• 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.

[VG Tech] Dead Space PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Comparison

Lunatic_Gamer

Gold Member



The version tested was 1.03 on the Xbox Series consoles. PS5 was tested using version 1.03 and 1.04. Patch 1.03 seems to have removed VRS from the console versions of the game.

Timestamps:
0:00 - Quality Mode (Performance Mode Disabled) and Xbox Series S
5:17 - Performance Mode Enabled

PS5 and Xbox Series X in quality mode (performance mode disabled) use a dynamic resolution with the highest rendering resolution found being 2259x1270 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 2204x1240. PS5 and Xbox Series X seem to often render at 2259x1270 in quality mode. PS5 and Xbox Series X in quality mode use FSR 2 to reconstruct a 3840x2160 resolution.

Xbox Series S uses a dynamic resolution with the highest rendering resolution found being 1600x900 and the lowest resolution found being approximately 1280x720. Xbox Series S seems to often render at 1600x900. Xbox Series S uses FSR 2 to reconstruct a 2400x1350 resolution.

PS5 and Xbox Series X in performance mode use a dynamic resolution with the highest rendering resolution found being 1706x960 and the lowest resolution found being 1422x800. PS5 and Xbox Series X seem to often render at 1706x960 in performance mode. PS5 and Xbox Series X in performance mode use FSR 2 to reconstruct a 2560x1440 resolution.

PS5 and Xbox Series X in quality mode use a form of ray-traced ambient occlusion. Xbox Series S doesn't have a performance mode and doesn't use ray-traced ambient occlusion.

PlatformsPS5Xbox Series XXbox Series S
Frame Amounts
Game Frames950095009484
Video Frames190001900019001
Frame Tearing Statistics
Total Torn Frames000
Lowest Torn Line---
Frame Height216021602160
Frame Time Statistics
Mean Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.39ms
Median Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
Maximum Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms50ms
Minimum Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
95th Percentile Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
99th Percentile Frame Time33.33ms33.33ms33.33ms
Frame Rate Statistics
Mean Frame Rate30fps30fps29.95fps
Median Frame Rate30fps30fps30fps
Maximum Frame Rate30fps30fps30fps
Minimum Frame Rate30fps30fps26fps
5th Percentile Frame Rate30fps30fps30fps
1st Percentile Frame Rate30fps30fps28fps
Frame Time Counts
33.33ms9500 (100%)9500 (100%)9451 (99.65%)
50ms0 (0%)0 (0%)33 (0.35%)
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
Runs great on all of them.
This part was updated btw. Patch 1.04 seems to have removed VRS from the console versions of the game. Now says 1.03.
 

Lysandros

Member
Runs great on all of them.
This part was updated btw. Patch 1.04 seems to have removed VRS from the console versions of the game. Now says 1.03.
I think quite a bit of users having both consoles already bought the XSX version after the 'biggest channel's eager recommendations about the matter. Be it the video or John's incessant twits. There we are, the versions are virtually identical.
 
Last edited:

Moonjt9

Member
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
Nah, I don't agree with that thought process at all. Reconstruction techniques are quickly going from "nice to haves" to "mandatory to reach our performance targets". I was fearing this would start happening and it is. Those numbers are extremely low for machines that are much more capable than this. A Plague Tale: Requiem runs at a native 2560x1440 most of the time and looks a cut better than this game. Sure, RT is there but it's only AO.

Look at games like Horizon Forbidden West running at a full fat 4K (or is it 1800p?) in Quality Mode and looking better than this game. I love me some FSR and DLSS but still favor native resolution most of the time because of the issues they often exhibit. They're being used as a crutch now.

Sub HD resolutions on 2020 machines with 2070/2080-class cards simply isn't good. It also seems the further we get into the generation, the lower the resolutions get. Forspoken a meh-looking game drops to 720p in performance mode, this was unheard of. Devs use image reconstruction techniques as a crutch and with a shit base resolution basically to tell us "turn on FSR/DLSS bro".
 
Last edited:

Thief1987

Member
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
In case of Dead Space setting and that the game is mostly dark also helping a lot. In vibrant high contrast scenes low resolution will be much more noticeable, aliasing especially.
 
Last edited:

Zuzu

Member
And this is why we need mid-gen pro consoles. Sub 1080p in performance mode. Also from what I’ve read, Hogwarts Legacy is not too great looking in its performance mode on Series X/PS5 seemingly due to low resolution and lower settings.
 
Last edited:

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
i dont know, game looks incredible on PS5 performance mode.
 

Vick

Gold Member
Extremely satisfied by the way Performance mode looks and run on PS5.
Couldn't care less about native numbers, game is clean, fluid, and unlike Callisto Protocol graphics don't take a hit.

