• 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

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
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.
So why are you assuming that he included the 15 FPS drops while measuring the XSX performance? I don't see the XSX minimum frame drops to 15 FPS in the stats spreadsheet either.
 

Darsxx82

Member
It's VRS Tier 2 on Xbox Series according to Digital Foundry
You're right, I got confused with Metro Exodus which was Tiers1.

That said, the answer is the same. The basis of using VRS is to gain performance or resolution at the cost of losing detail \ pixels in elements out of the player's vision during gameplay. The advantage of having hardware ready is that the developer can implement it "automatically" regardless of the graphics engine, game features.
 

Shmunter

Member
You're right, I got confused with Metro Exodus which was Tiers1.

That said, the answer is the same. The basis of using VRS is to gain performance or resolution at the cost of losing detail \ pixels in elements out of the player's vision during gameplay. The advantage of having hardware ready is that the developer can implement it "automatically" regardless of the graphics engine, game features.
The hardware is there, but the engine still needs to support it. No different to any other hardware feature, e.g raytracing, new I/o, etc.
 

Darsxx82

Member
So why are you assuming that he included the 15 FPS drops while measuring the XSX performance? I don't see the XSX minimum frame drops to 15 FPS in the stats spreadsheet either.
I don't know what you mean at 15 fps ??? ..
Look at the stats, and then watch the video. It's not my fault if you can't interpret them.
These results include a scene where Xbox versions are affected by the checkpoint issue. Hence the minimum of 99fps in 120fps mode and 45fps in 60fps mode. You have it in the scene of min 4:11.
VgTech has ruled out the scenes where PS5 drops to 0fps and the Scenes where Xbox (most affected by the problem) suddenly drops more than 20fps. Even so, there are scenes that do not reach those limits but are included . VGtech itself says it and is that example.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
I don't know what you mean at 15 fps ??? ..
Look at the stats, and then watch the video. It's not my fault if you can't interpret them.
These results include a scene where Xbox versions are affected by the checkpoint issue. Hence the minimum of 99fps in 120fps mode and 45fps in 60fps mode. You have it in the scene of min 4:11.
VgTech has ruled out the scenes where PS5 drops to 0fps and the sueñes where Xbox (most affected by the problem) suddenly drops more than 20fps. Even so, there are scenes that do not reach those limits but are included . VGtech itself says it and is that example.
 
Last edited:

Matt_Fox

Member
Is the game any good? i mean the SP it has been a while since i played cod.

There are 9 missions, about 40 mins each, so a rather hefty price tag if you're primarily buying it for single player.

The two missions featuring the russian sniper are probably the best and have some good large areas with lots of bad guys to shoot and a fair bit of player freedom. Rather a lot of the game is the usual 'follow the NPC' scripted stuff, which I personally find a bit restrictive. There's also an aerial combat mission, which looks great graphically but more annoying than exciting to actually play.

Multi-player fares far better and will keep you playing for hours on end.
 

Darsxx82

Member
The hardware is there, but the engine still needs to support it. No different to any other hardware feature, e.g raytracing, new I/o, etc.
You have an example of its use in a variety of graphics engines ..... Its use is "automatic" for the developer.
Another thing is that depending on the engine, the characteristics of the game (for games where night or dark areas predominate are the most appropriate) or the performance gained to the developer whether or not its use is interested. This is what determines more its use and not the compatibility.
 

avin

Member
I think most people that do get COD get it for the online play. Has anybody benchmarked the multiplayer mode, offline or online, is it a locked 60 or 120 on console? It should be scaled pretty far back.

avin
 

Arioco

Member
Not according to Digital Foundry who said it was imperceptible during gameplay.


What John said in the analysis is that you'll definitely notice if you look for it. The fast pace of the game helps, of course, as you aren't looking at the same thing for too long, but still... the IQ hit is there. In DOOM Eternal for instance some surfaces looked lower rez on Series X when the image is actually higher rez. That's why I'm not much of a fan of VRS, hardware or software based.

And I'd love to see a comparison of this COD with and without VRS, we'll probably notice the image is being degraded in some spots.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Can't we all just get along and chalk this one up as a plus 1 for the PS5?

Digital foundry showed they are more or less identical, and in the 120 mode performance can swing either way. It's definitely close, but taking in this data the PS5 clinches it for this game.
 
