Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2022] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

[Remij]

Death Stranding: DC performs so beautifully on PC. I picked up the Director's Cut upgrade and will definitely be diving back in after I'm done Elden Ring. I couldn't wait to give it a go though so I played a few hours and got myself through most of the tutorial stuff where it's constantly bugging you with new information haha.

I decided to just create a new save and not bother importing. I want to experience it all again from the beginning.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Out of curiosity, you bought Death Stranding on PC (running a GTX1660), then bought it again on PS5 because of micro stuttering, and then bought the Directors Cut on PC again? Why?

Since I already had it on PC, the upgrade was $10. And since GPU prices are dropping, I figured I'll eventually get a RTX card and can see this with DLSS. I have several games on both PS5/PC, I'll double dip when they go on sale for the PC often as a way of future proofing as I like to come back to games (or just get them free on PS+).

It sucks I had to go to the PS5 to get a stable framerate, but it was a sunk cost on the PC as I was well past the return window. There was complaints about this in several Steam threads, but also many people don't have this issue so I don't think it's something necessarily endemic to the game.

In any case we have a meticulously settings matched comparison from Digital Foundry showing the PS5 ranging from barely faster in most cases to slower in some cases than a 2080. And then we have another non-settings matched video showing the PS5 performing comfortably above a 2080S. How would you account for the difference in result if not the difference is settings?

Different scenes, or perhaps more likely the site did not alt-tab like Alex did to invoke proper triple buffering. The game has some bizarre vsync behavior by default if you don't do this, as Alex mentioned.

All I can tell you is that the settings from Default to Very High do not have an appreciable impact on performance, this was the case in the original, and it's the case here as the engine hasn't changed. I mean if you want me to create a video to show the differences I can, but I'm telling you in my tests I maybe see 1fps difference with the framerate uncapped, it's basically margin of error stuff.

 

[PSman1700]

the PS5 generally slots right where you would expect it to based on it's specs is testament to these comparisons being far from "beyond useless" and in actually, pretty damn accurate.

Indeed, its quite amazing how well the results scale according to the specs given, we come long ways these days. Its more for intrest though i think, pc gamers will most likely be looking at a 3060Ti or faster (the more AAA/AA gamers atleast), instead of trying to match the PS5 as close as possible with a 2070/6600XT etc.

 

[BitByte]

I understand what you're trying to say here but I still disagree. If you literally want to compare how powerful the GPU's are against each other in total isolation from all other factors then you can simply look at their paper specs vs RDNA2 and then compare RDNA 2 to NV GPU's on the PC side. But that's not relevant to the real world where arguably the memory subsystem and the graphics API can be considered as part of the overall GPU performance profile. I'm not really interested in how fast the PS5 GPU might be if you coupled it with 16GB of dedicated GDDR5 and used DirectX12 and Windows 11 with it. I want to know how it performs with the PS5's API's and memory. i.e. what GPU you need in the PC space to get an equivalent experience. Removing the CPU from that equation is pretty trivial in a game like Death Stranding which is demonstrably heavily GPU limited.

And the fact that in Digital Foundries case at least (i.e. where settings and scenarios are properly matched) the PS5 generally slots right where you would expect it to based on it's specs is testament to these comparisons being far from "beyond useless" and in actually, pretty damn accurate.

Except it's really not accurate at all? If DFs test methodology was accurate, the gpu needed to get an equivalent experience on PC would be the same but it varies per game and over time. At the start of the PS4 generation, DF claimed that the 750ti would net you equivalent performance in the PC space. That ended up being very wrong as the gen wore on. Even in this video, Alex highlights the varying performance on a game by game basis in his blurb about the 2060 Super. All of this is to say that their tests are only valid for that game and they don't tell us about gpu performance as a whole.

 

[BitByte]

Unfortunately some people here are always about having their favorite plastic box "win" instead of looking the comparisons made by sites like DF for what they are. Hint: They are not an awards show and your e-peen will stay the same size regardless of the results.

Don’t take this the wrong way but, as far as my arguments are concerned, you won’t find me console warring. All I’m doing is pointing out a fundamentally flawed testing methodology. You can like it or not like it but very little useful information can be gleaned from that test methodology. Which ever GPU the Ps5 or the series x is equivalent to is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t really how developers make their games for consoles.


Also, let’s not dismiss the fact that DF got to where they are today by stoking the flames of console warring. Claiming that 720p was blurry but 900p was much clearer and all the other hyperbole they spewed during the last two console generations. Even today, they’re guilty of stoking the flames with their 400% zooms and etc. Like anyone can see that on their couch 6 feet away from the TV. In the pc space, you don’t see us arguing about the performance difference between a 3060 and 3060ti but in the console space, people argue of differences that are much smaller.

