What has this got to do with Diablo 4? Oliver tested playing alone and didn't see dropped frames in large combat scenarios but did see dropped frames in the central city which is where Tom's Hardware tested. The implication is that the city is more demanding than even big fights, making it a good stress test.
He testes Solo, with low density monsters. Need max party + with effects + and alot monsters for PC and Consoles.
You see similar CPU in consoles, but in video solo + low density. So that why blizzard locked to 60 fps.
CPU test + similar games, and Blizzard can add in future more monsters for endgame
And that is exactly my point. And what you are doing is actually being a lot nicer than me, because toe I am flat-out calling BS.Either they were really careful with the res and left a lot of performance on the table, or there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
A 3050 offers similar performance at a higher resolution. Granted, the consoles probably don't drop to 51fps but 1440p is also a bit higher than 1260p. A 2070 completely outclasses them which shouldn't happen unless, again, there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
Remember ARPG games mostly CPU limited games. D4 have max 400 fps cap. That was test with 7800X3D, rest CPU's are below 400fps
If games run and look good, why does it matter the effort put on them? In the end the result is what matters.
In a vacuum, this would be ok.
Understandable, but this game is not CPU limited on a PS5/XSX. 6/7 Jaguar single-threaded cores clocked at 1.8Ghz is managing to run this at 30fps. On a 1.8TF GPU. With max bandwidth of 182GB/s.
No agenda here, ill buy the game and enjoy it like I did with D1-3.
Just played Horizon, why an cross gen, two year old, open world game where you can fly sky high looks better than in isometric game is a mystery to me.
D4 had all the possibilities to be a gfx showcase. Slow moving, Isometric view, no draw distance to speak of etc. Particle/blood/ gore effects should be crazy in this game, they don't appear to be from all the content I've seen from it so far (and witnessed in the Beta). Demon Souls PS5 seems to have more geometrical Detail than this, why?
Seriously. D2 didn’t look that amazing in 2000, and d3 honestly looked like a 2008 game not a 2012 game. D4 looks good for what it is, who cares. As long as it’s smooth and plays well, which it does.
Oh for sure, the game looking good everywhere and not being rigged by bugs is great, i was not talking about that.
Well, they rather have less need for working hard, they do work hard enough which makes them not take care of performance and polish. Current bottleneck is the disparity between budget, human resources and project complexity though.
I only had network related problems, the game run pretty fine on console otherwise.
Look video above with R3600 especially on 3.55 timestamp, and add more monsters/party etc that would even more drop
Horizon is also on PS4 (while looking better than PS4 D4). I don't know why I shouldn't put a billion dollar companies effort to the same standard I hold for PS Studios games (just one example).
AAA to AAA is apples to apples. The genre is not defining/restricting technical capabilities. D4 has the best case scenario of being a gfx showcase with its isometric view --> no pop in because of ultra small draw distance, no sudden camera turns and play style --> slow paced, and super controlled.
And I did... it doesn't account for the disparity either. If you want I can also show you PC benchmarks where FSR was used....it paints an even worse picture.
Maybe, and this kinda brings me to my point. They are choosing to just aim for the lowest profile possible to hit 60fps on the current-gen so they dont spend to much time working on it to get the best they can get out of it.
Runs fine... should be running a lot better than what its running at considering the hardware we have in these consoles. Nd the proof is right out there for all to see.
Again... a Jaguar CPU with 6 cores/threads from 2011 clocked at 1,8Ghz is running this game at 30fps.
Well, yeah, they're developing for older consoles, but imo getting the most out of the performance is actually a great output too. Maybe you're just referring to graphic complexity, which I'd understand but still prefer the focus on performance.
Until they uncap the frames for vrr TVs, we will never know the ceiling
Of course they do that, Diablo also does that. The thing is, the slower and more predictable your camera moves the easier it is, because you have more time to stream in assets (of theoretically higher fidelity or more unique assets in general).
They can higher, but limited to 60 fps for stability. Need unlocked fps mod for truth
There no test max party + effects, need wait for this. POE on PS4 with high density monsters Fps was very low.
Either they were really careful with the res and left a lot of performance on the table, or there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
A 3050 offers similar performance at a higher resolution. Granted, the consoles probably don't drop to 51fps but 1440p is also a bit higher than 1260p. A 2070 completely outclasses them which shouldn't happen unless, again, there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
CPU maybe. It's a bit shit that they are locked to 60fps too, they can clearly go above it.
Sure, but then you look at the RX 6600 XT at 88fps average and 75fps 1% lows. Even the 2070's 1% lows are 64fps. That's also assuming Ultra settings. Though admittedly, the comparison is muddy because it's not the same areas and same settings being tested so it's hard to do a 1 to 1 comparison but this game seems fairly light on hardware demands and 1260p seems a bit low for what is on display. I honestly would have expected the consoles to be able to do something like 1620p/60fps.
It's also possible that the devs felt that 1440p 60 fps looked worse than 1296p FSR balanced 4k. DLSS can definitely clean up the image sometimes so you never know, FSR might be producing a better looking image.
So DF can't comment on game's gfx? Because as far as I know non of them shipped a game ...
There is nothing wrong with the consoles here.Either they were really careful with the res and left a lot of performance on the table, or there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
A 3050 offers similar performance at a higher resolution. Granted, the consoles probably don't drop to 51fps but 1440p is also a bit higher than 1260p. A 2070 completely outclasses them which shouldn't happen unless, again, there is a bottleneck somewhere else.
I think it might be, after looking around some other benchmarks and things a 3600x with a 2070 is doing about 75fps at 1440p native but the gpu is only sitting between 60-70% utilization. If that is the case though I still don't understand why they didn't bump the base resolution, unless endgame it becomes gpu bound aswell although from what i've seen it still seems to be cpu bound in endgame on high end rigs. Being cpu bound is also why dlss3 fg is getting such a big uplift in this I guess.
SlimySnake
question about why some other coop games recently were 30fps, something has to give when your power budget is ~200 watts for the whole system vs a system using over that for the cpu alone.Came here to post this.
Its the way they phrase there compliments with phrases like "impressive" as if any significant visual improvement is impressive for a game 10+ years later.
You forgot at half the framerate with lower settings and drops into the low teens.
