• 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.

Digital Foundry: Street Fighter 6 First Look: PS5 vs Xbox Series X/S vs PS4/Pro Demos Tested

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
- Res modes is pretty much locked to 60 in regular arcade mode

- However in the World Tour mode, the Resolution mode drops to 30 FPS in battles w/ bad frame pacing.

confused gordon ramsay GIF by Hell's Kitchen's Kitchen

Arcade mode vs world tour, it mentions in the respective points :p
 

Lasha

Member
Why is there no X1 version of SF6 or RE4R?

Architectural differences. XSS and XSX games run as virtual containers with the console acting as a hypervisor. Dev kits for the two consoles are the same box just running different performance profiles. Xbox one is a completely different architecture that requires development of a different version of a game. Supporting XSS isn't ever going to be an issue. Optimizing for XSS will be challenging but it should get easier since the XSX hardware isn't changing.

You see PS4 versions of Japanese games because PS4 has a massive install base compared to PS5. You don't see Xbox one versions of Japanese games because the console was non-existent in the country.
 
The SF6 not being on Xbox One has nothing to do with performance or sales numbers, it more likely has to do with Sony paying for SF exclusivity on that console.
If Starfield doesn’t get an 11/10 it's the SONY CENTRIC FEMPUTER holding back poor trillionaire Microsoft.
 

[Sigma]

Member
Not that tired GIF.
Sony paid Capcom for SF exclusivity on the PS4. That contract may well be written as to where Street Fighter cannot appear on the Xbox One consoles.
I know that doesn't fit in with the "xbox one not powerful enough to do SF", or "no dev wants to put games on Xbox" narrative, but hey.
No, it's likely that Capcom didn't find xbox one sales potential being worth their time and money.
 

I Master l

Banned
The PS4 version performs exceptionally well for an old console.
These are input lag results: You can't go wrong on any version. 120 Hz is the way to go.


This is the first time i see a game have better input dealy on PS5 compared to the Xbox, there is
something off with the Xbox version
 

[Sigma]

Member
This is the first time i see a game have better input dealy on PS5 compared to the Xbox, there is
something off with the Xbox version
PS5's problems with input delay were mostly UE related and have been resolved. Sony has made a point to resolve those. This game uses RE Engine also so it's definitely not going to have those issues. Regardless, those are great input lag numbers for both platforms on PS5/PS4/SX.
 
Last edited:
No, it's likely that Capcom didn't find xbox one sales potential being worth their time and money.
If they didn't find it was worth their time they wouldn't have released all the games they did.
Why are they still supporting xbox now? Why is SF6 going on Xbox now? There's more Xbox ones in the wild than XSXS.

It makes great fodder for your console warring, I get that.
Have at it.
 

[Sigma]

Member
If they didn't find it was worth their time they wouldn't have released all the games they did.
Why are they still supporting xbox now? Why is SF6 going on Xbox now? There's more Xbox ones in the wild than XSXS.

It makes great fodder for your console warring, I get that.
Have at it.
Because new consoles tend to drive sales better. At least on PS4 it has a chance to put up something desent . Not so much on Xbox One. Besides, there's a reason why we haven't seen the PS4 version of SF6 at all till this demo, that means it didn't make beta 1 nor beta 2 and will not be in the open beta(well, that's because its the same as beta 2). It's likely that the PS4 was behind and they've had more trouble with it. Why add another sku that will prolong the process and not give you nearly the same return.
 
Last edited:

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
If they didn't find it was worth their time they wouldn't have released all the games they did.
Why are they still supporting xbox now? Why is SF6 going on Xbox now? There's more Xbox ones in the wild than XSXS.

It makes great fodder for your console warring, I get that.
Have at it.
Dude I don't think you above all else would dare to call anybody here a console warrior....
world of warcraft legion GIF
 

DJ12

Member
Sony probably doesn't care about X1 at this point. No idea why they would pay to lock out a version that probably has very low sales at this point.
They didn't pay for exclusivity of sf5, they payed for it full stop. If they didn't it wouldn't have been made. It's completely unrelated to sf6. Don't get drawn in to fanboy drivel.
 
They didn't pay for exclusivity of sf5, they payed for it full stop. If they didn't it wouldn't have been made. It's completely unrelated to sf6. Don't get drawn in to fanboy drivel.

He's talking about SF6. Don't Sony would bother with the X1 version of the game. It's ridiculous to suggest they would only partially block it on Xbox which is what In Cold Blood In Cold Blood is doing.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Xbox Series S looks like ass, when is someone going to step in and do something about this machine

Why did you get a Series S if you cared so much about visuals?
You should have saved a bit longer and gotten a Series X or PS5 or PC if you cared so much about visuals.
The Series S isnt going to be pulling 4K resolutions in most games.
 

Lasha

Member
Why did you get a Series S if you cared so much about visuals?
You should have saved a bit longer and gotten a Series X or PS5 or PC if you cared so much about visuals.
The Series S isnt going to be pulling 4K resolutions in most games.

I think most of GAF's opinion about the S is hypothetical. The console is fine for it's price point. I'm sure the average series s owner isn't going to care. Switch versions of fighting games have fans. Series S runs games much better.
 