 

[PSman1700]

DF claimed that the 750ti would net you equivalent performance in the PC space. That ended up being very wrong as the gen wore on.

That had alot to do with NV’s approach which started with kepler to rendering vs AMD gcn (compute). They couldve used a gcn variant. Things are different today though.

 

[Seanspeed]

Also, let’s not dismiss the fact that DF got to where they are today by stoking the flames of console warring. Claiming that 720p was blurry but 900p was much clearer and all the other hyperbole they spewed during the last two console generations. Even today, they’re guilty of stoking the flames with their 400% zooms and etc. Like anyone can see that on their couch 6 feet away from the TV. In the pc space, you don’t see us arguing about the performance difference between a 3060 and 3060ti but in the console space, people argue of differences that are much smaller.

Claiming that 900p looks a fair bit better than 720p is not hyperbole, in my opinion.

If that's the case, see how people react if you tell them 1440p doesn't look much better than 1080p.

As for the zooms, they're not 'stoking flames', they're simply being analytical. How people take these things isn't on them and I'd be pretty annoyed if they changed their approach in order to quiet the losers down. I mean, I can already look at a comparison and see the more obvious differences myself on first glance and dont need anybody to tell me about them, but DF are decent at going through with a finer-tooth comb and picking out many details I'd probably miss without doing the same as them. I find this stuff interesting, even if it may not be super material to the overall end result. And it seems they do too, which is why they chose to do it for a living(John and Alex specifically had backgrounds doing this kind of thing before joining already as a hobby).

As for people on PC not arguing the difference between a 3060 and 3060Ti, that's because we get the same games no matter what. Whereas on console, how powerful a console is can absolutely have a notable impact on the potential of the games on that machine. So while I'm not excusing platform warring behavior, it does make sense to care about which one is more powerful moreso than what GPU somebody has on PC. PS4's power advantage the last generation played a significant role in enabling all those super impressive PS4 blockbuster games that were hyped heavily on how amazing they looked, for instance.

And I think DF's Death Stranding video was quite good, and Alex made it clear enough on more than one occasion that the results spoke only for that one game. Again, this is another area where I'm glad they made a video that was quite interesting, even if it meant a bunch of platform warriors would make far more out of it due to their insecurity over these things.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Also, let’s not dismiss the fact that DF got to where they are today by stoking the flames of console warring. Claiming that 720p was blurry but 900p was much clearer and all the other hyperbole they spewed during the last two console generations. Even today, they’re guilty of stoking the flames with their 400% zooms and etc. Like anyone can see that on their couch 6 feet away from the TV.

Guess what - a TV is not actually the primary place where people watch youtube videos. In fact, the most common screen is much, much smaller.

You can of course argue that for the end experience of the final gamer this matters little sure, but to argue that they bear some responsibility for console "warring" because of it is pretty suspect. For one, platform wars have existed since the dawn of platforms - Atari ST vs Amiga, Neo-Geo vs SNES - there's just more avenues now to see them.

Secondly, if they're somehow complicit in poisoned internet discourse around this topic, then so are all of us by using this forum which is dedicated to discussing the differences in tech and platforms - I'd say from a 'moral' perspective perhaps more culpable in fact, since the majority of the posts don't actually back up their subjective opinion with the level of analysis they do. DF is usually extremely gentle in their critique.

In the pc space, you don’t see us arguing about the performance difference between a 3060 and 3060ti but in the console space, people argue of differences that are much smaller.

The reason for that difference should be obvious though - a 3060 isn't a different platform than a 3060ti. They run the same software, going with a 3060 doesn't mean you've invested in a difference ecosystem than a Ti model.

 

[BitByte]

Claiming that 900p looks a fair bit better than 720p is not hyperbole, in my opinion.

If that's the case, see how people react if you tell them 1440p doesn't look much better than 1080p.

As for the zooms, they're not 'stoking flames', they're simply being analytical. How people take these things isn't on them and I'd be pretty annoyed if they changed their approach in order to quiet the losers down. I mean, I can already look at a comparison and see the more obvious differences myself on first glance and dont need anybody to tell me about them, but DF are decent at going through with a finer-tooth comb and picking out many details I'd probably miss without doing the same as them. I find this stuff interesting, even if it may not be super material to the overall end result. And it seems they do too, which is why they chose to do it for a living(John and Alex specifically had backgrounds doing this kind of thing before joining already as a hobby).