I think most people that do get COD get it for the online play. Has anybody benchmarked the multiplayer mode, offline or online, is it a locked 60 or 120 on console? It should be scaled pretty far back.

avin
Multiplayer is very dynamic, which means it's hard to benchmark fairly.
 

Riky

$MSFT
What John said in the analysis is that you'll definitely notice if you look for it. The fast pace of the game helps, of course, as you aren't looking at the same thing for too long, but still... the IQ hit is there. In DOOM Eternal for instance some surfaces looked lower rez on Series X when the image is actually higher rez. That's why I'm not much of a fan of VRS, hardware or software based.

And I'd love to see a comparison of this COD with and without VRS, we'll probably notice the image is being degraded in some spots.

Nobody would look for it though unless you're doing the sort of work that DF do, you would just never know.
Just like with Modern Warfare 2019 nobody knew or mentioned it until IW released a paper about VRS.
 
What John said in the analysis is that you'll definitely notice if you look for it. The fast pace of the game helps, of course, as you aren't looking at the same thing for too long, but still... the IQ hit is there. In DOOM Eternal for instance some surfaces looked lower rez on Series X when the image is actually higher rez. That's why I'm not much of a fan of VRS, hardware or software based.

And I'd love to see a comparison of this COD with and without VRS, we'll probably notice the image is being degraded in some spots.
This is what custom software VRS done by Activision is supposed to do better. They are reducing the resolution of textures rendered while trying to keep the same sharpness.
 

Darsxx82

Member
??
. It's not that difficult huh? VGTech herself explains it to you. Those scenes that you put are not included in the stats, why do you point them out?
Those are the scenes discarded in XSX, the ones that present those drops that would distort the results. The same as it does with the PS5 at 0fps.
That is so, but that does not mean that the video is excluded at all times where XSX is affected by the problem. You have the scene of min 4:11 where it is clearly the checkpoint transition and from that scene the minimum fps of the Xbox versions result in the stats for both the 60fps and 120fps modes. That is what I was saying and that is what Vgetech itself also highlights.
 

Md Ray

Member
And how would you define optimized? I feel like you ran out of bullshit, so now it's just short form bullshit
Visual representation of this convo...

W Werewolfgrandma :
Happy Kermit The Frog GIF


O onQ123 :
5bdf8l.jpg


jk, no offence bros
 
Last edited:

Riky

$MSFT
What John said in the analysis is that you'll definitely notice if you look for it. The fast pace of the game helps, of course, as you aren't looking at the same thing for too long, but still... the IQ hit is there. In DOOM Eternal for instance some surfaces looked lower rez on Series X when the image is actually higher rez. That's why I'm not much of a fan of VRS, hardware or software based.

And I'd love to see a comparison of this COD with and without VRS, we'll probably notice the image is being degraded in some spots.

They also say this,

"The Xbox Series X runs at dynamic 1800p, while the PlayStation 5 is best at 1584p and is visibly blurry"

Tier 2 VRS gives Xbox that resolution boost.
 

DJ12

Member
Haven’t seen too many use it even now. The IQ loss vs the performance gain may be undesirable to most?
Yes, 100% this.

Dirt 5 is a good game for this as its an option now on pc.

Anyone arguing that vrs is good (apart from in eye tracking vr instances) is being disingenuous at best.
 

Arioco

Member
They also say this,

"The Xbox Series X runs at dynamic 1800p, while the PlayStation 5 is best at 1584p and is visibly blurry"

Tier 2 VRS gives Xbox that resolution boost.


You're talking about the 120 fps mode, which is much higher rez on Series X, and it's not thanks to VRS, but probably bandwidth or GPU compute power. The other modes also use VRS Tier 2 and there's not that kind of difference in rez.

In other modes the target rez is the same on Series X and PS5, and in some cases the VRS allows Series X for a higher rez, it's true, but some surfaces look lower rez in fact. It's very weird, to be honest.

I'm yet to see a VRS implementation that I actually like. Maybe in futures games, who knows..
 

Saucy Papi

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


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.
 
There is nothing that points to more optimization on PS5 other than people not willing to accept that the game runs better on PS5.

If a game runs better on PS5 than the more powerful Series X then the game was better optimized for PS5. It's not really about "more" optimization, but "better" optimization.

There's nothing this game is doing where it shouldn't run much better than how it does currently on Series X, but it brings me to the main point.