Umbasaborne

Banned
Weird that they couldn't get 4K/60 on the world tour mode given how terrible it looks.
But aside from that it seems pretty decent on all machines
Its also that way on pc…im using a 4090 and world tour battles are locked to 30 fps. What a weird choice
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Fbh

yurinka

Member
TL-You know the rest.

- Tested the demo on all available consoles (PS4/Pro/PS5/Series S|X)
- "Bar of quality is so much higher" - when compared to SF5 in main character model details and arcade fights
- World tour mode has various technical shortcomings, including 10 FPS animations on distant enemies, pop-up etc. This is the same on all consoles

- Starting with PS console trio comparison
- PS4: 1080p, Pro: 1440p, PS5: 4K in both Res and Perf mode
- PS5 has additional DoF and higher texture resolution in comparison to PS4/Pro
- Ambient shading, floor textures, density and reflections are lower quality (SSR is missing) on PS4 compared to PS5
- SSR is re-engaged in world tour mode but texture quality etc is worse than PS5. It can take seconds for full textures to load

- Series S: Only one performance profile which runs at 1080p.
- SX: 4K in both modes like PS5.
- Series S more closer to PS4 Pro in terms of some rendering settings. Ryu's beard is also bugged in Series S. Series X, same as PS5.

- On PS5 | SX we have 2 modes, Res and Perf.
- Res modes is pretty much locked to 60 in regular arcade mode
- Perf mode doesn't change much in the arcade mode.
- However in the World Tour mode, the Resolution mode drops to 30 FPS in battles w/ bad frame pacing. Performance mode keeps 60 FPS but drops resolution to 1440p.
- The above is the same on both PS5 and SX

- Series S runs at native 1080p in all modes at 60 FPS barring one tutorial fight where it has some drops to mid 50s.

- PS4 / Pro have no toggles and world tour mode runs with unlocked frame rate while battles cap to 30 FPS.
- Arcade mode runs at 60 FPS on both without breaking any sweat.

- All machines have a "Low latency" toggle which disables V-Sync
- On PS5|SX it also targets 120hz. However, the game logic is still locked to 60hz. So it's a 60hz image in a 120hz container.
- At best it might offer a little improvement in controller response but it does not make the game run at 120hz.
DF left the input delay for other video, I assume the game review, but specialists on input delay for fighting games ran input lag tests on the different betas and demo of SF6:

In 60Hz and 120Hz displays (the ones SF6 has been made for, looking at consoles), in the most recent tests SF6 had -as I remember- the best input delay in a Capcom fighting game ever since their games ran in CRT displays, and better than its AAA competitors (Bandai Namco, Netherrealm), only with a few anime fighters -specially in PC- at the same level or very slightly above.

Some of these anime fighters reduce it further because of taking more advantage of better 144/240Hz displays support reducing it more in PC.

https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2023/apr/21/input-lag-test-sf6-demo/
https://wccftech.com/street-fighter...-frames-training-mode-discovered-in-the-demo/


Some PS4 old input delay comparision as reference (smaller is better) by WydD:
image.png

And input delay stability (higher is better):
image.png



Weird that they couldn't get 4K/60 on the world tour mode given how terrible it looks.
But aside from that it seems pretty decent on all machines
How many open world games do you know that run at 4K/60 in consoles? Also, World Tour battles can also run at 60fps if you select that option in the settings.

- Res modes is pretty much locked to 60 in regular arcade mode
As seen in the betas, it's in all game modes outside the World Tour battles. And in World Tour battles too if you (in non PS4 versions) select the 60fps mode and will be more responsive if you activate the 120Hz VRR mode.

- However in the World Tour mode, the Resolution mode drops to 30 FPS in battles w/ bad frame pacing.
Its also that way on pc…im using a 4090 and world tour battles are locked to 30 fps. What a weird choice
As mentioned in the video the default it's 30fps, but you can put it at 60fps in the settings. And there's the quality/performance selector in the graphic settings of the game plus for people who plays in VRR displays (so it avoids tearing when disabling VSync) the input day reduction mode (which in next gen is 120Hz VRR).

Its running unlocked and dumping frames?
Wouldnt the game logic then be out of sync.
For a fighting game that would break it.
You are basically turning Vsync off on console.
it clearly runs at a framerate between 60 and 120, but only outputs 60fps.

with this setup you can't even use VRR to get rid of the tearing.

this is a super weird thing to do tbh, and they should just actually let the game display all the frames it renders instead of this nonsense
How did you get screen tearing?
The game is still running at 60hz its just using a 120hz container.
that's just a theory, because why would it tear with the low latency mode on otherwise? it's a locked 60fps in the normal mode, so I assume they just run it unlocked in the low latency mode, otherwise it would basically automatically vsync itself so to speak.

or it does something similar to Nvidia Reflex, where it runs the game at a lower framerate in order to free up GPU resources... but I'm not sure if that would do anything tbh in this case, because that, on PC, is meant to be used to limit your GPU pushing out as many frames as it can, because that would max out the GPU usage and maxed out GPU = latency.

in this case the game doesn't seem to actually push the GPUs of the consoles to their limits, so to me it makes less sense to reduce latency that way.
The low latency mode disables vsync and (in non PS4 versions) goes 120Hz to check your gamepad/stick inputs more frequently, so to be more responsive, but still draws the game at 60fps.

