"Just".
That's a much more severe performance gap than we've seen in recent times on these two machines.
...The only thing that table is displaying is frame-rate drops. So yes, "just" that.
-
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.
DF Performance Analysis: Dark Souls 2 The Scholar of the First Sin (PS4 vs. XB1)
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
...The only thing that table is displaying is frame-rate drops. So yes, "just" that.
yeah, but compared to the consoles that's cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. The consoles hammer is more on the small and cheap side.. I think a lot of people forget that PS4/X1 CPU's dont even come close to i5 performance.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Have you seen what DS2 looks like?
Aceofspades
Banned
Video was shocking indeed!
iceatcs
Junior Member
heh, had the same thought. I clicked one of their video, few mins later. I thought I read differently.
You really missed the point of the comment. And no one was acting upset, what are you talking about? :/
Windom Earle
Member
That really should not happen. I can run DS2 @4k without dips on my 3770K+970.
"Just".
That's a much more severe performance gap than we've seen in recent times on these two machines.
Well, it is what happens when you use the same resolution in a semi demanding game.
What a mature statement. Personally I criticized BB a lot on this forum for the tech issues, but it is still a great game. Same for DS2 obviously.
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
The PS4 is terrific. Small barely noticeable framerate drops that occur only 1.4% of the time is neglible. The game is locked at 60 fps.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
They really should both be at a locked 60 but that is expecting a lot for FS to pull off. I played it on PC and phew aside from a couple nice areas it is one ugly looking game.
It is quite clearly not a 'locked' 60fps. Let's not water that term down now.
Dictator93
Member
In an FCAT article, 1.4% frametime percentage from 60 would spawn like 3 follow up articles and a small war on Guru3d. It is a matter of perspective to be honest.
I would not use the term "locked @ 60."
Well, excuse me for simply stating that it's only on one version that the framerate drops as low as 36 fps. If that's "pointlessly defending a console" in a thread about game performance, then you should probably not be in this thread.
Doesn't matter what it looks like.
If 30fps dipping to the 20's constantly isn't a issue then yes it will be funny if the same people overreact here.
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Yeah ok. Framerate drops to 58 fps as the video showed which is undectable that only occurs a little over 1% of the time is locked at 60. The amount of needless overhead they would need just make sure those rare instances of a 2 to 3 drops in fame would be a waste of time and resources.
Are you describing Bloodborne's performance there? Because that's not the results Digital Foundry came to.
Bloodborne is the most stable souls game yet on consoles. It only has very minor framerate problems in single player. The bigger issue is in its framerate pacing, which definitely needs to be fixed.
I also find it amazing how you know Bloodborne's highest possible framerate, when it's capped at 30.
No one said anything about a gap closing here. Is this comment the least bit relevant or necessary?
Anyways, XB1 performance is getting ragged on, and it's clearly not great, but watching the video, drops to under 40fps look exceedingly rare. It seems to average in the 50's still, which would put it in line with something like Tomb Raider DE on PS4.
Prior to DF style testing, the term was defined solely on perceptual impressions - and 1% is something that is entirely possible to go unnoticed, especially if frames are relatively evenly spread out.Seanspeed said:
Not saying that's the case in this game mind you - but to water the term down we'd need a more solid historical precedent first.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Strange to think the makers of DirectX would give up a performance advantage.
Have you not watched the video?
PS4 framerate drops lower than that and for more than just a blip at times. In certain combat situations, it was regularly dipping into the low 50's.
You're greatly downplaying the drops here.
Windom Earle
Member
Isn't it a bit pathetic to bring Bloodborne into this thread and making wishful predictions on overreactions?
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Ehhhh, no not really. Again a piece meal rare instant of a minor drop thats not detectable by the naked eye is not a reason to say the game doesn't run at 60. And for all intents and purposes it is a locked 60.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
No that definitely is an issue, what I am saying is people will make concessions based on what a game looks like all the time. Come on you have to know that. BB performs better out the gate than any other Souls title at launch so yeah do we wish it was a locked 30? Of course! Are we shocked it isn't? No.
DS2 on the other hand should be an effortless 60
Dictator93
Member
Arguing stuff like that in a technical thread will lead only to trouble.
Windom Earle
Member
The FXAA implementation in the PC version was not too bad actually.
Do you guys really think FROM didnt make the XO version 900p because of 'resolutiongate'? Seems far-fetched, though 900p would have seemed to be a suitable compromise IMO considering the DF findings
Still another remastered title that doesnt really achieve much better than the original game (as in it still has similar multiple compromises)
Skipped this last gen so its a welcome remaster for me though
ps3ud0 8)
Still another remastered title that doesnt really achieve much better than the original game (as in it still has similar multiple compromises)
Skipped this last gen so its a welcome remaster for me though
ps3ud0 8)
StoppedInTracks
Member
Aw shit...
This one time where I would prefer a game to be 900p the game is forced 1080p.Not at all. In fact it's very relevant concidering they are the same type of game from the same developer. Even more so if someone wants to call one version horrible for it.
unapersson
Member
I always thought that technically a lock is a maximum as ensuring a minimum frame rate is impossible. Is there some four nines style standard for specifying a game as having a locked frame rate?
CouchMaster
Member
Nobody praises BB for its framerate, but carry on.
Saw in the video that the Xbox one's lowest frame drop occured while unlocking an achievement. DF blames the visual effects outright, but I can imagine the cheevo popping can just add a liitle more stress to the system, lowering the frame rate more than otherwise. Does anyone with an Xbone now if this might be the case? Any other occurrences of 'achievement slowdown'?
I read that in Bloodborne is a frame pacing issue
Dictator93
Member
I would just refer to the english word "locked." When a door is locked, it doesnt allow anything to cross its threshhold. 60 is 60 is 60 is 60.
Personally, if it had the occasional (1 time every 2 minutes) short CPU related blip to 59 fps, I would sy it is pretty close to locked. But entire gameplay sections being in the 50s is not IMO.
UnrealEck
Member
No, it's not locked at 60.
Framerate drops below 60 immediately on PS4 as well depending on how many enemies there are. (only a couple more)
Neither can the PS4.
I didn't really expect much honesty and unbias in a DF performance thread.
The lowest frame drop everyone keeps quoting also didn't happen during the boss fight. It happened on victory when the character aquired the boss's souls. During the boss fight, the frame rates for both consoles were much closer.
They're more powerful than my old machine that used to run it at constant 1080/60. Although that was the DX9 version (I can't see much difference honestly).
Sure if It's a last gen game
shadowsdarknes
Member
Expectations. How do they work?
Yeah there are few case of good implementation but i don't like it at all
Do you guys think From will target 60 fps for Dark Souls 3 ( Ps4 and One of course) ?