adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
-
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.
VGTech: Star Wars Jedi Survivor PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Comparison
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Some notes:
1. The game tends to degrade performance if you play long stretches.
2. There is a new patch out for the game today with more performance improvements.
1. The game tends to degrade performance if you play long stretches.
2. There is a new patch out for the game today with more performance improvements.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Seems like it has improved quite significantly since 1.0.
With the amount of amazing games coming in this year, I'd likely end up playing it around EOY or next year. Properly patched and 60% off.
With the amount of amazing games coming in this year, I'd likely end up playing it around EOY or next year. Properly patched and 60% off.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
1152x648
And they dare to charge $70...
And they dare to charge $70...
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Normally I would be all for 30 fps modes dropping below 1440p dipping around 1080p, but im just not seeing the visual upgrade here. They need to forget about the performance mode and think about improving the 30 fps resolution. Turning off RT on PC gets me 33% more performance. They should start off with that.
Maybe offer 40 fps as a performance mode with RT off.
Maybe offer 40 fps as a performance mode with RT off.
diffusionx
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's in the OP already, are the images not visible?
did the IMGUR purge already strike ?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Nah......I just missed it somehow. My bad.
01011001
Banned
seems like that's new info right? I haven't heard anyone else talk about this.
onnextflix5
Member
Wow still not fixed, don’t think it will ever be, they still don’t have an option to turn off RT. Wtf.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Basically THIS!
Mr.Phoenix
Member
I find comments like these misleading at worst, or disingenuous at best.
This is just not how resolutions work when it clearly says and we can clearly see its using reconstruction. To point out these resolutions as if that is how the game looks is to suggest it looks on par with say a switch game. It just doesn't.
Now we can demand more from the devs, I do, hence why I am still not buying the game, but lets not be talking about these resolutions as if anyone of you would have been able to say that is what it was running at natively if you weren't told.
Or have you never seen what a 648p native game actually looks like?
Either the patches have greatly improved performance on XSX or the NXG analysis was pretty inaccurate.
The framerate matches the results claimed by DF when he said that XSX and PS5 were "pretty much the same". NXG decided that PS5 had an Up to18% advantage over XSX in performance mode and that both consoles were 30fps locked in resolution.
Could one explanation be that NXG collected XSX's framerate when XSX was affected by the bug that lose performance when playing for long periods of time?
Then, NXG's mistake in terms of resolution is also confirmed. DF (the discussed Tom and Oliver) was also more accurate and only failed to figure out the slight advantage of XSX over PS5.
In essence it could be said that both versions are "basically the same". Which on the one hand is a bit disappointing because, despite several patches, the performance continues to leave much to be desired on all platforms.
The framerate matches the results claimed by DF when he said that XSX and PS5 were "pretty much the same". NXG decided that PS5 had an Up to18% advantage over XSX in performance mode and that both consoles were 30fps locked in resolution.
Could one explanation be that NXG collected XSX's framerate when XSX was affected by the bug that lose performance when playing for long periods of time?
Then, NXG's mistake in terms of resolution is also confirmed. DF (the discussed Tom and Oliver) was also more accurate and only failed to figure out the slight advantage of XSX over PS5.
In essence it could be said that both versions are "basically the same". Which on the one hand is a bit disappointing because, despite several patches, the performance continues to leave much to be desired on all platforms.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Last edited:
Gaiff
Member
I would agree with you if the game didn't look like shit in performance mode.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
The too low resolution affects the game more in motion in reconstructions.
I can't argue with either of you, because outside what I have seen in these tech review videos, I don't know much else. So to argue would be to be taking out my ass.
I have however not seen any of these tech reviews that show anything that looked as bad as this picture here.
Fbh
Member
FSR2 isn't magic. Sure it will help the image look better than a native 648p image but the extremely low base resolution will still result in a blurry, muddy looking image (that looks even worse in motion).
There's a reason most devs aren't just rendering everything at 720p and then simply using FSR2.
Then you add the fact it's not even running anywhere near 60fps most of the time and I'm simply not seeing a product that's worth paying more than $20 for.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
I know FSR isn't magic, in addition to videos like these and other tech sites, I also use sites like these to have a bead on how a game actually performs.