Call of Duty's quality as a franchise has been getting worse and worse with each passing year, and we have now gotten to a point where they actually believe it's okay to release a game that drops to 0 fps on Playstation 5 with those extreme hangs and drops to 22fps or however low it goes on Series X. Their quality control is atrocious. It's why I personally feel it's fortunate Xbox owners have a far better choice in a shooter this year with Halo Infinite. Halo may not be everybody's cup of tea, but I'm fairly confident it will be a significantly superior game, and also a lot better optimized. That's where I personally hope Xbox gamers head in droves. Activision only speaks one language, money.

For example, the absolute worst drops in this game occur in the exact same scenes where there was previously no performance issue at all, and where nothing significant has changed on screen. So you aren't even seeing in many cases proper examples where the GPU isn't able to run it better, but fundamental underlying flaws in the coding of the game where it can suddenly drop in a scene where it was flawless only seconds ago. PS5 version has its issues too, but at least it's better optimized to start with which makes it easier to stomach for people who are willing to give the game a chance at least.

I personally haven't purchased a COD game to play myself since Modern Warfare 2 on 360. Last one I purchased period was black ops 2 for my niece. I almost bit with Cold War, but didn't bother. Don't see that changing anytime soon. Their
 

Tripolygon

Banned
1. You are talking about a game that literally freezes for about a second on PS5. That is the better-optimized one?

2. You keep saying more powerful Series X. That is not an accurate statement. Yes, it has 2 more TF and more memory bandwidth but PS5 has more fillrate, rasterization, cache bandwidth than Series X. It has never been one is more powerful than the other but both trades blows in different ways.
 

waquzy

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
I haven't been checking these comparisons for months now, it's getting a bit boring now, but I see the PS5 is still winning.
 

Lysandros

Member
1. You are talking about a game that literally freezes for about a second on PS5. That is the better-optimized one?

2. You keep saying more powerful Series X. That is not an accurate statement. Yes, it has 2 more TF and more memory bandwidth but PS5 has more fillrate, rasterization, cache bandwidth than Series X. It has never been one is more powerful than the other but both trades blows in different ways.
Even in matter of memory bandwidth i am not so sure if XSX has any edge over PS5 in real world gaming scenarios, especially after the comments of The Tourist's developers. They alluded to the contrary in fact.
 
You're right, I got confused with Metro Exodus which was Tiers1.

That said, the answer is the same. The basis of using VRS is to gain performance or resolution at the cost of losing detail \ pixels in elements out of the player's vision during gameplay. The advantage of having hardware ready is that the developer can implement it "automatically" regardless of the graphics engine, game features.
I just read an interesting part in the DF article about Vanguard. They state that VRS software done by Activision in that game is flat out better than RDNA2 VRS (evolved system of VRS). It allows a higher DRS resolution (mostly locked 4K) thanks to being much more customizable. Apparently RDNA2 VRS has hardware limitations, like only being able to deal with 8x8 blocks. This is just a confirmation of what we already knew based on Activision lecture about their solution.

Based on Rich Leadbetter's recent visit to Infinity Ward's tech hub in Poland (much more on this in due course) and prolonged eyeballing of debug screens on-site, PS5 - and by extension, Xbox Series X - usually runs at full resolution, with only very occasional resolution drops. This is in part achieved via an evolved system of variable rate shading (VRS), which IW8 handles via software, with a level of precision that exceeds AMD's hardware iteration. That's limited to dealing with 8x8 pixel blocks, while IW8 has much more precision.

 
Last edited:

skit_data

Member
I just read an interesting part in the DF article about Vanguard. They state that VRS software done by Activision in that game is flat out better than RDNA2 VRS (evolved system of VRS). It allows a higher DRS resolution (mostly locked 4K) thanks to being much more customizable. Apparently RDNA2 VRS has hardware limitations, like only being able to deal with 8x8 blocks. This is just a confirmation of what we already knew based on Activision lecture about their solution.



Very interesting. I wonder how many studios are able to match their implementation, because by the sounds of it VRS Tier 2 doesn’t seem like something that will drastically shift performance a few years down the line. Rather something that is already sub-par to its software based equivalent (at least in this case).

Then again, maybe its possible to use the hardware to further accelerate the software based VRS.
 