This is a mode to play it on g-sync, freesync, VRR displays since they get rid of tearing in these modes when vsync is disabled. If you don't have a VRR display, you get tearing.

With the low latency mode activated the game will still be drawn at 60fps in all platforms to keep consistency in all platforms and all players and all games, but input delay will be reduced making the game even more responsive than in the normal mode, where already is very responsive.
 
Last edited:

nbkicker

Member
I can’t believe how dated the World Tour mode looks. Kinda embarassing they can’t get this to run at a stable 60fps at 4K res. Looks Iike a PS3 game.

IMG-0131.jpg
Prob cause they been told to make it run on a ps4 and they dont have a massive development team unlike some companies, this game should have followed tekken and just went ps5,xboxx and pc.and to think this game will prob run for 5-6 yrs with yearly new charachter packs, if it look dated now whats it gonna be like in 5yrs. ive just bought a 4080 and game hardly using it, think i could have just used my 2080 super and still got 4k locked 60 on it
 
Last edited:

mejin

Member
World Tour mode is just a bonus in the end. Seems crap imho.

Anyway, hope Capcom improves PS5 version even more.
 

yurinka

Member
Prob cause they been told to make it run on a ps4 and they dont have a massive development team unlike some companies, this game should have followed tekken and just went ps5,xboxx and pc.and to think this game will prob run for 5-6 yrs with yearly new charachter packs, if it look dated now whats it gonna be like in 5yrs. ive just bought a 4080 and game hardly using it, think i could have just used my 2080 super and still got 4k locked 60 on it
I can’t believe how dated the World Tour mode looks. Kinda embarassing they can’t get this to run at a stable 60fps at 4K res. Looks Iike a PS3 game.

IMG-0131.jpg
As I remember there aren't next gen open world games at native 4K 60fps in console. In this case you can choose between:
  • Native 4K 60 fps in the whole game including World Tour outside battles and 4K 30fps during World Tour battles
  • Native 4K 60 fps in the whole game outside Wold Tour and 1440p 60fps for World Tour
And well, it doesn't look at all like a PS3. In any case, World Tour is only an extra: a long and fun single player tutorial / story mode to learn and practice the fighting game basics and game mechanics and lore or character backgrounds in a fun way, specially designed considering the newcomers to Street Fighter and fighting games. It's a small portion of the whole game, a bonus.

Regarding PS4 holding back the game, its development started in early 2018, when they didn't even know the hardware specs of the next generation and didn't have the related hardware and devkits.

So like all the games that started their development around that point or before, the game and its engine were originally made for PS4 and later got some improvements for next gen machines. To drop the PS4 wouldn't have changed anything, and to take advantage of the next gen hardware they should have waited a few years and also remake the game engine meaning that the game release would have been delayed several years more.

Xbox Series S looks like ass, when is someone going to step in and do something about this machine
This game is an example that the console is good if you want to play 1080p 60fps, the game delivers that, even 120Hz support. If you want higher resolution or higher end visuals, with its horsepower can't deliver more. There are other options like Series X, PS5 or higher end PCs.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
Why did you get a Series S if you cared so much about visuals?
You should have saved a bit longer and gotten a Series X or PS5 or PC if you cared so much about visuals.
The Series S isnt going to be pulling 4K resolutions in most games.
I don't have a Series S, I was watching the DF video and was surprised by how blurry and crappy the game looked on it.
 

01011001

Banned
The low latency mode disables vsync and (in non PS4 versions) goes 120Hz to check your gamepad/stick inputs more frequently, so to be more responsive, but still draws the game at 60fps.

This is a mode to play it on g-sync, freesync, VRR displays since they get rid of tearing in these modes when vsync is disabled. If you don't have a VRR display, you get tearing.

With the low latency mode activated the game will still be drawn at 60fps in all platforms to keep consistency in all platforms and all players and all games,

if that's really what it's doing then it's not an even playing field at all tho. On PC you can run the game at 120fps

they should allow the consoles to run it at a 120fps lock in this mode (even it it doesn't lock to it)


also it seems VRR is broken in the Xbox demo currently, so if anyone is wondering why it's tearing with VRR enbaled it is because of that it seems


but input delay will be reduced making the game even more responsive than in the normal mode, where already is very responsive.

it's not "very responsive" lol...
5 frames/85ms at 60fps is not "very responsive", it's ok... but nothing more.

Call of Duty Warzone 2.0, a way more demanding game in every way imaginable, has 3 frames/50ms of latency at 60fps/60hz, which is, hilariously, less latency than the low latency mode in SF6 🙃
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
if that's really what it's doing then it's not an even playing field at all tho. On PC you can run the game at 120fps
they should allow the consoles to run it at a 120fps lock in this mode (even it it doesn't lock to it)
The game runs at 60fps in all platforms including PC (with the World Tour as exception in the 30fps mode or PS4).