As for people on PC not arguing the difference between a 3060 and 3060Ti, that's because we get the same games no matter what. Whereas on console, how powerful a console is can absolutely have a notable impact on the potential of the games on that machine. So while I'm not excusing platform warring behavior, it does make sense to care about which one is more powerful moreso than what GPU somebody has on PC. PS4's power advantage the last generation played a significant role in enabling all those super impressive PS4 blockbuster games that were hyped heavily on how amazing they looked, for instance.

And I think DF's Death Stranding video was quite good, and Alex made it clear enough on more than one occasion that the results spoke only for that one game. Again, this is another area where I'm glad they made a video that was quite interesting, even if it meant a bunch of platform warriors would make far more out of it due to their insecurity over these things.

With regards to 720p vs 900p, on fixed pixel displays, it doesn't really matter as both are not 1080p and will appear blurry on a 1080p screen. One being marginally better did not warrant the level of hyperbole spewed out in the ps360 and ps4/xb1 generations.

You say 400% zooms is DF being analytical and I say it's being pedantic. In terms of real world viewing, is the 400% zoom of 1440p vs 1512p noteworthy to the average viewer? I would argue that the answer is no. Even you yourself mention that you wouldn't even notice yet this information is used to fuel console warring rhetoric. If DF focused on comparisons influenced the user's ability to enjoy the game, we would be having a different discussion all together. Things like Frame Pacing, shader compilation issue, stutter issues, general stability of performance, input latency, blah blah blah, are some of the more useful subject matters they've started to cover recently. You know, things that affect playability because we're playing a game.....

I do enjoy DF's content but, I also recognize the role they play in fueling the console warring rhetoric. You don't get to 1 million subscribers by providing content that is not engaging and a large portion of their audience is kept engaged via console warring. I think trying to dismiss their role in it is quite naive.

 

[BitByte]

Guess what - a TV is not actually the primary place where people watch youtube videos. In fact, the most common screen is much, much smaller.

You can of course argue that for the end experience of the final gamer this matters little sure, but to argue that they bear some responsibility for console "warring" because of it is pretty suspect. For one, platform wars have existed since the dawn of platforms - Atari ST vs Amiga, Neo-Geo vs SNES - there's just more avenues now to see them.

Secondly, if they're somehow complicit in poisoned internet discourse around this topic, then so are all of us by using this forum which is dedicated to discussing the differences in tech and platforms - I'd say from a 'moral' perspective perhaps more culpable in fact, since the majority of the posts don't actually back up their subjective opinion with the level of analysis they do. DF is usually extremely gentle in their critique.

The reason for that difference should be obvious though - a 3060 isn't a different platform than a 3060ti. They run the same software, going with a 3060 doesn't mean you've invested in a difference ecosystem than a Ti model.

I think you misunderstood what was meant by my 400% zoom comment. My stance was not related to the viewing of their videos on youtube but, the playing of the game on your tv. DF is the type of youtube channel that will tell you, "there was a bush rendered on this console that was not rendered on another" in a 400% zoom. This is something that a large majority of people will never notice and it'll never affect their enjoyment of the game.

Why is DF resorting to 400% zooms? It's because it's getting harder and harder to find differences between the consoles. They have to feed the beast so, they dig up useless comparisons in an attempt to highlight trivial differences that don't affect the end user. Unlike their counterparts, ELAnalistaDeBits and VGTech, DF always has a narrative they like share with the audience. The other two channels I mentioned provide you with images and graphs with no commentary. This allows the viewer to view the information and arrive at their own conclusions. DF on the other hand will take an image that looks relatively similar and will add hyperbolic commentary to it similar to CNN or Fox News. I enjoy DF's content for what it is and I understand, they have to eat as well. I don't begrudge them for it but, let's not pretend like they don't know what they're doing.

With regards to those on this forum being more culpable, I say, wake me up when we have a million people viewing the forums on a weekly basis. Better yet, when the general gaming populace starts frequently using forum posts from Beyond3d as ammo in their console war arguments, then we'll know we've made it to DF's level.

 

[iroboto]

I think trying to dismiss their role in it is quite naive.

The opposite perspective is that they've been responsible in flattening out the differences between consoles. Their reporting has pushed developers to ensure that the games perform admirably on both systems.
If no information was ever provided about alternative versions, no one would know the better. This is how places get away with exploitation, because of a lack of reporting.

