• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Call of Duty Vanguard PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Comparison

Mr Moose

Member
Apart from the 120Hz mode on the Series S, seems pretty solid all around.

No summary?
PS5 and Xbox Series X in the 60fps mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest resolution found being 1920x2160. PS5 and Xbox Series X in the 60fps mode seem to often render at 3840x2160. On PS5 and Xbox Series X in the 60fps mode a form of temporal upsampling is used that can reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution when rendering below this resolution.

Xbox Series S in the 60fps mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 2560x1440 and the lowest resolution found being 1280x1440. On Xbox Series S in the 60fps mode a form of temporal upsampling is used that can reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution when rendering below this resolution. Xbox Series S in the 120fps mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being 1920x1080 and the lowest resolution found being 960x1080. On Xbox Series S in the 120fps mode a form of temporal upsampling is used that can reconstruct a 1920x1080 resolution when rendering below this resolution.

PS5 and Xbox Series X in the 120fps mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest resolution found being approximately 2730x1536 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1365x1536. On PS5 and Xbox Series X in the 120fps mode a form of temporal upsampling is used that can reconstruct a 2730x1536 resolution when rendering below this resolution. All three consoles in all modes all appear to be using a form of Variable Rate Shading. The temporal upsampling used also seems to reconstruct the parts of the frame with a reduced shading rate from VRS.

60
PlatformsPS5Xbox Series XXbox Series S
Frame Amounts
Game Frames241012408823567
Video Frames241102411024110
Frame Tearing Statistics
Total Torn Frames0171044
Lowest Torn Line-391405
Frame Height216021602160
Frame Time Statistics
Mean Frame Time16.67ms16.68ms17.05ms
Median Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms16.67ms
Maximum Frame Time100ms116.67ms116.67ms
Minimum Frame Time16.67ms14.05ms15.49ms
95th Percentile Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms17.29ms
99th Percentile Frame Time16.67ms16.67ms31.6ms
Frame Rate Statistics
Mean Frame Rate59.98fps59.95fps58.65fps
Median Frame Rate60fps60fps60fps
Maximum Frame Rate60fps60fps60fps
Minimum Frame Rate55fps48fps46fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate60fps60fps51fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate59fps59fps47fps
Frame Time Counts
0ms-16.67ms0 (0%)5 (0.02%)51 (0.22%)
16.67ms24096 (99.98%)24062 (99.89%)22001 (93.36%)
16.67ms-33.33ms0 (0%)13 (0.05%)1437 (6.1%)
33.33ms4 (0.02%)4 (0.02%)76 (0.32%)
50ms0 (0%)1 (0%)1 (0%)
66.67ms0 (0%)1 (0%)0 (0%)
83.33ms-100ms0 (0%)1 (0%)0 (0%)
100ms1 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
116.67ms0 (0%)1 (0%)1 (0%)
Other
Dropped Frames000
Runt Frames000
Runt Frame Thresholds20 rows20 rows20 rows

120
PlatformsPS5Xbox Series XXbox Series S
Frame Amounts
Game Frames479864775636406
Video Frames482844828448284
Frame Tearing Statistics
Total Torn Frames010125599
Lowest Torn Line-197214
Frame Height108010801080
Frame Time Statistics
Mean Frame Time8.39ms8.43ms11.05ms
Median Frame Time8.33ms8.33ms8.33ms
Maximum Frame Time83.33ms92.17ms100ms
Minimum Frame Time8.33ms6.84ms8.06ms
95th Percentile Frame Time8.33ms8.33ms16.67ms
99th Percentile Frame Time8.33ms15.19ms16.67ms
Frame Rate Statistics
Mean Frame Rate119.26fps118.69fps90.49fps
Median Frame Rate120fps120fps91fps
Maximum Frame Rate120fps120fps120fps
Minimum Frame Rate104fps99fps57fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate113fps110fps63fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate107fps102fps59fps
Frame Time Counts
0ms-8.33ms0 (0%)94 (0.2%)14 (0.04%)
8.33ms47702 (99.41%)46266 (96.88%)19163 (52.64%)
8.33ms-16.67ms0 (0%)1332 (2.79%)10366 (28.47%)
16.67ms279 (0.58%)51 (0.11%)6769 (18.59%)
16.67ms-25ms0 (0%)2 (0%)86 (0.24%)
25ms2 (0%)2 (0%)3 (0.01%)
25ms-33.33ms0 (0%)1 (0%)1 (0%)
33.33ms2 (0%)3 (0.01%)2 (0.01%)
41.67ms0 (0%)2 (0%)0 (0%)
41.67ms-50ms0 (0%)1 (0%)0 (0%)
66.67ms-75ms0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (0%)
83.33ms1 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
91.67ms0 (0%)1 (0%)0 (0%)
91.67ms-100ms0 (0%)1 (0%)0 (0%)
100ms0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (0%)
Other
Dropped Frames000
Runt Frames000
Runt Frame Thresholds20 rows20 rows20 rows

Sometimes bugged and drops low.
 
