I played it on both PS5 and XSX, too. I thought performance was really bad on both. The graphics are really nice but both versions have glitchy pop-in issues and performance in free roam is so bad in both it's like deciding which turd sandwich stinks less. But it is just a tech demo and not a retail game so there's no reason to argue about it.
"The massive leap in processing, graphics, and I/O capabilities from next-gen baseline hardware has allowed GSC to really push the boat out there in terms of STALKER 2's visuals. Hardware ray-tracing, extremely high polycount models, and Unreal 5's Nanite and Lumen rendering systems together make for a truly next-gen experience. "
www.notebookcheck.net
This screenshot highlights great use of Nanite for detailed rendering of the ruins (Image source: GSC Game World)
Lumen global illumination adds depth to the bucolic environment pictured here (Image source: GSC Game World)
Lunatic_Gamer
"The massive leap in processing, graphics, and I/O capabilities from next-gen baseline hardware has allowed GSC to really push the boat out there in terms of STALKER 2's visuals. Hardware ray-tracing, extremely high polycount models, and Unreal 5's Nanite and Lumen rendering systems together make for a truly next-gen experience. "
New STALKER 2 details and gorgeous Unreal 5-powered screenshots emerge months ahead of the next-gen exclusive's April 2022 launch
GSC Game world recently shared a set of five new STALKER 2 screenshots, with just five months to go before the long-awaited sequel to Call of Pripyat arrives. Russian gamers also shared early snippets of an exclusive PC Gamer magazine feature on the game, highlighting new gameplay mechanics.
Exactly,
NXGamer
is not doing videos for the GDC crowd, but home tech enthusiasts that like to understand a bit more. I'm not saying giblet was wrong, but being picky with these kinds of videos is just too much.
The engine optimization/experience argument makes no sense. This is a third party multiplatform engine that devs will use to develop on PC. From there, they will create builds for PS5 and XSX. The whole point of using UE5 and other third party engines is to do game dev once. Once the builds are created they can then go in and optimize/downgrade settings here and there, but thats about it. The engine level optimizations for each console simply wont be done on multiplat releases. No one is going to code around the higher clocks of the PS5 or the higher SSD bandwidth for multiplatform games. And for that same reason, no one [third party] is going to bother optimizing for xsx's advantages either.That mainly only applies to launch day releases.
Series console been out for over a year. Epic had enough time to get used to the hardware and even have Nanite using Mesh Shader.
I stand corrected. Now I am excited for this game. lol"The massive leap in processing, graphics, and I/O capabilities from next-gen baseline hardware has allowed GSC to really push the boat out there in terms of STALKER 2's visuals. Hardware ray-tracing, extremely high polycount models, and Unreal 5's Nanite and Lumen rendering systems together make for a truly next-gen experience. "
New STALKER 2 details and gorgeous Unreal 5-powered screenshots emerge months ahead of the next-gen exclusive's April 2022 launch
GSC Game world recently shared a set of five new STALKER 2 screenshots, with just five months to go before the long-awaited sequel to Call of Pripyat arrives. Russian gamers also shared early snippets of an exclusive PC Gamer magazine feature on the game, highlighting new gameplay mechanics.
This screenshot highlights great use of Nanite for detailed rendering of the ruins (Image source: GSC Game World)
Lumen global illumination adds depth to the bucolic environment pictured here (Image source: GSC Game World)
Here is another UE5 game screen shot. Maybe you can use this one too.
You can go back to that thread and see me defend them. I dont think there have been many instances of this, but this one seems oddly egregious. They had a 50 minute video on this thing and barely covered the performance metrics.
No, probably nothing noteworthy. I think the games this gen will be very close in 99% cases.
I’m going to need to see this.
Counter-point: AMDs high end cards all have higher CU and lower clocks.
At least he didn’t ruff-ruffYeah, but no.
What he used to always type and hashtag in the tweet.
The First demo was only ps5 so i don't think they have worked with the series version before the ps5
Yield processes are where it would be more expensive.
Yeah, but those are the advertised clocks. RDNA 1 and 2.0 cards go well beyond their advertised game clocks in game.
if there are sinister things about DF it started with the addition of Alex to the Team.. the PC Masterrace Terminology and his ignorance when it comes to console advantages ..