Without a doubt that many people will weaponize the information provided by DF for their own means, but that is ultimately out of their control. At least they are providing feedback and analysis here to refute baseless claims about performance. This is contrary to providing data points without any analysis see En Lista Bits, and VG Tech etc. and trusting the viewers to interpret the data correctly (which they never do).

DF works with developers and release results back to them before they go to the public so that they know which areas they need to work on. The culmination of DF's work has definitely had some influence on the industry, which is to say, because their reporting and the console warring, developers have opted for methods in which it is becoming difficult to detect differences in version despite there being hardware differences.

This is technically the best generation of performance parity on console, ever. The only people that technically lose are the console warriors.

Having data does not mean you can interpret it correctly. My job is precisely in this field and far too many people who have little to no understanding of the data and what the data means will arrive to incorrect conclusions.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Except it's really not accurate at all? If DFs test methodology was accurate, the gpu needed to get an equivalent experience on PC would be the same but it varies per game and over time.

Of course it varies per game and over time because different games will stress different parts of the the GPU to different degrees and will be more or less optimised for one or other platform, with that biasing towards the consoles over time. But each individual game helps us build an overall picture because the more comparisons you have, the more the variations will average out. It also gives an idea of the upper and lower bounds that different levels of optimisation will provide for a given set of hardware in a given timeframe. For example, based on all available evidence from Digital Foundry (specifically due to their strict methodology) it's safe to conclude that in >95% of cases a 2080S/3060Ti will offer an equivalent or better experience to the PS5 at the moment regardless of the game or it's level of optimisation (ignoring non-performance related issues like bugs and shader compilation stuttering). At the same time, it's safe to say that even with RT in the mix, the PS5 will in >95% of cases offer an equal or better experience to a 2060/3050. And without RT that lifts up to at least 2070/S level.

At the start of the PS4 generation, DF claimed that the 750ti would net you equivalent performance in the PC space. That ended up being very wrong as the gen wore on.

Not really because they never claimed it would always net you equivalent performance. What they did show us though is that if you bought a 750ti at that point, it could net you a roughly equivalent experience to the PS4 in many cases (not all). It's to be expected that over time, the consoles will perform relatively better compared to similar GPU's that were released around the same time because while developer optimisation for the consoles architecture will only increase over time, it will conversely decrease over time for any given PC architecture as it ages and falls out of use. On top of that, vendors will also reduce their level of driver optimisations which further compounds the performance deficit. Here's the thing though, it's near the start of the generation when a PC architecture is still in full support at both the driver and developer level, and before devs have really started to push the optimisation limits of the consoles, that these kind comparisons can give us a fairly accurate picture of how the hardware compares within the different ecosystems.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Guess what - a TV is not actually the primary place where people watch youtube videos. In fact, the most common screen is much, much smaller.

You can of course argue that for the end experience of the final gamer this matters little sure, but to argue that they bear some responsibility for console "warring" because of it is pretty suspect. For one, platform wars have existed since the dawn of platforms - Atari ST vs Amiga, Neo-Geo vs SNES - there's just more avenues now to see them.

Secondly, if they're somehow complicit in poisoned internet discourse around this topic, then so are all of us by using this forum which is dedicated to discussing the differences in tech and platforms - I'd say from a 'moral' perspective perhaps more culpable in fact, since the majority of the posts don't actually back up their subjective opinion with the level of analysis they do. DF is usually extremely gentle in their critique.

The reason for that difference should be obvious though - a 3060 isn't a different platform than a 3060ti. They run the same software, going with a 3060 doesn't mean you've invested in a difference ecosystem than a Ti model.

Didn't amd and Nvidia always have fans warring at one point. And Intel I guess.

 

[Inuhanyou]

This is technically the best generation of performance parity on console, ever. The only people that technically lose are the console warriors.

Here here. Barring some temporary omissions of OS related features by some platform holders, the two consoles run nigh identically, especially putting TAA and dynamic res into the mix which makes pixel counting almost irrelevant. Even performance is generally very good for both platforms trying to hit 60fps on most titles, and graphics settings are pretty much perfectly matched as well.

It's a far cry from the 360 and ps3 era, let alone prior to that with actually having different versions of games per platform to account for the hardware being so radically different.

This also has the knock on effect unfortunately of warriors having to get far more creative with their warriorisms. Usually ending up extremely silly.

 

[PSman1700]

the PS5 will in >95% of cases offer an equal or better experience to a 2060/3050. And without RT that lifts up to at least 2070/S level.

PS5 is indeed ballpark RTX2070/S when not considering RT/Reconstruction, or better said RX6600XT/RX6700.