Xbox Series S, Series X, PS5 and PC have a 120Hz option, where the game is still drawn at 60fps and its logic runs at 60fps but the inputs are detected with faster latency thanks to the 120Hz.

it's not responsive lol...
5 frames/85ms at 60fps is not "very responsive", it's ok... but nothing more.


Call of Duty Warzone 2.0, a way more demanding game in every way imaginable, has 3 frames/50ms of latency at 60fps/60hz, which is, hilariously, less latency than the low latency mode in SF6 🙃
As I shown in the provided link, the PS5 demo in the 120Hz averages 47.54ms (2.85 frames) according to a test from Nigel Woodall and 56.30ms(3.38 frames) according to another one from Kimagure Gaming. I assume the difference depends on the point of the game where it's tested or the display or camera used to detect it.

The later test from Kimagure, using the same setting in PC with a 240Hz display and a 3070 goes even down to 37.55ms (2.25 frames). PS4 version 74.26ms (4.45 frames).

Tests in performance mode (IDR=Input Delay Reduction):

Fvc0Z2xaIAEMRgS

Fvc04PbaEAI9ziO

FurDfP9aUAEf1pI

FurrNdhaMAAxn8j
 
Last edited:

01011001

Banned
The game runs at 60fps in all platforms including PC (with the World Tour as exception in the 30fps mode or PS4).

Xbox Series S, Series X, PS5 and PC have a 120Hz option, where the game is still drawn at 60fps and its logic runs at 60fps but the inputs are detected with faster latency thanks to the 120Hz.

the PC literally has a 120fps toggle in the options, a screenshot of that is provided by the same account you're showing here

AJwzRiW.jpg


As I shown in the provided link, the PS5 demo in the 120Hz averages 47.54ms (2.85 frames), and in PC with a 240Hz display and a 3070 goes even down to 2.25 frames.

Fvc0Z2xaIAEMRgS



it also seems that the PC tests were done with 120fps enabled, as stated in the graph you posted...

but on console that 60hz mode is not "very responsive"
Warzone 2.0, a massive 100+ player shooter with decently good graphics, has roughly the same amount of lag at 60fps/60hz WITH VSYNC as Street Fighter 6 has at 60fps/120hz without vsync.

so you have 2 60fps games, one of which has about half of the latency... so you tell me which of these would be considered "very responsive" if we know how responsive a Vsynced 60fps can be.

Apex Legends on Series X at 60fps has 77ms of latency, which is also less than SF6.
You can play Apex Legends on Series X using remote play (which adds about 6ms) and still have less latency than SF6.

Halo 3 at 30fps/60hz on Xbox 360 has 90ms of latency... again vs the 85ms of SF6 running at twice the frames.
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
I don't have a Series S, I was watching the DF video and was surprised by how blurry and crappy the game looked on it.
Wait what?

Why do you care about the Series S if you dont have a Series S.....this literally doesnt affect you at all.
Its like worrying about the temperature on Europa and saying damn when will someone find a way to make Europa warmer.
People with Series S consoles dont care cuz they bought a Series S knowing what they were in for.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Wait what?

Why do you care about the Series S if you dont have a Series S.....this literally doesnt affect you at all.
Its like worrying about the temperature on Europa and saying damn when will someone find a way to make Europa warmer.
People with Series S consoles dont care cuz they bought a Series S knowing what they were in for.
I dont care about it, I was surprised at how shitty this game looked and how shitty so many games look on it.

People are allowed to comment on stuff they don't own, you know.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
I dont care about it, I was surprised at how shitty this game looked and how shitty so many games look on it.

People are allowed to comment on stuff they don't own, you know.
Clearly you do care because you are begging for someone to come and do "something" about the console.
But in reality you just shouldnt care.
Xbox Series S looks like ass, when is someone going to step in and do something about this machine

Thats not the quote someone who doesnt care would make.
If you dont care, why do you want someone to step in and do something about something that doesnt affect you?
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Clearly you do care because you are begging for someone to come and do "something" about the console.
But in reality you just shouldnt care.


Thats not the quote someone who doesnt care would make.
If you dont care, why do you want someone to step in and do something about something that doesnt affect you?
It's just a comment. You need to get over it.
 

yurinka

Member
the PC literally has a 120fps toggle in the options, a screenshot of that is provided by the same account you're showing here

AJwzRiW.jpg

it also seems that the PC tests were done with 120fps enabled, as stated in the graph you posted...
As I and Digital Foundry mentioned, the game logic and rendering is locked at 60fps like in all fighting games.

The 120fps/120Hz mode is only to detect faster the inputs, so to reduce input lag. But the game is still drawn at 60fps inside that 120Hz container.

but on console that 60hz mode is not "very responsive"

Warzone 2.0, a massive 100+ player shooter with decently good graphics, has roughly the same amount of lag at 60fps/60hz WITH VSYNC as Street Fighter 6 has at 60fps/120hz without vsync.

so you have 2 60fps games, one of which has about half of the latency... so you tell me which of these would be considered "very responsive" if we know how responsive a Vsynced 60fps can be.