I have just not seen it look as bad as some are making it out to be anywhere. Static or in motion. And I am not defending it, I too have not bought it yet, and won't until it reaches a state I deem acceptable or gets much cheaper (whichever comes first).
Bojji
Member
Either the patches have greatly improved performance on XSX or the NXG analysis was pretty inaccurate.
The framerate matches the results claimed by DF when he said that XSX and PS5 were "pretty much the same". NXG decided that PS5 had an Up to18% advantage over XSX in performance mode and that both consoles were 30fps locked in resolution.
Could one explanation be that NXG collected XSX's framerate when XSX was affected by the bug that lose performance when playing for long periods of time?
Then, NXG's mistake in terms of resolution is also confirmed. DF (the discussed Tom and Oliver) was also more accurate and only failed to figure out the slight advantage of XSX over PS5.
In essence it could be said that both versions are "basically the same". Which on the one hand is a bit disappointing because, despite several patches, the performance continues to leave much to be desired on all platforms.
Devs probably cleared up some optimization/DX12 bottlenecks in patches and this bringer Xbox version to maximum theoretical performance console CPU can achieve. Both consoles have very similar CPUs so... PS5=XSX.
01011001
Banned
The too low resolution affects the game more in motion in reconstructions.
FSR2 was a mistake...
I bet if this was Checkerboard 900p it would look better, especially in motion. in motion this game is just eye cancer at times
and while you can see the 4 ghost contours and the blurriness in this still image, what you can't see is the constant fizzling in motion
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Either the patches have greatly improved performance on XSX or the NXG analysis was pretty inaccurate.
The framerate matches the results claimed by DF when he said that XSX and PS5 were "pretty much the same". NXG decided that PS5 had an Up to18% advantage over XSX in performance mode and that both consoles were 30fps locked in resolution.
Could one explanation be that NXG collected XSX's framerate when XSX was affected by the bug that lose performance when playing for long periods of time?
Then, NXG's mistake in terms of resolution is also confirmed. DF (the discussed Tom and Oliver) was also more accurate and only failed to figure out the slight advantage of XSX over PS5.
In essence it could be said that both versions are "basically the same". Which on the one hand is a bit disappointing because, despite several patches, the performance continues to leave much to be desired on all platforms.
NXG was working off the day one patch the day after launch. VGT's notes say this is running off of patch 3 and 4 which came after NXG's analysis.
Patch 3.5 states it fixes performance issues across both PS5 and XSX so NXG's analysis doesn't apply any longer.
Last edited:
MatrixReloaded101
Member
This is looking like a black friday pick up. IDK why they released the game in this state, what a waste of time.
Low Moral Fibre
Member
In many ways it looks worse than a 648p native game would as the FSR just can't handle the low resolution so you get tons of ghosting, shimmering and moments where stuff is occluded one second (like behind a post or something) and then suddenly not as you move the camera and the FSR just has no clue what to do and spams some random artifacts to the screen. No need to pixel peep like with DLSS 3 as it is super obvious with the naked eye in real time.
It looks sharper than 648p native sure and actually looks fine where the camera isn't moving but as soon as you move it looks a complete mess.
I play plenty of 720p stuff on the same TV and it looks blurry as hell sure but I'd take that 100 times out of 100 over the ugly mess this game gives thanks to FSR.
Here are 3 sequential frames from a capture I took from a PS5. Every frame is ugly so super obvious without pixel peeping.
It's not always this bad but it's also sometimes much much worse.
Robbinhood
Banned
I actually love the idea of next gen games running lower res and using great upscaling techniques, much smarter use of resources. 4k is such a waste. Unfortunately this game uses a shitty upscale with FSR, DLSS is so much better. I'm still dying to play this but I'll wait for a sale. Got like 5 games on deck and theres simply no time.
I think DF reviewed the same version as NXG and found it very different result in terms of performance and resolution. Here, however, some questioned the accuracy of DF's analysis (Tom/Oliver).
The results of DF's analysis fully coincide with that of VGtech both in terms of framerate and resolution (although DF did not specify the very slight advantage of XSX in average resolution).
Personally I don't think the patches could have improved the XSX version so much compared to the PS5 version. Analysis of DF on Twitter even shows worsening compared to its previous results.