On Chapter 11 of my Impossible run, second one after Hard, and I had an absolute blast with this game.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
Yeah, high native resolution is often a waste of resources anyway -- because of diminishing returns. Obsession for high native resolution also means we're not using (or appreciating) all the resolution reconstruction techniques that devs have developed in the last few years.

Final image quality is what matters more. If it looks good, it looks good -- no matter the pixel count.
 
I am very surprised that the PS5 and Xbox Series X resolutions are so low in this game at 30 fps and 60 fps. I mean sub-1080p at 60 fps! Wow!

I was expecting native 4K for the 30 fps mode and 1440-1600p for the 60 fps modes with DRS. I mean a lot of the game is set in corridors and small rooms with some larger more open areas.
 
Last edited:
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
That's why I never understood the obsession with resolution. That's probably a PC-mentality mostly.

1080p ultra settings > 4K medium/high settings, for example.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
Nah, I don't agree with that thought process at all. Reconstruction techniques are quickly going from "nice to haves" to "mandatory to reach our performance targets". I was fearing this would start happening and it is. Those numbers are extremely low for machines that are much more capable than this. A Plague Tale: Requiem runs at a native 2560x1440 most of the time and looks a cut better than this game. Sure, RT is there but it's only AO.

Look at games like Horizon Forbidden West running at a full fat 4K (or is it 1800p?) in Quality Mode and looking better than this game. I love me some FSR and DLSS but still favor native resolution most of the time because of the issues they often exhibit. They're being used as a crutch now.

Sub HD resolutions on 2020 machines with 2070/2080-class cards simply isn't good. It also seems the further we get into the generation, the lower the resolutions get. Forspoken a meh-looking game drops to 720p in performance mode, this was unheard of. Devs use image reconstruction techniques as a crutch and with a shit base resolution basically to tell us "turn on FSR/DLSS bro".
More like 2060 Super to 2070 (stretching it a little further), I've played some heavy games on my 6700xt which is bit around 2080ti and it not only runs at better settings, but higher non-dynamic resolution and around 60 fps instead of 30 of the quality mode. Couldn't believe if I was told these consoles GPU are anywhere above 6600xt
 

skit_data

Member
Did they remove VRS from Series X too? Was it almost as bad on Series X too?
Both seem to hit 60fps a lot of the time, I really wonder why they even implemented VRS from the start, unless the resolution is now lower, which of course could be the case seeing it’s sub 1080p now.
 

blastprocessor

The Amiga Brotherhood
If there's truly no light backing and lighting is fully real-time then that's the price you're paying for the lower native resolution .
 

JoduanER2

Member
I think this shows a shift in how resolution numbers are not the most important thing anymore. I think John from digital foundry said at the beginning of the gen that it’s going to be all about final image quality and not just a certain pixel number being reached. The game looks insane on ps5 quality mode. I could t care less how they got to that. Looks like they are using great techniques to make a phenomenal final image. Bodes well for the future.
Maybe you are not understanding what FSR 2 do... of course resolution is really important, remove FSR 2 and lets see if resolution is not that big of a deal.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
i think you are missing the point, FSR shouldnt need to do much work with a game like this, its not a graphical showcase

I understand, DF and others have theorized that they might have used checker board rendering at some point in development but later decided to use FSR. Hence the weird rendering setup.

In either case, the end result is pretty good for what is a sub 1080p buffer.
 

Skifi28

Member
People caring more about numbers than how the game looks. If those guys didn't mention stats nobody would notice the resolution went that low because the game looks amazing.

Reconstruction is the present/future.
Depends on your point of view I guess.


PC game with reconstruction: DLSS this, FSR that, better than native, it's the future etc.

Console game with reconstruction: *ignores reconstruction* muh low res lol consoles.
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
That's why I never understood the obsession with resolution. That's probably a PC-mentality mostly.

1080p ultra settings > 4K medium/high settings, for example.
No, that's most definitely a console mentality to prove the superiority of one machine over the other. No one on consoles cared about resolution during the PS360 era. It became a thing in the 8th generation with the 900p of the X1 vs the native 1080p of the PS4. It continues to this day where you see threads going for pages with people arguing about a 10% resolution advantage of one machine over the other. The resolution war is a console warrior thing, not a PC one.

Depends on your point of view I guess.


PC game with reconstruction: DLSS this, FSR that, better than native, it's the future etc.

Console game with reconstruction: *ignores reconstruction* muh low res lol consoles.
You made up that narrative in your head.
 