Apex Legends on Series X at 60fps has 77ms of latency, which is also less than SF6.
You can play Apex Legends on Series X using remote play (which adds about 6ms) and still have less latency than SF6.

Halo 3 at 30fps/60hz on Xbox 360 has 90ms of latency... again vs the 85ms of SF6 running at twice the frames.
I said 'it is very responsive' because I was comparing it to comparable games, the ones of its genre. Not to racing games, FPS, Uncharted or Minecraft.

FurDfP9aUAEf1pI

In console the faster option (120Hz mode) is 3.38 frames, which is top 5 of the genre in PlayStation, only behind a few games that almost nobody bought.

Better than the Capcom, SNK, Bandai Namco, Netherrealm, Arika, Tecmo and most ARC games we had in recent times and reaching the CRT input delay territory which was around 2-5 frames depending on the platform and game. This is the most recent WydD chart I found of PS4 (console used by default in tournaments) games:
image.png


The other 60Hz options that aren't the most optimal ones, around 4.02/4.05 frames are still great. And well, considering that the input lag numbers kept improving in every beta or demo it's possible that the final released game will feature even better numbers.

You can go to find worse and worse options as always, like playing on a super choppy ultra low tier potato PC. But well, it's nonsensical.

My idea was to mention that the standard version, the one that they will use in tournaments (PS5 with 120Hz & VRR) has a very responsive input delay for the standards of the genre in tournaments, where after the arcades died in the west they normally played with consoles unless there was some game specific issue or some PC hardware manufacturer sponsoring the event.
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
How many open world games do you know that run at 4K/60 in consoles? Also, World Tour battles can also run at 60fps if you select that option in the settings.

True, there are none. But there also aren't any modern open world games from major studios that look this bad while having Ps3 era NPC pop in as well as NPC's animated at like 10fps while this close to the player
 

yurinka

Member
True, there are none. But there also aren't any modern open world games from major studios that look this bad while having Ps3 era NPC pop in as well as NPC's animated at like 10fps while this close to the player
Maybe because they aren't a side extra bonus game mode/tutorial of a fighting game, as it's the case of World Tour for SF6.
 
Last edited:
On PC with my old 1060 GTX and VRR (GSync) the fps counter showed 60.
But I could notice microstutters all the time.

After disabling GSync in the nvidia settings and disabling VRR support on my monitor it's very smooth now.

So if you're disappointed with the performance on PC and are using GSync/FreeSync - try to disable it.

Glad the game works so well with the ancient 1060. Now I won't have to put up with the Dualsense but can use a Saturn pad instead.
 

01011001

Banned
As I and Digital Foundry mentioned, the game logic and rendering is locked at 60fps like in all fighting games.

The 120fps/120Hz mode is only to detect faster the inputs, so to reduce input lag. But the game is still drawn at 60fps inside that 120Hz container.

I'll test that myself I guess.

I said 'it is very responsive' because I was comparing it to comparable games, the ones of its genre. Not to racing games, FPS, Uncharted or Minecraft.

FurDfP9aUAEf1pI
In console the faster option (120Hz mode) is 3.38 frames, which is top 5 of the genre in PlayStation, only behind a few games that almost nobody bought.

Better than the Capcom, SNK, Bandai Namco, Netherrealm, Arika, Tecmo and most ARC games we had in recent times and reaching the CRT input delay territory which was around 2-5 frames depending on the platform and game. This is the most recent WydD chart I found of PS4 (console used by default in tournaments) games:
image.png


The other 60Hz options that aren't the most optimal ones, around 4.02/4.05 frames are still great. And well, considering that the input lag numbers kept improving in every beta or demo it's possible that the final released game will feature even better numbers.

You can go to find worse and worse options as always, like playing on a super choppy ultra low tier potato PC. But well, it's nonsensical.

My idea was to mention that the standard version, the one that they will use in tournaments (PS5 with 120Hz & VRR) has a very responsive input delay for the standards of the genre in tournaments, where after the arcades died in the west they normally played with consoles unless there was some game specific issue or some PC hardware manufacturer sponsoring the event.

I don't care what the random games you think are applicable comparisons also have shitty input lag numbers. fact is Mario 64 at 30fps has 75ms of latency, which is less than this game at 60fps.

so congrats, these other fighting games also are not very responsive and suck ass in this department.
bht just because those also suck ass, doesn't mean SF6's input lag isn't also absolute ass.

alo, I don't know why you mention CRTs, when this is about the game's own latency not the screen's tho...
 

yurinka

Member
I don't care what the random games you think are applicable comparisons also have shitty input lag numbers. fact is Mario 64 at 30fps has 75ms of latency, which is less than this game at 60fps.

so congrats, these other fighting games also are not very responsive and suck ass in this department.
bht just because those also suck ass, doesn't mean SF6's input lag isn't also absolute ass.

alo, I don't know why you mention CRTs, when this is about the game's own latency not the screen's tho...
I compare it to similar games because it's what makes sense.

I mention CRTs because they had way lower display lag compared to basically all LCD/OLED modern displays, and the display lag on top of the display lag affects the time between you press a button and see the reaction.

This is the reason of why the same game in the same console/PC is more responsive depending on the tv/display where you play it.

Mario64 is more or less responsive depending on the platform or emulator you play it (it has a different input lag on them), and also depending on the display lag you are using it.

Nowadays in emulators there are techniques where you can even have less input lag than in the original game. In the case of Retroarch one of the techniques it uses is to run two instances of the emulator: one for the game logic and registering inputs and other -which runs a few frames ahead- for the drawing and sound, synching them via savestates.

By doing this and configuring it adjust it to the input lag that the specific game had in this platform, you can achieve that when pressing a button you can see the result in the next drawn frame, while the original game had a often in the 2D CRT platforms 2-5 frames of input delay. Combining this with disabling vsync and enabling instead VRR like GSync or Freesync you compensate the extra display lag of a LCD/OLED vs a CRT and the extra input lag introduced by the emulator/emulating platform to the point of achieving even more responsiveness in an LCD than in the original platform in a CRT.

There's also the input lag of each gamepad/arcade stick, which also affects to the input lag of the game.
 
Last edited:

01011001

Banned
I compare it to similar games because it's what makes sense.

not really, input lag has multiple factors, all of which are affecting all genres equally.

type of Vsync, GPU utilisation and controller polling.

somehow a simple game like SF6, with 2 characters in front of a static background, has more latency than a massive 100+ player online shooter.


I mention CRTs because they had way lower display lag compared to basically all LCD/OLED modern displays, and the display lag on top of the display lag affects the time between you press a button and see the reaction.

not true anymore. especially in 120hz mode.
a CRT has 16.6ms of latency when measured from the bottom of the screen, and 8.3ms of latency measured from the center. (usually the input lag is measured from the center)

My Samsung has 9.8ms latency measured from the center of the screen at 60hz,
and 5.4ms at 120hz.
so it's basically almost equal at 60hz and faster than a CRT at 120hz.

LG is almost as fast as that too these days.

gaming PC monitors these days usually have way lower input lag than CRTs, especially at high refresh rates, but also often at 60hz


This is the reason of why the same game in the same console/PC is more responsive depending on the tv/display where you play it.

Mario64 is more or less responsive depending on the platform or emulator you play it (it has a different input lag on them), and also depending on the display lag you are using it.

on original N64 hardware Mario 64's ENGINE latency, independent of the TV, is 67ms
that's an unstable 30fps + vsync, non-competitive game.


There's also the input lag of each gamepad/arcade stick, but this is a separate story.

it is indeed, just like your TV latency stuff, which is also entirely irrelevant here since I assume the graphs posted from SF6 are with the TV latency removed, if not I would love to see the TV/Monitor info for the screen they used, as that might change the numbers


the fact stands, SF6's input latency numbers (if the measurements are reliable) are BAD for a relatively simple game that runs at 60fps, and is highly competitive.
those 58.3ms (3.5 frames) of latency it has at 120hz on console should be the 60hz Vsync latency, then it would be actually decent.

when a massive 100+ player online shooter can reach latency numbers of 40ms at 60hz with vsync, then there's no excuse for a 2 player 2.5D fighting game to have more than 70ms
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
not really, input lag has multiple factors, all of which are affecting all genres equally.

type of Vsync, GPU utilisation and controller polling.
Yes

somehow a simple game like SF6, with 2 characters in front of a static background, has more latency than a massive 100+ player online shooter.
on original N64 hardware Mario 64's ENGINE latency, independent of the TV, is 67ms
that's an unstable 30fps + vsync, non-competitive game.
The majority of the time spent to calculate the game logic and draw a frame, in all genres, goes to rendering what you're seing in the screen. So things like rendering techniques, post processing, resolution, quality of the textures in screen, affect way more.

Depending on the needs of the game, so shared between the genre, devs prioritize some or other things. In open worlds they need to store in memory the logic, textures, animations, state, etc, of nearby npcs, enemies, players, props or environment around you. So often backgrounds or characters are less detailed or run it at 30fps to bump detail.

But these things affect to how much time a frame takes to get rendered, but since games often are locked to 30 or 60 fps isn't that relevant even if still is since higher render time could push the input lag half a frame or almost a frame.

But input lag measures the amount of frames/time spent between you press a button and see the result. By looking at game of the same genre, you'll know that they will have same priorities like locking or not the framerate, locking it at a similar framerate and having a in theory similar frame time for rendering, plus also a relatively similar amount of game logic to process each frame.

So the comparisions will be made in more similar conditions, and also made using the same platform or at least display and controller (in case of fighting games often using a custom arcadestick with a Brook UFB, the best motherboard in terms of controller input lag for custom arcade sticks) to spot the differences in input lag.

So leaving aside the differences of hardware/OS & drivers overhead, display or controller, rendering and game logic difference between genres etc. you get a more direct and fair comparision of what affects the input lag between similar games, which is the related game engine specific and game specific logic code dedicated to detect inputs and affect the game logic and interrupt animations.