Last edited:

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
Dj Khaled GIF by Kids' Choice Awards
 

Leyasu

Banned
Just watched the video. I was going to say that 120hz was a mistake. Then I remembered the performance of Cold War last year was worse. It got me thinking that perhaps they will either patch it in the next couple of months or the next cod might continue on the same trajectory of improvement and deliver a locked experience.

Until then, the PS5 edges this one
 
Now with proper data we can clearly see a slightly better framerate on PS5 in both modes, particularly in the 120hz mode. Those stats of the 120hz mode are very telling (PS5 vs XSX vs XSS).

Maximum Frame Rate120fps120fps120fps
Minimum Frame Rate104fps99fps57fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate113fps110fps63fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate107fps102fps59fps
 

Matt_Fox

Member
I've been playing this one on PS5 and nice to have games which make use of HDMI 2.1.

Hard to give it a strong recommendation as the zombies and campaign are pretty lightweight, however the multi-player is excellent and lots of fun.
 
Congratulations on that 0.5% higher average frame rate. What a trend!
As usual fps average don't tell the whole story. Look at the frame-time data (posted just above) and screen-tearing data, here (PS5 vs XSX vs XSS). Perfectly synced frames (without screen tearing or drop): 99.41% vs 96.88%

8.33ms47702 (99.41%)46266 (96.88%)19163 (52.64%)

And well the 120hz mode is there on XSS for the sake of it. It's reaching 120hz only half of the time.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Nice win for the PS5 on this one, Sonys marketing money putting in work for the Playstation versions. Joke!

Jokes aside, PS5 takes this one. Better performance overall.

Still don't understand how the xbox isnt favoring these last gen engines like it was stated it would. :/
 
Last edited:

Lysandros

Member
Suddenly VGtech is now biased when even Digital Foundry gave them the seal of approval...
Did you misunderstand my post? I really think Vgtech is very meticulous and good at his job. I was reffering to Tom's earlier similar mistake when he missed PS5 version's bug.
 

Darsxx82

Member
Now with proper data we can clearly see a slightly better framerate on PS5 in both modes, particularly in the 120hz mode. Those stats of the 120hz mode are very telling (PS5 vs XSX vs XSS).

Maximum Frame Rate120fps120fps120fps
Minimum Frame Rate104fps99fps57fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate113fps110fps63fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate107fps102fps59fps
Beware of that data in this case because they are influenced by the problem of the Xbox versions and the deep drops of fps at the checkpoints. VGtech itself indicates this in its text. For example, the minimum fps of XSX and XSS (99fps and 57 fps) are part of those situations.
That said, as was the least in the COD of the previous year, it has a light advantage for PS5 in real performance (because the lack of VRR can make Xbox users with VRR TV achieve a better experience).
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Beware of that data in this case because they are influenced by the problem of the Xbox versions and the deep drops of fps at the checkpoints. VGtech itself indicates this in its text. For example, the minimum fps of XSX and XSS (99fps and 57 fps) are part of those situations.
That said, as was the least in the COD of the previous year, it has a light advantage for PS5 in real performance (because the lack of VRR can make Xbox users with VRR TV achieve a better experience).
The 0 FPS stutter in PS5 will also be a part of the PS5 average framerates. If anything, 0 FPS (PS5) will bring down the average more steeply than drops to 15 FPS (Xbox).
 
Last edited:
Don’t even know how they spot it. On Doom Eternal the 1/4 rez in a frame was obvious, but this game is pristine throughout.
Because their VRS software solution is better than RDNA2 VRS. They did a paper showing performance and quality were both better (notably quality) than using hardware VRS. Basically the advantage of their software VRS was that they could customize much more. We had a thread about it. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/soft...ading-in-call-of-duty-modern-warfare.1591769/

Beware of that data in this case because they are influenced by the problem of the Xbox versions and the deep drops of fps at the checkpoints. VGtech itself indicates this in its text. For example, the minimum fps of XSX and XSS (99fps and 57 fps) are part of those situations.
That said, as was the least in the COD of the previous year, it has a light advantage for PS5 in real performance (because the lack of VRR can make Xbox users with VRR TV achieve a better experience).
Well drops are drops whatever the cause. We'll see if they patch those but some of us already predicted games reliant of I/O performance would logically run better on PS5.
 
Last edited:

Darsxx82

Member
The 0 FPS stutter in PS5 will also be a part of the PS5 average framerates. If anything, 0 FPS (PS5) will bring down the average more steeply that drops to 15 FPS (Xbox).
The video has not included the parts where PS5 drops to 0fps. This is indicated by VGtech itself. Including them would be nonsense first because the origin is clear, and second because then it would totally distort the results and would have to include a 0fps in the PS5 minimums in the stats and he dont do it.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Because their VRS software solution is better than RDNA2 VRS. They did a paper showing performance and quality were both better (notably quality) than using hardware VRS. Basically the advantage of their software VRS was that they could customize much more. We had a thread about it. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/soft...ading-in-call-of-duty-modern-warfare.1591769/


Well drops are drops whatever the cause. We'll see if they patch those but some of us already predicted games reliant of I/O performance would logically run better on PS5.
Interesting, seems Sony cutting the silicone and putting the budget elsewhere instead of a box checking exercise was the boss move after all.

The Doom Eternal implementation at least was simply terrible.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom