• 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.

[DF] Forza Horizon 5 Tech Analysis: An Xbox Series X Masterpiece

Md Ray

Member
Watching performance mode on the Series X footage....the pop in is incredibly jarring. And quality mode looks like a slide show at 30 FPS. Pro versions of these consoles are very much needed.
We need some sort of a middle ground, like 40fps mode (w/ Quality mode visuals), to become more common. It's a genius way to put the hardware to good use, IMO. 40fps in terms of frametime literally sits in the middle of 30 (33.3ms) and 60 (16.67ms), haha.

Someone should tweet Playground games.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
I am sorry but this game is not a "XSX masterpiece" as they put it here (meaning masterpiece only on XSX / XSS). Let me explain:

According to John XSX (1600p-4k 60fps) gives you basically the X1X (1600p-4k 30fps) game at double framerate.



So there is actually no improvement from newer RDNA2 technology, only linear improvement 1x from GCN to RDNA2. XSX is equivalent to 12 GCN Tflops.

I say it's disappointing because when we look at for instance Death Stranding on PS5 (exclusive console / PC, like FH5), the game on PS5 at native 4K 60fps (10.2tf) pushes 4x more stuff than Pro 4K CBR 30fps (4.2tf), for about the same performance according to the analysis that was done in the NXGamer thread. So PS5 would be the equivalent of 16.8 GCN tflops. There is a 1.6x improvement from GCN Tflops to PS5 RDNA2 Tflops. We find about the same 1.6x improvement if we use PS4 (1080p 30fps) as a baseline.

Now how does John describe this game related to the Xbox Series X hardware?

So basically according to him the game is what it is mainly because of XSX hardware. I am sorry but that's objectively false. FH5 is absolutely not a XSX masterpiece (if because of XSX). You can say it is a Xbox masterpiece and the XSX simply inherited about the game state of technology.

How did John describe Death Stranding performance on PS5 compared to the hardware?

You see the difference? No superlatives adjectives "astonishing showcase" here. "The version is excellent...improved over PS4" and they are not suprised about the big (almost odd) performance improvement compared to PS4 family of hardware. But we could say however that Death Stranding is a PS5 masterpiece in that it shows the true power of the PS5 RDNA2 hardware compared to PS4 family of hardware.

I thought ethomaz was the only one who did this type of dumbass ‘analysis’. clearly I was wrong.

I like our division of roles, though. I’ll be playing the best racing game on the planet soon via Gamepass, while you focus on writing epistles about how Death Stranding proves your console is 16TF.
 

Stuart360

Member
Jesus these takes are coming in hot now.

Cool Down Season 2 GIF by Friends


That ought to help the sore ass.
I'm really surprised he survived the forum warrior cull.
Although he seems to do thinly disguised trolling now, like the post in here, and numerous posts in the Ghost runner thread.
Before the new rules though he was one of the worst shitposters on here. Custom tag and everything :messenger_beaming:
 

DaGwaphics

Member
You are clearly comparing Quality vs 1X, where dofference is quite big. Look more closely at comparison with the 60fps mode. It looks basically the same as the 1X version.... but at 60fps vs 30fps.

I actually do think I see differences between XSX fps mode and the 1X in those shots. But a few people I know also don't see it, possibly my imagination. But definitely the dust is missing on 1X. They are very similar but not exactly the same to me.
 

Soosa

Member
I thought ethomaz was the only one who did this type of dumbass ‘analysis’. clearly I was wrong.

I like our division of roles, though. I’ll be playing the best racing game on the planet soon via Gamepass, while you focus on writing epistles about how Death Stranding proves your console is 16TF.
Why so aggressive/defensive, so that you lose his point completely?

He clearly doesnt claim that PS5 is now 16TF, if that is only thing you see in that text, read it again.

His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

He basically asks: What about new APIs, tech, new chip, everything above the raw tflop difference? If those wont be utilized at all -> it cant be technical masterpiece, but why death stranding isnt also called a technical masterpiece, if it includes TF difference and more vs last gen? AKA are these reviews biased?

Personally I havent seen any forza since the 360 era, as nobody I know owns xbox. So I cant have clear opinion about the said subject, but if it true that series x version doesnt add anything but 2x higher resolution/fps, then I would ask the real question:

Why my new series x game doesnt be the best version it could be?

To me it looks good enough and I dont have issues with the game/system, but it just looked like you completely missed his point and also didnt start to wonder why series x version is lazy port, assuming it really doesnt add any benefits from tech of new gen, other than higher TF count?

This thread is about DF and their ways of reviewing games, so I think that it is fair to be critical against their claims about games, as in whole. And that this subject is less about the game (forza), and more about their reviews and are they objective or not?
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

His point doesn't really hold water to begin with because there is a greater difference between the PS4 Pro/PS5 than there is the 1X/XSX to begin with. With PS5 being 2.5X in raw numbers and XSX only being 2X, the 1X was also closer in the memory department with more comparable bandwidth/total ram. The whole exercise was nonsensical to begin with. Basically if you want to say that doubling the frame rate is a linear thing, the PS5 can do that on a PS4 Pro title with a couple TF to kick around with , the XSX wouldn't have the same luxury over the 1X.
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Why so aggressive/defensive, so that you lose his point completely?

He clearly doesnt claim that PS5 is now 16TF, if that is only thing you see in that text, read it again.

His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

He basically asks: What about new APIs, tech, new chip, everything above the raw tflop difference? If those wont be utilized at all -> it cant be technical masterpiece, but why death stranding isnt also called a technical masterpiece, if it includes TF difference and more vs last gen? AKA are these reviews biased?

Personally I havent seen any forza since the 360 era, as nobody I know owns xbox. So I cant have clear opinion about the said subject, but if it true that series x version doesnt add anything but 2x higher resolution/fps, then I would ask the real question:

Why my new series x game doesnt be the best version it could be?

To me it looks good enough and I dont have issues with the game/system, but it just looked like you completely missed his point and also didnt start to wonder why series x version is lazy port, assuming it really doesnt add any benefits from tech of new gen, other than higher TF count?

This thread is about DF and their ways of reviewing games, so I think that it is fair to be critical against their claims about games, as in whole. And that this subject is less about the game (forza), and more about their reviews and are they objective or not?

It has Ray Tracing which last gen can't do, hardware assisted.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Why so aggressive/defensive, so that you lose his point completely?

He clearly doesnt claim that PS5 is now 16TF, if that is only thing you see in that text, read it again.

His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

He basically asks: What about new APIs, tech, new chip, everything above the raw tflop difference? If those wont be utilized at all -> it cant be technical masterpiece, but why death stranding isnt also called a technical masterpiece, if it includes TF difference and more vs last gen? AKA are these reviews biased?

Personally I havent seen any forza since the 360 era, as nobody I know owns xbox. So I cant have clear opinion about the said subject, but if it true that series x version doesnt add anything but 2x higher resolution/fps, then I would ask the real question:

Why my new series x game doesnt be the best version it could be?

To me it looks good enough and I dont have issues with the game/system, but it just looked like you completely missed his point and also didnt start to wonder why series x version is lazy port, assuming it really doesnt add any benefits from tech of new gen, other than higher TF count?

This thread is about DF and their ways of reviewing games, so I think that it is fair to be critical against their claims about games, as in whole. And that this subject is less about the game (forza), and more about their reviews and are they objective or not?
Did you actually watch the DF video? It gives plenty of context to why the title was called a technical masterpiece. There is much more going on than higher resolutions. The guys comment looked more like disappointment that an Xbox game was getting praise over a refutation of the technical masterpiece label. People can like or dislike Xbox all they want but there is no question this title is in fact a technical masterpiece. That doesn't mean other games can't be too.
 
Last edited:
The game is certainly excellent fun to play if very, very familiar to anyone who has played the previous games. In fact, if I'm honest this game does feel like a re-skin or expansion pack to Forza Horizon 4 since it offers very little new, at least in the few hours I've been playing it on my PC and the menus and overall presentation are very much the same too. It's very much a case of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it".

The graphics are excellent, as were they were in the previous games, but even on the Extreme setting on PC (is this higher than that of the Xbox Series X?), there's noticeable draw in of grass and shadows as you race, which I find hard not to spot since it catches the corner of my eye as I'm racing. It's not too distracting to be honest and it's no worse than other games but it isn't better either which ultimately comes as a bit of a disappointment for a game that Digital Foundry claims is a showcase for current gen hardware, well, the Xbox Series X and PC anyway. This draw in is even more obvious on the consoles in Performance mode.

The graphics are better than Forza Horizon 4 on PC, sure, but that is a given considering that game came out over three years ago. The visuals are not a massive leap over the previous game as Digital Foundry video suggests, I disagree with that and think it was bordering on hyperbole personally. They are clearly held back by having to run on older hardware. Also, the lack of temporal anti-aliasing, which most modern games use, does mean that there is some unsightly jaggies and shimmering in the mid to far distance that betrays the engine's age. Of course, when you compare Forza Horizon 2 to 5 on Xbox One S then you can see a massive difference in visual quality but we are at the start of the generation so that kind of difference is yet to come with Forza Horizon 6 or 7, once the developers move on from supporting the last gen consoles. It's 2021 and I cannot remember the last time I played a racing game with mediocre graphics. It's pretty much a given now that these games will look good so it's harder to be impressed unless you haven't played a racing game in the last 5 years!

With that off my chest, this is a great game for sure, even if the graphics are not wowing me as much as everyone else, and I am looking forward to playing more of on my PC and Xbox One X.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Okay, I'm a bit perturbed now. :messenger_beaming:

Are others in the US able to play this now? I still get the message about checking the store for the release date. I deleted and am reloading now.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Did you actually watch the DF video? It gives plenty of context to why the title was called a technical masterpiece. There is much more going on than higher resolutions. The guys comment looked more like disappointment that an Xbox game was getting praise over a refutation of the technical masterpiece label. People can like or dislike Xbox all they want but there is no question this title is in fact a technical masterpiece. That doesn't mean other games can't be too.

They even specifically addressed that this would be Playgrounds' early take on the Series consoles with improvements all but guaranteed in future installments. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
Why so aggressive/defensive, so that you lose his point completely?

He clearly doesnt claim that PS5 is now 16TF, if that is only thing you see in that text, read it again.

His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

He basically asks: What about new APIs, tech, new chip, everything above the raw tflop difference? If those wont be utilized at all -> it cant be technical masterpiece, but why death stranding isnt also called a technical masterpiece, if it includes TF difference and more vs last gen? AKA are these reviews biased?

Personally I havent seen any forza since the 360 era, as nobody I know owns xbox. So I cant have clear opinion about the said subject, but if it true that series x version doesnt add anything but 2x higher resolution/fps, then I would ask the real question:

Why my new series x game doesnt be the best version it could be?

To me it looks good enough and I dont have issues with the game/system, but it just looked like you completely missed his point and also didnt start to wonder why series x version is lazy port, assuming it really doesnt add any benefits from tech of new gen, other than higher TF count?

This thread is about DF and their ways of reviewing games, so I think that it is fair to be critical against their claims about games, as in whole. And that this subject is less about the game (forza), and more about their reviews and are they objective or not?

Digital foundry called Death Stranding a masterpiece And gave it the award for best graphics of 2019...even over Gears 5.

And you're still not happy. What more do you people want? Their blood?

Death stranding was developed for the PS4 and then had a much later PS5 version. FH5 was developed simultaneously across next gen to old gen, and it's a testament to playground's skill that they were able to translate the game to older hardware.

Thanks for outing yourself, though.
 

SlimySnake

Member
We need some sort of a middle ground, like 40fps mode (w/ Quality mode visuals), to become more common. It's a genius way to put the hardware to good use, IMO. 40fps in terms of frametime literally sits in the middle of 30 (33.3ms) and 60 (16.67ms), haha.

Someone should tweet Playground games.
Lets start with a 1440p 60 fps Quality Mode.
 
Last edited:

Stuart360

Member
The game is certainly excellent fun to play if very, very familiar to anyone who has played the previous games. In fact, if I'm honest this game does feel like a re-skin or expansion pack to Forza Horizon 4 since it offers very little new, at least in the few hours I've been playing it on my PC and the menus and overall presentation are very much the same too. It's very much a case of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it".

The graphics are excellent, as were they were in the previous games, but even on the Extreme setting on PC (is this higher than that of the Xbox Series X?), there's noticeable draw in of grass and shadows as you race, which I find hard not to spot since it catches the corner of my eye as I'm racing. It's not too distracting to be honest and it's no worse than other games but it isn't better either which ultimately comes as a bit of a disappointment for a game that Digital Foundry claims is a showcase for current gen hardware, well, the Xbox Series X and PC anyway. This draw in is even more obvious on the consoles in Performance mode.

The graphics are better than Forza Horizon 4 on PC, sure, but that is a given considering that game came out over three years ago. The visuals are not a massive leap over the previous game as Digital Foundry video suggests, I disagree with that and think it was bordering on hyperbole personally. They are clearly held back by having to run on older hardware. Also, the lack of temporal anti-aliasing, which most modern games use, does mean that there is some unsightly jaggies and shimmering in the mid to far distance that betrays the engine's age. Of course, when you compare Forza Horizon 2 to 5 on Xbox One S then you can see a massive difference in visual quality but we are at the start of the generation so that kind of difference is yet to come with Forza Horizon 6 or 7, once the developers move on from supporting the last gen consoles. It's 2021 and I cannot remember the last time I played a racing game with mediocre graphics. It's pretty much a given now that these games will look good so it's harder to be impressed unless you haven't played a racing game in the last 5 years!

With that off my chest, this is a great game for sure, even if the graphics are not wowing me as much as everyone else, and I am looking forward to playing more of on my PC and Xbox One X.
pop in is always going to exist in games, even decades from now, to some extent anyway.
And foliage has always been the worst offender of pop in, and this game probably has more foliage than any game in history.
 
pop in is always going to exist in games, even decades from now, to some extent anyway.
And foliage has always been the worst offender of pop in, and this game probably has more foliage than any game in history.
All games this new gen have had the most noticable Shadow popin because everything looks so good otherwise. Forbidden West has it bad as well and you only moving at a light jog. Mentioned this game as it's also one with lots of foliage on new gen.
 

CheeseCake

Member
Mmmmhmmm

Very normal first reaction to news that more Sony games are going to PC.

Everyone I know with a PC whether interested or not in Sony games reaction was like "oh cool, more games on PC".

You aren't the first Sony fanboy to pull a high end PC out their ass to appear less biased and you won't be the last

"Very normal first reaction to news that more Sony games are going to PC"

You're clearly living in a cave.

Also, is this what you do? You call every Playstation fan you met a "Sony fanboy"? Kinda pathetic.

Anyway, some stuff happened in my life lately that also affect my PS5 and made me switch to PC, but it's not like I need to prove shit to you anyway. Take care.
Driving See Ya GIF by DriveTribe
 
Last edited:

JackMcGunns

Member
I am sorry but this game is not a "XSX masterpiece" as they put it here (meaning masterpiece only on XSX / XSS). Let me explain:

According to John XSX (1600p-4k 60fps) gives you basically the X1X (1600p-4k 30fps) game at double framerate.



So there is actually no improvement from newer RDNA2 technology, only linear improvement 1x from GCN to RDNA2. XSX is equivalent to 12 GCN Tflops.

I say it's disappointing because when we look at for instance Death Stranding on PS5 (exclusive console / PC, like FH5), the game on PS5 at native 4K 60fps (10.2tf) pushes 4x more stuff than Pro 4K CBR 30fps (4.2tf), for about the same performance according to the analysis that was done in the NXGamer thread. So PS5 would be the equivalent of 16.8 GCN tflops. There is a 1.6x improvement from GCN Tflops to PS5 RDNA2 Tflops. We find about the same 1.6x improvement if we use PS4 (1080p 30fps) as a baseline.

Now how does John describe this game related to the Xbox Series X hardware?

So basically according to him the game is what it is mainly because of XSX hardware. I am sorry but that's objectively false. FH5 is absolutely not a XSX masterpiece (if because of XSX). You can say it is a Xbox masterpiece and the XSX simply inherited about the game state of technology.

How did John describe Death Stranding performance on PS5 compared to the hardware?

You see the difference? No superlatives adjectives "astonishing showcase" here. "The version is excellent...improved over PS4" and they are not suprised about the big (almost odd) performance improvement compared to PS4 family of hardware. But we could say however that Death Stranding is a PS5 masterpiece in that it shows the true power of the PS5 RDNA2 hardware compared to PS4 family of hardware.
 

01011001

Member
You are clearly comparing Quality vs 1X, where dofference is quite big. Look more closely at comparison with the 60fps mode. It looks basically the same as the 1X version.... but at 60fps vs 30fps.

why is this surprising to people? I will never get this... the Series X is about 2x as powerful as the One X... maybe slightly more, about 2.5x if we are generous.

so of course if you half the framerate and reduce some of the settings you will have a version that can run on One X. it's not that hard to figure that out guys...

people often forget how powerful the One X still is in terms of GPU power. if it wasn't for the slow HDD and the slow CPU... if GPU power was the only important thing, the One X could still hold up this whole generation

the GPU power jump from Xbox One to One X is almost as big as the jump from Xbox 360 to Xbox One
5.4x vs 4.6x

the GTX1070 can run this game at really high settings and at 1440p60fps no problem, I'm saying this because the 1070 is usually slightly ahead of the One X in terms of GPU performance in game for game comparisons. which just goes to show how powerful the One X still is... or it would be if it wasn't held back by the horrible Jaguar CPU cores
 
Last edited:

SenjutsuSage

Halo TV Series Promoter - Live from: Reach
Why so aggressive/defensive, so that you lose his point completely?

He clearly doesnt claim that PS5 is now 16TF, if that is only thing you see in that text, read it again.

His point is clearly this: Claims that series x version is technical masterpiece are wrong, because it doesnt add much more than higher resolution vs one x. As in series x version doesnt benefit from anything else but the raw TFlop difference between one x and series x. And he used death stranding as an example, that when new tech as whole is utilized -> difference can be more than just the pure TFlop difference would make us think.

He basically asks: What about new APIs, tech, new chip, everything above the raw tflop difference? If those wont be utilized at all -> it cant be technical masterpiece, but why death stranding isnt also called a technical masterpiece, if it includes TF difference and more vs last gen? AKA are these reviews biased?

Personally I havent seen any forza since the 360 era, as nobody I know owns xbox. So I cant have clear opinion about the said subject, but if it true that series x version doesnt add anything but 2x higher resolution/fps, then I would ask the real question:

Why my new series x game doesnt be the best version it could be?

To me it looks good enough and I dont have issues with the game/system, but it just looked like you completely missed his point and also didnt start to wonder why series x version is lazy port, assuming it really doesnt add any benefits from tech of new gen, other than higher TF count?

This thread is about DF and their ways of reviewing games, so I think that it is fair to be critical against their claims about games, as in whole. And that this subject is less about the game (forza), and more about their reviews and are they objective or not?

The Xbox Series X version of the game is a technical masterpiece. All one has to do is watch the video, see that detailed car models meant for a close circuit racer is what's being used in this incredible looking open world racing game. All one has to do is see the extreme levels of graphical detail in the environments, even from the most random or seemingly insignificant of areas. They're packing a level of texture and geometric detail that is, well, mindblowingly good.

It's a tour de force. I don't see how anyone could remotely deny this fact. It starts right here. They're simply showing off with this game on Series X.

 
They could probably even do 1440p with mid settings but it might get too confusing with too made different quality pre-sets for most people. The way the x runs this, 1440p shouldn't be a problem.
I don't understand that line of thought. How would adding one more mode get too confusing? The people who don't care about graphical modes will not be going into the settings in the first place. This would be for the people who do actually care about tweaking things, of which there are many now on console, despite some still clinging to the idea that "console players don't care about options".

Was having 3 modes a problem for Spiderman and Ratchet? Did it cause 'confusion? If course not! There is no good reason for Playground not to have included a 1440p/60/max settings option other than they either didn't have the time or didn't care. With DRS it should be achievable.
 

twilo99

Member
I don't understand that line of thought. How would adding one more mode get too confusing? The people who don't care about graphical modes will not be going into the settings in the first place. This would be for the people who do actually care about tweaking things, of which there are many now on console, despite some still clinging to the idea that "console players don't care about options".

Was having 3 modes a problem for Spiderman and Ratchet? Did it cause 'confusion? If course not! There is no good reason for Playground not to have included a 1440p/60/max settings option other than they either didn't have the time or didn't care. With DRS it should be achievable.

I agree, just trying to make sense of why they didn't include a 1440p. It most likely has something to do with performance tho, maybe keeping locked 60fps with the amount of detail they want to present the game with was not possible at launch.
 

twilo99

Member
Yeah, seeing as how their 60 fps mode drops from native 4k all the way to 1620p, 1440p 120 fps might drop from 1440p to 1080p in worst case scenarios. If not more.

Very likely, but really they should include the mode and let players decide if its acceptable or not. I bet with VRR and dynamic res doing some work, it might actually be the preferred mode for a lot of people. 90-120fps VRR would still feel better than 60fps
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
We need some sort of a middle ground, like 40fps mode (w/ Quality mode visuals), to become more common. It's a genius way to put the hardware to good use, IMO. 40fps in terms of frametime literally sits in the middle of 30 (33.3ms) and 60 (16.67ms), haha.

Someone should tweet Playground games.
It's genius, outside of the fact that using VRR nets your probably way more. What needs to happened is to Sony enabled VRR, not this sort of go arounds. Also there are probably not many TVs which can do 120hz (which is requirement for the 40FPS "hack") and cannot do VRR. Any sort of vertical sync introduce lag, which I hope in next few years we move to VRR solutions. Many people said that gsync is biggest improvement in graphic in past 10 years on PC.
 

SlimySnake

Member
It's genius, outside of the fact that using VRR nets your probably way more. What needs to happened is to Sony enabled VRR, not this sort of go arounds. Also there are probably not many TVs which can do 120hz (which is requirement for the 40FPS "hack") and cannot do VRR. Any sort of vertical sync introduce lag, which I hope in next few years we move to VRR solutions. Many people said that gsync is biggest improvement in graphic in past 10 years on PC.
I am playing with Gync on on PC, and i gotta tell you, it cant completely eliminate the jerky feels when it drops as low as 40 fps. It does a great job in the 50s, but it really struggles to hide those drops in the 40s.

Now I have played Cyberpunk at 45 fps locked on a 120 fps screen and it felt just as smooth as Ratchet so locking the framerate is definitely preferable to me. Another big advantage of the 40 fps lock is the input lag which DF found to be pretty much on par with the 60 fps mode's input lag. 75 vs 80 ms.

At the end of the day, it's about how smooth your game looks AND feels, and I think Insomniac's 40 fps mode could definitely be a nice compromise for a game like horizon. My 2080 using XSX settings usually hoverings between 40-50 fps in native 4k. it didnt feel as smooth so i ended up just reducing the resolution scaling to Ultra Quality which I believe is around 1800p or 1620p. Now im in the 50-60 range and it feels much better.

P.S Using an LG CX which has native Gsync compatibility.

P.P.S figured out the issue with HDR in this game and in windows in general, windows cannot enable HDR in 120 fps TV modes. So fucking lame.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I am playing with Gync on on PC, and i gotta tell you, it cant completely eliminate the jerky feels when it drops as low as 40 fps. It does a great job in the 50s, but it really struggles to hide those drops in the 40s.

Now I have played Cyberpunk at 45 fps locked on a 120 fps screen and it felt just as smooth as Ratchet so locking the framerate is definitely preferable to me. Another big advantage of the 40 fps lock is the input lag which DF found to be pretty much on par with the 60 fps mode's input lag. 75 vs 80 ms.

At the end of the day, it's about how smooth your game looks AND feels, and I think Insomniac's 40 fps mode could definitely be a nice compromise for a game like horizon. My 2080 using XSX settings usually hoverings between 40-50 fps in native 4k. it didnt feel as smooth so i ended up just reducing the resolution scaling to Ultra Quality which I believe is around 1800p or 1620p. Now im in the 50-60 range and it feels much better.

P.S Using an LG CX which has native Gsync compatibility.

P.P.S figured out the issue with HDR in this game and in windows in general, windows cannot enable HDR in 120 fps TV modes. So fucking lame.
The thing is, that the input latency is lower without vsync, even if the FPS would be same. I believe the gsync, vrr in general cuts of below 40FPS? I don't know, but something like Flight Sim on consoles is waaay better with VRR and to my knowledge it definitely does not posses high framerate. I also have LG CX and it's great deal of difference.
 
Top Bottom