Last edited:

Skifi28

Member
You made up that narrative in your head.
Modern reconstruction techniques basically started on consoles with checkerboarding and were laughed out of the park by a certain group of users around here for being "fake", until they became the norm and now even they can't imagine a world without such techniques. It's an ongoing struggle from what I can gather, I'm quite puzzled myself.
 
Last edited:

Gaiff

Gold Member
Modern reconstruction techniques basically started on consoles with checkerboarding and were laughed out of the park by a certain group of users around here for being "fake", until they became the norm and now even they can't imagine a world without such techniques. It's an ongoing struggle from what I can gather, I'm quite puzzled myself.
Because checkerboard rendering wasn't anywhere near as good as the current technologies are. DLSS 1.0 and FSR 1.0 also got laughed out of the building so this isn't the gotcha moment that you think it is. Consoles are using FSR 2 which is superior to pretty much anything they've ever had. 1920x2160 checkerboarded into 4K wasn't all that close to the real thing and didn't do anything better. DLSS/FSR actually have some advantages over native though I still prefer native 90% of the time.
 
Last edited:

TonyK

Member
Performance mode looks good in series X (and I'm sure it's the same for PS5) regardless that low base resolution. Reconstruction techniques have improved a lot.
 

Skifi28

Member
Because checkerboard rendering wasn't anywhere near as good as the current technologies are. DLSS 1.0 and FSR 1.0 also got laughed out of the building so this isn't the gotcha moment that you think it is. Consoles are using FSR 2 which is superior to pretty much everything they've ever had. 1920x2160 checkerboarded into 4K wasn't all that close to the real thing and didn't do anything better. DLSS/FSR actually have some advantages over native.
This isn't really a "gotcha moment" nor do I really care in being an active participants in any wars, just pointing out what I've noticed in my years around here. Also, checkerboarding is still a quite impressive technique like in modern resident evil games or even Forbidden west.
 
wtf
vvVQRW4.png
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
This isn't really a "gotcha moment" nor do I really care in being an active participants in any wars, just pointing out what I've noticed in my years around here. Also, checkerboarding is still a quite impressive technique like in modern resident evil games or even Forbidden west.
You're trying to paint the issue as a double standard when it isn't. I first played Horizon on the PS4 Pro, you could never fool me into thinking the resolution was native 4K. It looks A LOT blurrier and closer to 1080p in terms of quality. Fast-forward 3 years later with DLSS 2 Quality, you could 100% fool me into thinking the image is native 4K (at least until you start doing things that exposes its issues). Checkerboard rendering simply isn't as good as DLSS/FSR and got mocked because Sony and Microsoft advertised 4K and didn't come close.

This isn't something about PC players going "hur hur, consoles suck because no native". Otherwise, DLSS 1.0 and FSR 1.0 wouldn't have been as maligned as they were. Hell, I even saw PC players being happy about FSR coming to consoles because it's better than anything they have.
 
Last edited:
No, that's most definitely a console mentality to prove the superiority of one machine over the other. No one on consoles cared about resolution during the PS360 era. It became a thing in the 8th generation with the 900p of the X1 vs the native 1080p of the PS4. It continues to this day where you see threads going for pages with people arguing about a 10% resolution advantage of one machine over the other. The resolution war is a console warrior thing, not a PC one.


You made up that narrative in your head.
It originated with people sharing their PC knowledge to discuss and argue about console performance and the "obsolete" hardware of last-gen.

The average console-gamer couldn't give a damn about resolution. They just want something nice to look at.

But that is kind of irrelevant, as the point was that resolution isn't close to being the defining factor for visuals.
 

Skifi28

Member
You're trying to paint the issue as a double standard when it isn't. I first played Horizon on the PS4 Pro, you could never fool me into thinking the resolution was native 4K. It looks A LOT blurrier and closer to 1080p in terms of quality. Fast-forward 3 years later with DLSS 2 Quality, you could 100% fool me into thinking the image is native 4K (at least until you start doing things that exposes its issues). Checkerboard rendering simply isn't as good as DLSS/FSR and got mocked because Sony and Microsoft advertised 4K and didn't come close.

This isn't something about PC players going "hur hur, consoles suck because no native". Otherwise, DLSS 1.0 and FSR 1.0 wouldn't have been as maligned as they were. Hell, I even saw PC players being happy about FSR coming to consoles because it's better than anything they have.
The double standard is there for sure, it's been really hard not to notice with Forspoken and now this. Dead Space looks great, you would have no idea what the native resolution actually is but many people ignore the result just to focus on the numbers you will never see in your screen. This never happens when talking about PC reconstruction when people will even upscale from resolutions as low as 720p.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Now we know why it only took them 2.5 years to build. Brute force the shit out of it and lock it down with such low resolutions relying on FRS and other tricks. Longer optimization cycles would get much more out of this game for sure.