Riky

$MSFT
"Software-Based Variable Rate Shading in Call of Duty” presented at SIGGRAPH 2020 (http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2020/index.htm) has some interesting thoughts on this topic as well. They present a method leveraging how console hardware handles MSAA to emulate VRS on platforms without hardware VRS support and extra flexibility such as smaller tile sizes. In addition, they present an optimized way to apply VRS to compute shaders that uses ExecuteDispatchIndirect to ensure only waves with actual work are dispatched in contrast to our brute force method. However, Software-Based VRS also has some trade-offs including implementation complexity and the overhead of a de-blocking pass. "

Coalition addressed that last year. The hardware implementation is easier for developers and doesn't run the same overhead, so more performance.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Very interesting. I wonder how many studios are able to match their implementation, because by the sounds of it VRS Tier 2 doesn’t seem like something that will drastically shift performance a few years down the line. Rather something that is already sub-par to its software based equivalent (at least in this case).

Then again, maybe its possible to use the hardware to further accelerate the software based VRS.
Yes, if Software solution has already exceeded Hardware solutions this early in the gen, then there is no way RDNA 2 VRS will ever be able to compete. Software solutions will continue to be improved with further iterations.
 

Darsxx82

Member
I just read an interesting part in the DF article about Vanguard. They state that VRS software done by Activision in that game is flat out better than RDNA2 VRS (evolved system of VRS). It allows a higher DRS resolution (mostly locked 4K) thanks to being much more customizable. Apparently RDNA2 VRS has hardware limitations, like only being able to deal with 8x8 blocks. This is just a confirmation of what we already knew based on Activision lecture about their solution.



Activision VRS in COD engine can perfectly be more accurate and better in result than using VRS tier 2 in the same COD engine. Its technology created and optimized by them for her game caracteriatics.
I repeat, the question is not in which one offers the best result (among other reasons because it is not always the same), the question is that VRS hardware is available to all developer regardlees of the engine and game features used and does not require extra work for the dev that see fit to use. Its implementation is automatic and it is up to the developer to decide if its use is appropriate.

VRS COD software is only intended for the COD engine and has been created and optimized on ad hoc basis. How many studios are going to afford and create their own VRS for software?

Finally, VRS tier 2 is still in development and its results vary in terms of fps gain and IQ cost. The question now is to know if its use is going to be generalized in XSX or not from here to the future and how it evolves.

P.S. VRS tier 2 is even compatible with VRS from COD as specified in the MS DirectX doc
 
Last edited:

Riky

$MSFT
We also have seen the pretty tragic results of the Software VRS in Metro Exodus, so better to close the door on that one.
 

Three

Member
People go mental over small res differences by zooming 800% now VRS is imperceptible at 100% all because they think one console is disadvantaged by it.
 
Activision VRS in COD engine can perfectly be more accurate and better in result than using VRS tier 2 in the same COD engine. Its technology created and optimized by them for her game caracteriatics.
I repeat, the question is not in which one offers the best result (among other reasons because it is not always the same), the question is that VRS hardware is available to all developer regardlees of the engine and game features used and does not require extra work for the dev that see fit to use. Its implementation is automatic and it is up to the developer to decide if its use is appropriate.

VRS COD software is only intended for the COD engine and has been created and optimized on ad hoc basis. How many studios are going to afford and create their own VRS for software?

Finally, VRS tier 2 is still in development and its results vary in terms of fps gain and IQ cost. The question now is to know if its use is going to be generalized in XSX or not from here to the future and how it evolves.

P.S. VRS tier 2 is even compatible with VRS from COD as specified in the MS DirectX doc
Sure all techs can be improved. But the hardware limitation of RDNA2 VRS will always be there. It seems to be a big problem as well as the devs apparently specifically mentionned it to Leadbetter.

We also have seen the pretty tragic results of the Software VRS in Metro Exodus, so better to close the door on that one.
We have seen nothing of ...what were you even implying?
 

Riky

$MSFT
Sure all techs can be improved. But the hardware limitation of RDNA2 VRS will always be there. It seems to be a big problem as well as the devs apparently specifically mentionned it to Leadbetter.
Where did they say it's a "big problem"? Of course those developers are talking up their solution but the proof is in the eating as they say.

Gears 5 and Doom Eternal run at practically locked 120fps with hardware Tier 2 VRS whilst Call Of Duty runs anywhere from just over 60fps to sometimes 120fps.
It's not even close.