Not really because they never claimed it would always net you equivalent performance. What they did show us though is that if you bought a 750ti at that point, it could net you a roughly equivalent experience to the PS4 in many cases (not all). It's to be expected that over time, the consoles will perform relatively better compared to similar GPU's that were released around the same time because while developer optimisation for the consoles architecture will only increase over time, it will conversely decrease over time for any given PC architecture as it ages and falls out of use. On top of that, vendors will also reduce their level of driver optimisations which further compounds the performance deficit. Here's the thing though, it's near the start of the generation when a PC architecture is still in full support at both the driver and developer level, and before devs have really started to push the optimisation limits of the consoles, that these kind comparisons can give us a fairly accurate picture of how the hardware compares within the different ecosystems.

The 750Ti was a bad choice in the longevity regard due to GCN/compute vs what kepler did at the time. I think the amd HD series lasted/aged quite well considering, hd7870 could cope long enough to be relevant if you can live with base console settings (bar ram limitations). I think this generation (equal to console) GPU's will age much better/will keep parity, in special when RT/DLSS are considered.

 

[PSman1700]

It's a far cry from the 360 and ps3 era, let alone prior to that with actually having different versions of games per platform to account for the hardware being so radically different.

Differences back then:

 

[BitByte]

The opposite perspective is that they've been responsible in flattening out the differences between consoles. Their reporting has pushed developers to ensure that the games perform admirably on both systems.
If no information was ever provided about alternative versions, no one would know the better. This is how places get away with exploitation, because of a lack of reporting.

Without a doubt that many people will weaponize the information provided by DF for their own means, but that is ultimately out of their control. At least they are providing feedback and analysis here to refute baseless claims about performance. This is contrary to providing data points without any analysis see En Lista Bits, and VG Tech etc. and trusting the viewers to interpret the data correctly (which they never do).

DF works with developers and release results back to them before they go to the public so that they know which areas they need to work on. The culmination of DF's work has definitely had some influence on the industry, which is to say, because their reporting and the console warring, developers have opted for methods in which it is becoming difficult to detect differences in version despite there being hardware differences.

This is technically the best generation of performance parity on console, ever. The only people that technically lose are the console warriors.

Having data does not mean you can interpret it correctly. My job is precisely in this field and far too many people who have little to no understanding of the data and what the data means will arrive to incorrect conclusions.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. Not one I agree with though. In terms of entrusting users to interpret data correctly, I think we can entrust the general populace with looking at two images and selecting which one they prefer. We’re not asking them to interpret complex data.

Developers strive to deliver the best experience possible within the constraints they have. I’d argue that the improvement in quality has more to do with the growth of the industry than it has to do with DF. DF has been highlighting things in From Software’s games for a while and it hasn’t resulted in any meaningful changes. Conversely, they worked with Crytek to improve crysis 1-3 remastered and they still failed to deliver a fully finished product. Instead what happened was Crytek used DF to market their remaster to their million plus subscribers.

I think you vastly overestimate DF’s importance in this space. I like their team and work they do but, if digital foundry were to disappear today, nothing of value would be lost. There would be others who would rise up to fill the gap as we’ve already seen.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Differences back then:

What generation? Maybe I should have said 6th generation and prior to that xD

But PS3 in terms of performance and res really did suffer quite significantly despite the difference not really being anything compared to the gargantuan resolutions on PS5 and Xbox series today. and the Wii of course doesn't need explanation. DS vs psp ect

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think you vastly overestimate DF’s importance in this space. I like their team and work they do but, if digital foundry were to disappear today, nothing of value would be lost. There would be others who would rise up to fill the gap as we’ve already seen.

When developers have come out and thanked DF for the work they've done and attributed pre-launch fixes to their games to DF, I don't really think he's overestimating DF's importance.

And that's only been the ones that have talked publicly about it. Not all developers will publicly disclose that information.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

What generation? Maybe I should have said 6th generation and prior to that xD

But PS3 in terms of performance and res really did suffer quite significantly despite the difference not really being anything compared to the gargantuan resolutions on PS5 and Xbox series today. and the Wii of course doesn't need explanation. DS vs psp ect

True. The performance differences seen in xbox vs PS2 was enormous, things equalized more and more after that. The 360 was generally seen as the more capable console, then the PS4 was the more capable machine over the One but today they are basically the same, with the XSX being somewhat more powerfull. not enough to notice it mostly.

I think 6th generation was the most interesting by far, different architectures, new (serious) players on the market (with one leaving), the graphical leaps where huge still, there were actually intresting exclusives on consoles etc etc.