As I said, one explanation could be that NXG recorded XSX's framerate when it was suffering from the bug that worsens performance when playing for long periods of time (present in PS5 version also). But there is no explanation for the error in relation to the resolution where NXG gave figures much higher than the real ones.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
That's fine. Not the first time there have been discrepancies between the analysts.
Correct, and for this reason I continue to support the idea that no source should be prohibited or banned here, no matter how dissenting or erroneous they may be in their conclusions compared to the rest in one or more times.
There are many occasions where a source may not be accurate in its conclusions or analysis, but the material offered can be used to draw conclusions in different aspects.
Of course, a simple opinión.
Luipadre
Member
does it actually improves performance or just breaks more shit?
Luipadre
Member
In many ways it looks worse than a 648p native game would as the FSR just can't handle the low resolution so you get tons of ghosting, shimmering and moments where stuff is occluded one second (like behind a post or something) and then suddenly not as you move the camera and the FSR just has no clue what to do and spams some random artifacts to the screen. No need to pixel peep like with DLSS 3 as it is super obvious with the naked eye in real time.
It looks sharper than 648p native sure and actually looks fine where the camera isn't moving but as soon as you move it looks a complete mess.
I play plenty of 720p stuff on the same TV and it looks blurry as hell sure but I'd take that 100 times out of 100 over the ugly mess this game gives thanks to FSR.
Here are 3 sequential frames from a capture I took from a PS5. Every frame is ugly so super obvious without pixel peeping.
It's not always this bad but it's also sometimes much much worse.
Absolutely disgusting. Its like playing a game through cloud.
akaFullmetal
Member
I was holding off from getting it till it was patched a bit but looks like I'm waiting a little longer now.
Topher
Gold Member
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Either the patches have greatly improved performance on XSX or the NXG analysis was pretty inaccurate.
The framerate matches the results claimed by DF when he said that XSX and PS5 were "pretty much the same". NXG decided that PS5 had an Up to18% advantage over XSX in performance mode and that both consoles were 30fps locked in resolution.
Could one explanation be that NXG collected XSX's framerate when XSX was affected by the bug that lose performance when playing for long periods of time?
Then, NXG's mistake in terms of resolution is also confirmed. DF (the discussed Tom and Oliver) was also more accurate and only failed to figure out the slight advantage of XSX over PS5.
In essence it could be said that both versions are "basically the same". Which on the one hand is a bit disappointing because, despite several patches, the performance continues to leave much to be desired on all platforms.
There's too much evidence pointing to the xbox being a little behind in development when games launch. I understand why they may prioritise ps5 at first but I don't think its right.
Then the xbox catches up and can often become the best performing version.
Seems like performance is more or less getting there and resolution seems to be in line with the power difference
I think?Throws these launch comparisons out the window...I think tech sites should just wait a few weeks tbh.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Gotta wait till someone covers the new patch I guess. I've been playing the Quality mode anyway and that was always a pretty good 30 FPS in 99% of the case. The Performance mode is way too inconsistent to be viable at the moment.
Topher
Gold Member
There's too much evidence pointing to the xbox being a little behind in development when games launch. I understand why they may prioritise ps5 at first but I don't think its right.
Then the xbox catches up and can often become the best performing version.
Seems like performance is more or less getting there and resolution seems to be in line with the power difference
Throws these launch comparisons out the window...I think tech sites should just wait a few weeks tbh.
The versions are on par with each other so not sure how Xbox is the best performing. XSX slight advantage in resolution. PS5 slight advantage in frame rate. Both seem lacking overall.
Luipadre
Member
yeah even if im gonna play this game i wont be playing in performance mode, because the image quality looks really bad and the fps is all over the place
Luipadre
Member
Blowing my mind why there isnt a toggle for that. Cant be that hard to patch in?
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Completely agree. Both are lacking.
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
PC too?
There was a patch installing when I set it to delete so might be better but FPS all over the place. I swear it high 60s when playing then drops into the 20s when I went into the bar... I got no idea what is going on but the game doesn't look that good with RT off to be running worse then Cyberpunk with RT on.
Topher
Gold Member
Well shit......I might as well just add 6 months to any release date (console or PC) when anticipating when I'll be playing games.