Also the Coalition said this,

"While we were able to implement VRS for all the passes that gave us the biggest bang for the buck, it was not plumbed into the entire engine due to time constraints. A deeper integration would allow VRS to provide even larger GPU savings."
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Banned
"Software-Based Variable Rate Shading in Call of Duty” presented at SIGGRAPH 2020 (http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2020/index.htm) has some interesting thoughts on this topic as well. They present a method leveraging how console hardware handles MSAA to emulate VRS on platforms without hardware VRS support and extra flexibility such as smaller tile sizes. In addition, they present an optimized way to apply VRS to compute shaders that uses ExecuteDispatchIndirect to ensure only waves with actual work are dispatched in contrast to our brute force method. However, Software-Based VRS also has some trade-offs including implementation complexity and the overhead of a de-blocking pass. "

Coalition addressed that last year. The hardware implementation is easier for developers and doesn't run the same overhead, so more performance.
Just a tiny correction here of why the deblocking pass is not a required step but needed to create a better image. Those with keen eyes have noticed the render artifacts created by VRS due to shading at a lower rate. COD software-based VRS includes a deblocking pass to reduce that artifact. That is the extra cost, it is there to improve the image quality compared to a RAW VRS output. That is the "extra" overhead. They don't have to do it, in fact, they say so in the presentation.

pqrAwfQ.jpg


Saying "hardware" VRS is easier to implement is disingenuous. They both require work to integrate into an engine but one relies on "newer" hardware implementation to work while "software-based" VRS uses the old MSAA hardware support in every modern GPU. They are both hardware-based but one just exploits existing hardware that is present in all modern GPUs and offers more flexibility.
 

Arioco

Member
I just read an interesting part in the DF article about Vanguard. They state that VRS software done by Activision in that game is flat out better than RDNA2 VRS (evolved system of VRS). It allows a higher DRS resolution (mostly locked 4K) thanks to being much more customizable. Apparently RDNA2 VRS has hardware limitations, like only being able to deal with 8x8 blocks. This is just a confirmation of what we already knew based on Activision lecture about their solution.





That's very weird. Not that I'm a fan of VRS of any kind anyways, but Richard himself said in Doom Eternal Next Gen Patch Analysis that hardware VRR Tier 2 was "way more interesting, much higher quality". And now it was beaten by a software solution early in the generation? And the downside to a software solution is the fact that it's more difficult to implement? Come on...
 
That's very weird. Not that I'm a fan of VRS of any kind anyways, but Richard himself said in Doom Eternal Next Gen Patch Analysis that hardware VRR Tier 2 was "way more interesting, much higher quality". And now it was beaten by a software solution early in the generation? And the downside to a software solution is the fact that it's more difficult to implement? Come on...
There are also no comparison shots with and without software VRS. So I wonder how you'd even do a comparison...
 

Arioco

Member
Gears 5 and Doom Eternal run at practically locked 120fps with hardware Tier 2 VRS whilst Call Of Duty runs anywhere from just over 60fps to sometimes 120fps.
It's not even close.


Not sure if that is a good example. Doom Eternal runs at almost perfect 120 fps even on hardware that doesn't support VRS Tier 2, so if the game runs at a rock solid 120 fps is probably thanks to the engine itself, which is amazing and one of the best in the business, and not its particular VRR implementation . At best VRR Tier 2 allows for an overall higher rez (at the expense of degrading certain parts of the image, of course, so it's kind of a trade-off). The game uses DRS but the average rez is often higher on Series X than PS5. But how much of that extra rez is thanks to VRS and how much thanks to the compute and bandwidth advantage the Series X has even before we factor in VRS?
 

Riky

$MSFT
Not sure if that is a good example. Doom Eternal runs at almost perfect 120 fps even on hardware that doesn't support VRS Tier 2, so if the game runs at a rock solid 120 fps is probably thanks to the engine itself, which is amazing and one of the best in the business, and not its particular VRR implementation . At best VRR Tier 2 allows for an overall higher rez (at the expense of degrading certain parts of the image, of course, so it's kind of a trade-off). The game uses DRS but the average rez is often higher on Series X than PS5. But how much of that extra rez is thanks to VRS and how much thanks to the compute and bandwidth advantage the Series X has even before we factor in VRS?

Developer did an interview on it with DF, said he wished every machine had it.
 

Arioco

Member
There are also no comparison shots with and without software VRS. So I wonder how you'd even do a comparison...


That comparison would be really interesting. I'd love to see how both implementations compare in terms of image quality, and to know how much extra performance each of them can provide to a game.
 
Top Bottom