By design, when an input gets detected some animations are played sooner or later. As an example, in a fighting game a low punch gets played faster than a strong punch and at the same time depending on previous attacks there will be a recovery time where no new attacks can be shown.

In addition to this, there's the transitions between animations: depending on the case animations get blended or wait until a beter time to transition to the new one. But not in case of fighting games, where previous animations get directly stopped when you can play a new attack animation to provide a faster and more responsive action.

not true anymore. especially in 120hz mode.
a CRT has 16.6ms of latency when measured from the bottom of the screen, and 8.3ms of latency measured from the center. (usually the input lag is measured from the center)

My Samsung has 9.8ms latency measured from the center of the screen at 60hz,
and 5.4ms at 120hz.
so it's basically almost equal at 60hz and faster than a CRT at 120hz.

LG is almost as fast as that too these days.

gaming PC monitors these days usually have way lower input lag than CRTs, especially at high refresh rates, but also often at 60hz
The 16.67ms/60Hz or 120Hz is the refresh rate, the frequency at the screen gets updated, so the maximium framerate that can be shown. There are CRTs and LCDs with 60Hz, 75Hz, 80Hz or 120Hz to name a few. In the case of tvs the older CRT ones were commonly at 60Hz for NTSC and 50Hz for PAL, and the modern CRTs 120Hz (NTSC) or 100Hz (PAL), refreshes also more frequent in modern CRT PC displays.

But if talking to the average experience of an arcade game or a standard tv plugged to an old console yes, the common stuff was 60Hz/50Hz, so over these Hz is better refresh in LCDs or CRTs.

But refresh rate is different than display lag. Display lag is the time spent by the display to show whatever the console/PC sent. Different displays with the same refresh rate have different display lag. You can be playing the same game with the same controller and the same console in different displays and the game will be more or less responsive because of the differences in display lag.

In competitive play display lag is a deal, and often there are cases where players complain about the display lag of the displays in certain tournaments. I remember the case in recent Street Fighter ones.

Here you have more info about display lag in modern displays, mentioned by them as 'input lag', with some examples of recent tvs: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

They show a table with 274 recent tvs which at 60Hz mode their display lag ranges from 8.4ms to 35.1ms (8.33 ms is the theorical minimum).

it is indeed, just like your TV latency stuff, which is also entirely irrelevant here since I assume the graphs posted from SF6 are with the TV latency removed, if not I would love to see the TV/Monitor info for the screen they used, as that might change the numbers
The display lag of displays, like the controller lag, are fixed ones and varies for each specific display model and controller model. So I assume that doing some research they could figure out the display lag and controller lag of whaterver they are using in order to isolate the input lag of the game+game engine+os+gaming hardware itself not including there the display lag or controller lag.

But I don't think it's the case because they often indicate the controller being used, which leads to think it also includes the controller lag. And if they don't remove the controller lag I assume they won't remove the dislay lag either.

the fact stands, SF6's input latency numbers (if the measurements are reliable) are BAD for a relatively simple game that runs at 60fps, and is highly competitive.
those 58.3ms (3.5 frames) of latency it has at 120hz on console should be the 60hz Vsync latency, then it would be actually decent.
Yes, measurements are reliable. Or at least these guys and WydD (who doesn't frequently benchmark games anymore) are the reference.

And no, SF6 input delay numbers aren't bad. They are between the best ones seen in its genre in the recent decades, in generations played with LCDs. For modern console fighting games, as shown in the charts 3.38 (120Hz) frames is awesome and 4 frames (in 60Hz) is still really good. As a random example Street Fighter V started with 8 frames of input lag, double than that.

And I'd bet it's also great compared to most other genres in PS4 and PS5 specially in AAA games running at native 4K.
 
Last edited:

01011001

Banned
But input lag measures the amount of frames/time spent between you press a button and see the result. By looking at game of the same genre, you'll know that they will have same priorities like locking or not the framerate, locking it at a similar framerate and having a in theory similar frame time for rendering, plus also a relatively similar amount of game logic to process each frame.

So the comparisions will be made in more similar conditions, and also made using the same platform or at least display and controller (in case of fighting games often using a custom arcadestick with a Brook UFB, the best motherboard in terms of controller input lag for custom arcade sticks) to spot the differences in input lag.

So leaving aside the differences of hardware/OS & drivers overhead, display or controller, rendering and game logic difference between genres etc. you get a more direct and fair comparision of what affects the input lag between similar games, which is the related game engine specific and game specific logic code dedicated to detect inputs and affect the game logic and interrupt animations.

even if we only use the same genre, UNIEL has 40.1ms of latency... the Blazblue games also are in this ballpark.
70+ms just isn't great, it's at best acceptable but in no way laudable.


By design, when an input gets detected some animations are played sooner or later. As an example, in a fighting game a low punch gets played faster than a strong punch and at the same time depending on previous attacks there will be a recovery time where no new attacks can be shown.

something like that usually gets discarded in tests like these. you use a mechanic wirh an instant response to test this stuff (unless your name is NX Gamer lol)

The 16.67ms/60Hz or 120Hz is the refresh rate, the frequency at the screen gets updated, so the maximium framerate that can be shown. There are CRTs and LCDs with 60Hz, 75Hz, 80Hz or 120Hz to name a few. In the case of tvs the older CRT ones were commonly at 60Hz for NTSC and 50Hz for PAL, and the modern CRTs 120Hz (NTSC) or 100Hz (PAL), refreshes also more frequent in modern CRT PC displays.