I had my doubts. I upset a lot of my fellow blue rats when I refused to declare a winner after the first few cross gen comparisons or even some of the latter ones this year, but I really wanted to see if the PS5 would hold its own when next gen only games designed around next gen tech arrive and well, the PS5 seems to be on par with the xsx at the very least. The fact that some games have the PS5 going up to 230 Watts of power consumption shows that there is really no need to worry about any kind of GPU clock downgrade either. There is more than enough power available for both the CPU and GPU.
lol forget github. Cerny's Road to PS5 show sounded like a big damage control PR piece. I thought for sure the PS5 was underpowered. Now I understand he was just trying to explain why he made the choices he made. He definitely wasn't spinning or being dishonest. Higher clocks vs more CUs is pretty much the same performance wise.
Tom sure talks about it very often still. It's his trademark.
lol yes. Wasn't.
This has never been the case with PC graphics cards though, so it's a weird notion for sure.
This is not entirely accurate.
RT actually scales with both tflops and CUs, so any disadvantage the XSX might have in traditional rasterization due to bottlenecked CUs will manifest itself in ray traced games like the Matrix demo. We have seen this in other games where Control can have a 18% performance advantage in some scenes and only 1 fps advantage in other scenes.
So why are you getting in the discussion? are you just here to run your mouth?
RT actually scales with both tflops and CUs, so any disadvantage the XSX might have in traditional rasterization due to bottlenecked CUs will manifest itself in ray traced games like the Matrix demo. We have seen this in other games where Control can have a 18% performance advantage in some scenes and only 1 fps advantage in other scenes.
Alex tested the corridor of doom like he always does to run ray traced benchmarks and found a lousy 1 fps difference in the most RT intensive part of the game. If RT scaled with only CUs then the XSX wouldve had 18% better performance in every single scenario. He went on to test 21 other parts of the game and found an average of 16% better performance but with not much going on. The XSX was dropping frames whenever there was action. Then we see screens like below where the performance is nearly identical in highly intensive ray traced corridors. Something is holding back the XSX when shit hits the fan, and I suspect the same is happening in the Matrix demo when they start to fly around or drive really fast. Maybe it's the GPU or the memory setup or maybe it's Cerny's magic sperm. Whatever the reason, this shouldnt really happen when there is a 18% tflops difference and a 44% difference in CUs between two GPUs.
Yeah, but those are the advertised clocks. RDNA 1 and 2.0 cards go well beyond their advertised game clocks in game.
This is the highest clock I could find on the 6800xt and 6900xt, but the other games in this comparison video show how both cards are consistently in the 2.5-2.4 ghz range. Consistently higher than the PS5 clocks, and way higher than the xsx clocks.
I would love to see DF cap the clocks to 1.8 ghz and see just how proportionately the performance drops. Is it 1:1 with tflops? Or does the GPU is increasing the clockspeeds because thats what it needs to hit the higher framerates?
Then there is the infinity cache. IIRC, the 6800xt literally has a 6 billion transistor infinity cache taking up precious space on the 25 billion transistor die. Thats a cost increase of 30% on each die. That tells me that there is no way they are getting this performance without the infinity cache or they wouldve skimped on such an expense.
And yes, the reason fewer CUs and higher clocks wouldve been more economical. Thats probably why Cerny went with that design because it seems Sony was still targeting a $399 price point. However, you still have to cool that thing. Look at the wattage on the 6700xt. 170w on its own at 2.539 GHz. So 12.99 tflops. MS went with more CUs and higher clocks because they had to budget for the CPU wattage, the SSD, and the motherboard. Thats a lot of heat being produced. MS's vapor chamber cooling solution is already very expensive. Way more than Sony's traditional but bulky cooling solution. If they had gone for a 40 CU 2.4 Ghz GPU, they wouldve saved some space/cost on the die, but wouldve required a far more elaborate and expensive cooling. Adding more CUs was probably cheaper in their scenario.
? No
Not sure if those cards are overclocked, but like I said, the GPUs always go above the advertised specs, even the non-overclocked ones.
That's very interesting. The lack of jump in CPU and a massive 16x increase in RAM forced devs to set every fucking game in the wild. Even Rockstar skipped this gen and just made RDR2.
