Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

[GhostofWar]

The DF diablo 4 console review came out before for patreons, surprised the ps5/xsx are running from a base around 1300p with fsr2 to get to 4k and 30fps cutscenes. Anyone have any idea if comparable pc hardware struggles to hit 60hz at 1440p? I thought it was running pretty easy on potato level hardware, but would appear my assumption was way off.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The DF diablo 4 console review came out before for patreons, surprised the ps5/xsx are running from a base around 1300p with fsr2 to get to 4k and 30fps cutscenes. Anyone have any idea if comparable pc hardware struggles to hit 60hz at 1440p? I thought it was running pretty easy on potato level hardware, but would appear my assumption was way off.

Seems to run very well in comparison:

 

[troyan]

Going by this video texture quality is just "high" on the consoles:

 

[Dictator]

Going by this video texture quality is just "high" on the consoles:

That could just be the output resolution and reconstruction affecting the output res quality there. Consoles are reconstructed from a low res up to 4K, so it could make some textures look less prisitine if it is FSR2.

 

[davis.anthony]

That could just be the output resolution and reconstruction affecting the output res quality there. Consoles are reconstructed from a low res up to 4K, so it could make some textures look less prisitine if it is FSR2.

Ala Returnal on PS5.

 

[eastmen]

If you can't deal with the decisions of some developers maybe you should look for another hobby.

I just don't buy their games as I said. If they can't spend time to create an optimized version of the game then they loose my business. It's why I didn't buy hogwarts either as neither the pc or xbox versions were complete games and had numerous performance issues

 

[techuse]

The DF diablo 4 console review came out before for patreons, surprised the ps5/xsx are running from a base around 1300p with fsr2 to get to 4k and 30fps cutscenes. Anyone have any idea if comparable pc hardware struggles to hit 60hz at 1440p? I thought it was running pretty easy on potato level hardware, but would appear my assumption was way off.

Probably shouldn’t post things from DF videos only available to patreon subscribers.

 

[GhostofWar]

Probably shouldn’t post things from DF videos only available to patreon subscribers.

I didn't post the video but thought there may have been others here with access to the video. In the future i'll wait until the video goes public and is posted in the thread before starting any discussions, wasn't trying to cause drama.

 

[Panino Manino]

You are right , its not lazy devs. It's likely the Playstation marketing deal signed with Sony that has prioritized the ps4/pro over the xbox platforms. It wouldn't be the first time as we can see it happen in a lot of marketing deal games like Harry potter

And hypothetical "marketing deal" would make all versions equal, not worse.

 

[chris1515]

 

[Below2D]

They were really conservative there. According to Tom's Hardware, a 2070 averages 84fps at 1440p with lows of 64fps.

1440p/60 should have easily been doable.

 

[Opeth]

I didn't post the video but thought there may have been others here with access to the video. In the future i'll wait until the video goes public and is posted in the thread before starting any discussions, wasn't trying to cause drama.

You did nothing wrong don't worry. It even got me interested in joining DF for early access, I had not realised that was a thing.

 

[Seanspeed]

Also its a bad port

I just cant with this stuff. This game by all accounts runs super well on basically everything, but because they didn't prioritize Series S to the highest degree(cuz why would they?) out of all the many, many platforms they had to build around, they are 'lazy' and this is a 'bad port'?

Again, I cant stress enough how much it annoys me how much lack of appreciation you and countless others have for the developers who make these games. I honestly couldn't do that job. People like you would make me want to quit and go find a better paying job with better hours where I wasn't trashed on for my work constantly by ignorant consumers who dont have any idea how anything works.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Diablo IV's GPU/CPU performance on the PC appears to be excellent, but we may have another entry in the VRAM debate:

Storage requirements: Only really worry-free from 16 GB​

Diablo IV requires an astonishingly high amount of graphics card memory, because the game only runs flawlessly from 16 GB of VRAM, even in high resolutions with the highest preset. If the graphics card only has 12 GB, you have to live with limitations in Ultra HD. With only 8 GB, the statement even applies to Full HD. Under certain circumstances, upsampling can mitigate the effects somewhat, but cannot eliminate them.

Diablo IV reacts twice to insufficient graphics memory:

1. From time to time, textures just won't load, which doesn't cost performance, but it's visible.
2. In addition, Diablo IV occasionally stalls briefly when there is a lack of VRAM, which is only noticeable if you pay attention to it. Occasionally it jerks noticeably because a good amount of data is suddenly thrown out of the memory. Even the FPS can visibly suffer.

 

[Below2D]

Diablo IV's GPU/CPU performance on the PC appears to be excellent, but we may have another entry in the VRAM debate:

Interesting, I haven't seen this being reported by any other website.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Interesting, I haven't seen this being reported by any other website.

Reported in the ResetEra thread too, but there's some disagreement - some reporting 10GB 3080's run Ultra textures fine, others say they're crippled unless they move to high. Over 20GB of vram 'used' on a 4090. There may be something up with the streaming system.

 

[eastmen]

And hypothetical "marketing deal" would make all versions equal, not worse.

You'd like to think that but it isn't true. The hogwarts / Sony marketing deal left out parts of the game from the PC/Xbox/ Switch releases of the game.

 

[BitByte]

They were really conservative there. According to Tom's Hardware, a 2070 averages 84fps at 1440p with lows of 64fps.

1440p/60 should have easily been doable.

Seems like a really bad console port to me. The fact that a 3050 is averaging 60fs at 1440p I think says all we need to know about this port. Thoroughly unimpressed to see it at 1260p....

 

[Flappy Pannus]

They were really conservative there. According to Tom's Hardware, a 2070 averages 84fps at 1440p with lows of 64fps.

1440p/60 should have easily been doable.

Seems to be a little conservative based on modern games yeah, but remember reconstruction has a performance cost, and it can vary per game. On some games I've found DLSS Performance to equate to standard 1440p despite the large difference in native pixel count.

So DF is saying around 1260p before FSR2. That's just below 1440p native, and it's very close to locked 60. Factor in the performance cost of FSR2 and the actual load is likely above native 1440p. So it's basically in 2070, or slightly better territory - in other words, kinda around 2070 super. Not that out of the ordinary really, more games fit that performance profile on console than not.

 

[snc]

They were really conservative there. According to Tom's Hardware, a 2070 averages 84fps at 1440p with lows of 64fps.

1440p/60 should have easily been doable.

1440p native is more demanding than 1300p fsr2 to 4k ? Hard to say, fsr2 is not for free.