Seen bigger and better looking games at much higher resolutions. Open world too.
 
Last edited:

Gaiff

Gold Member
The double standard is there for sure, it's been really hard not to notice with Forspoken and now this. Dead Space looks great, you would have no idea what the native resolution actually is but many people ignore the result just to focus on the numbers you will never see in your screen. This never happens when talking about PC reconstruction when people will even upscale from resolutions as low as 720p.
It 100% happens with PC resolutions. Most will recommend not to go below DLSS balanced because the image quality below that starts to suffer. There are opinions pieces all over analyzing the shortcomings such as ghosting, flickering, etc. DLSS and FSR have been scrutinized far more than checkerboard ever was so your claim that no one cares about the fact that they're not native resolution is just bullshit. The difference is that they're a lot better than checkerboard rendering and in the case of DLSS even boasts some advantages over native resolution such as being better at resolving fine details.

There would be a double standard if checkerboard rendering was as good as DLSS/FSR but it's not and it especially wasn't when it was first introduced and once again, DLSS 1.0 and FSR 1.0 got sneered at.

But again, you've made up that narrative in your head so it's whatever.
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Seen bigger and better looking games at much higher resolutions. Open world too.
Bigger better looking games at much higher resolutions/framerates open world too......which ones?



Is unoptimized the new lazy devs narrative?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Bigger better looking games at much higher resolutions/framerates open world too......which ones?



Is unoptimized the new lazy devs narrative?
HFW and it's even cross gen. Still the best looking game out there pound for pound.

It's not "a narrative." They said it took them 2.5 years to make. You are telling me a game that looks like this, is so resource heavy compared to others? Okay. The short dev cycle explains it, and I never said "lazy devs" so don't put words in my mouth.
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
Bigger better looking games at much higher resolutions/framerates open world too......which ones?



Is unoptimized the new lazy devs narrative?
Horizon Forbidden West as has already been answered. I also think A Plague Tale: Requiem looks better but it's not open world. Demon's Souls Remake, Rift Apart, TLOU Part 1, and Callisto Protocol all look better though in the case of the last one, the performance isn't better, at least not on PC/Xbox.

It looks good, don't get me wrong. Just not that good and it isn't impressive when it's running at 1296p.
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
HFW and it's even cross gen. Still the best looking game out there pound for pound.

It's not "a narrative." They said it took them 2.5 years to make. You are telling me a game that looks like this, is so resource heavy compared to others? Okay. The short dev cycle explains it, and I never said "lazy devs" so don't put words in my mouth.
I didnt put words in your mouth.
You stated the game was unoptimized (not verbatim but read your own post)....the old narrative used to be if the game doesnt run at xxxx resolution at 60fps its the devs who are lazy, the new narrative seems to be if a game doesnt run at xxxx resolution at 60 then its unoptimized.

All you armchair devs who seemingly know exactly how a game should look to be xyz levels of heavy on a console always sound really weird to me.
You are eyeballing a game and have some sixths sense that tells you whats its load should be?

Horizon Forbidden West as has already been answered. I also think A Plague Tale: Requiem looks better but it's not open world. Demon's Souls Remake, Rift Apart, TLOU Part 1, and Callisto Protocol all look better though in the case of the last one, the performance isn't better, at least not on PC/Xbox.

It looks good, don't get me wrong. Just not that good and it isn't impressive when it's running at 1296p.
Plagues Tale: Requiem is also ~1440p30 (barely on PS5) and doesnt have RTAO.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I didnt put words in your mouth.
You stated the game was unoptimized (not verbatim but read your own post)....the old narrative used to be if the game doesnt run at xxxx resolution at 60fps its the devs who are lazy, the new narrative seems to be if a game doesnt run at xxxx resolution at 60 then its unoptimized.

All you armchair devs who seemingly know exactly how a game should look to be xyz levels of heavy on a console always sound really weird to me.
You are eyeballing a game and have some sixths sense that tells you whats its load should be?


Plagues Tale: Requiem is also ~1440p30 (barely on PS5) and doesnt have RTAO.
Ok.
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
Plagues Tale: Requiem is also ~1440p30 (barely on PS5) and doesnt have RTAO.
This game is presumably 1296p, so Plague Tale still boasts 23% more pixels in general and looks significantly better. You're right that it doesn't have RTAO but it's not like it helps Dead Space a lot.

I just think it looks kind of mid-tier for a game that runs at a mere 1296p with only one minor RT effect. I was certainly expecting better from a current-gen only game.
 
Top Bottom