cable unplugged or wifi disabled.

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/connect-network/using-xbox-one-offline

Set your Xbox to offline

1. Press the Xbox button  on your controller to open the guide.
2. Select Profile & system > Settings.
3. Choose General > Network settings.
4. Select Go offline.

To go back online, repeat the first three steps, and in step 4 choose Go online.

 

Good call. And this is why discussion is good . Haha. Can’t believe I didn’t think about going offline.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_LKwHcwi6p_S1TQYJwvqQGmUXzWKlHS0cqYUh0Mf8sg/edit#gid=0

 

afterall even if XsX ends up loading games 5s slower than PS5 from menu or save, i don't think it will be the end of the world, we are still talking about less than 10s loadings, something forgotten on consoles since games went from cardbridges to discs.
The real and interesting test will be when next gen games will have to load big amount of data on the fly during gameplay.

 

Loading a game on a non-nvme ssd:

 

hmm.. those alpha drops on both are pretty massive.

 

And yes, the PC on these videos uses less memory, but not seven times less.

 

dynamic res would be perfect solution for rt mode

 

Yea that would help. I guess I’m just surprised. Unfortunately clamping 60fps doesn’t actually let me see how much both are dropping here and whether they drop equally. That would really put shed some light on the fill rate discussion between the two platforms: clock vs bandwidth.

 

VRR should be much better with those drops. The problem is with dynamic res you lose "native" rendering. Even with CBR a full 4K CBR image brings you a noticeable sharpness edge compared to anything upscaled by the GPU using cheap solutions.

This is where I think Spiderman has the edge with their own custom reconstruction + custom upscaling.

With VRR this is where XSX has the biggest advantage IMO.

 

The Windows PC IO stack means that when loading levels in games, an SSD doesn't provide anywhere close to it's theoretical transfer rates. Take a look at benchmarks between an SATA SSD versus a NVME SSD for games in general on Windows. NVME SSDs (3+ GB/s) offer a very slight advantage in load times compared to SATA SSDs (500-ish MB/s). If the XBS-X is basically just barely faster than a SATA SSD on PC when loading games, then something is very VERY wrong with the system and everyone at MS that worked on the storage subsystem should be fired.

That said, it's far more likely that RE8 just plain isn't doing a single thing to take advantage of the XBS systems subsystems other than the blind transfer rates. In other words, it's loading data on XBS system similar to how it would load data on PC. To put it more bluntly it isn't taking advantage of anything on the XBS systems that likely have to be coded for.

Hell, it might be using a less than optimal compression scheme on XBS systems and instead using something that is more easily shared between XBS consoles and PC.

Regards,
SB

 

vrr won't help with drops under 50 fps and droping resolution on rarly scenes for few seconds wouldn't be that noticable as even xss 1440p interpolated apparently doesn't look that bad

 

That will depend on the user. I can't stand drops with VRR below 58-ish FPS (with a target of 60 FPS). But plenty of NV GPU owners were quite satisfied with drops into the 30's or 40's with a 60 FPS target and when AMD first came out with their VRR implementation they quite loudly complained about how sad it was that AMD users didn't also benefit from VRR since the VRR range for FreeSync displays (often 45-48 Hz on the low end) was much narrower than G-Sync displays.

Regards,
SB

 

In this video you can see that the game adds only 1 GB to RAM when loading from the menu. One gigabyte in five seconds.
Something tells me that SSD speed is not the bottleneck here

 

It does not mean they load only 1 GB, it means 8 GB of memory is used after loading. Before loading anything in memory you reserved some memory. I doubt all 7GB of memory is replaced but probably some part.

 

I've posted a video above where the sata ssd (500 Mb/s) with i7-4790k loads from the menu in 4 seconds (at 1080p with ultra settings).
I think at worst case for 1440p-4k it could be 2 gigabytes.

 

What’s 512mb of cache going to offer when the hardware is streaming GBs of textures off the SSD during use?