But if talking to the average experience of an arcade game or a standard tv plugged to an old console yes, the common stuff was 60Hz/50Hz, so over these Hz is better refresh in LCDs or CRTs.

But refresh rate is different than display lag. Display lag is the time spent by the display to show whatever the console/PC sent. Different displays with the same refresh rate have different display lag. You can be playing the same game with the same controller and the same console in different displays and the game will be more or less responsive because of the differences in display lag.

display lag is determinded by refresh rate and processing speed.
CRTs (non HD ones) had no image processing so their input lag is purely based on the screen refresh, which at 60hz is 16.66ms measured from the bottom of the screen and 8.33ms measured from the center. that's simply the speed at which they can draw the image.

so modern Samsung TVs, like the one I have, have 9.8ms of totall latency when measured from the center of the screen, meaning to the raw refresh latency there's only ~1.5ms of additional processing latency.

which is why I said that CRT talk is mostly useless these days, as high end gaming oriented TVs will have an almost imperceptible difference in latency compared to a 60hz CRT.
that's especially true when you run your Xbox at 120hz at all times, which will get the screen to refresh faster even when playing 60fps games, and will in fact reduce the latency to below that of a 60hz CRT

in short, if you want to, you can get CRT level input response on a modern flatpanel TV, the fight against input lag on modern TVs is basically over


But I don't think it's the case because they often indicate the controller being used, which leads to think it also includes the controller lag. And if they don't remove the controller lag I assume they won't remove the dislay lag either.


Yes, measurements are reliable. Or at least these guys and WydD (who doesn't frequently benchmark games anymore) are the reference.

And no, SF6 input delay numbers aren't bad. They are between the best ones seen in its genre in the recent decades, in generations played with LCDs. For modern console fighting games, as shown in the charts 3.38 (120Hz) frames is awesome and 4 frames (in 60Hz) is still really good. As a random example Street Fighter V started with 8 frames of input lag, double than that.

And I'd bet it's also great compared to most other genres in PS4 and PS5 specially in AAA games running at native 4K.

if they don't remove the display lag then their measurements are useless unless they specify the TV/Monitor they used to people can look up that screen's latency.
so if they keep the tv latency in these numbers, their measurements might technically be reliable, but in practice are unreliable references for the people looking them up.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
even if we only use the same genre, UNIEL has 40.1ms of latency... the Blazblue games also are in this ballpark.
70+ms just isn't great, it's at best acceptable but in no way laudable.
In PC SF6 achieves better input lag than these games, 37.55ms.

SF6 achieves according to the one who measured all platforms and modes:
-PC 37.55ms (240Hz), 58.09ms (60Hz)
-PS5 56.3ms (120Hz), 67.51ms (60Hz)
-XBSX 58.22 (120Hz), 67.06ms (60Hz)

In any case, even you only count the 60Hz modes because of potatos, the maximum difference, between the 67.51ms and 40.1ms is only 27.41ms, slightly above a frame and a half.

that's especially true when you run your Xbox at 120hz at all times, which will get the screen to refresh faster even when playing 60fps games, and will in fact reduce the latency to below that of a 60hz CRT

in short, if you want to, you can get CRT level input response on a modern flatpanel TV, the fight against input lag on modern TVs is basically over
The display lag of a LCD vs a CRT is whatever a LCD has in 60Hz above 8.33ms, and for the new LCDs they tracked in that website range from 0.07ms to 26.77ms.

In a fighting game the game logic and rendering is locked to 60fps & Hz can't go under 8.33ms even if you force your tv/console at 120Hz, with modes that create new frames with interpolation and shits like that. The game will continue outputting changes at that 60fps speed and the additional frames will be interpolations of previous ones.

For games with a 120Hz mode you can achieve lower display lag in an LCD if it has a display lag in 120Hz (non interpolation) mode lower than 8.33ms. The new ones tested by the website I posted range between 4.4ms to 10.9 ms.

So some games with 120Hz mode in a 120Hz tv will have more display lag than a 60Hz game on a 60Hz CRT tv (not a 120Hz CRT, but let's ignore these ones because 120fps fighting games weren't a thing back then), while others will achieve better result than a 60Hz CRT decreasing the input lag & display lag in up to 3.93ms (case of the best tv), because the 60Hz CRT is 8.33ms and the best 120Hz is 4.4ms, which is around a quarter of a 60fps frame.

if they don't remove the display lag then their measurements are useless unless they specify the TV/Monitor they used to people can look up that screen's latency.

so if they keep the tv latency in these numbers, their measurements might technically be reliable, but in practice are unreliable references for the people looking them up.
Lol! Their measurements show the difference input lag between different games of the same genre using the same hardware.

To know if a game is more responsive than other similar games or previous versions of that game is obviously useful and that it's the point of the measurements.
 
Top Bottom