DMC demo performs better on PS4 PRO than Xbox One X.. and looks sharper

[Remij 4,670]

 

Despite the X running at native 4K and being more stable, the PS4 PRO looks crisper.  This is going to be another RE Engine win for PS4 PRO..

[Purist 134]

So another case of persisting on 4k resolution hurting the X version performance once again?

[Sabo 442]

That screen is from a cutscene.

[Remij 4,670]

3 minutes ago, Sabo said:

That screen is from a cutscene.

Sorry, let me capture another couple for you

 

 

[Sabo 442]

WTF is even happening on the Xbox side...

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

All I'm gonna say is I find it questionable that he's running framerate averages with cut-scenes in play, who gives a shit about a cut-scene framerate? The cut-scene performance has a pretty large divergence while the gameplay divergence is overall pretty small and could be hammered out with further optimization. It's close enough to 60 that they shouldn't have an issue reigning both in, the Pro simply holds the target better but still falls. Also the X is a dramatically sharper image than the Pro, so I have no idea what drugs this guy's smoking.

 

This isn't a Resident Evil 2 situation, it's a 56% higher resolution and it shows. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,670]

2 minutes ago, Sabo said:

WTF is even happening on the Xbox side...

Yea, there's been a string of titles that maybe aren't making the right choice on the Xbox side by prioritizing higher resolution and hitting that 3840x2160 resolution bullet point.  Kind of a stupid thing to do for a fast-paced action game.

 

I'm sure an 1800p mode would perform pretty damn solidly most of the time.  It's so stupid that they don't implement dynamic resolution scaling for this title.  Have the resolution dip as low as it has to to maintain that 60fps.. and if they're CPU bound then maintain the highest res possible.  You wouldn't even notice the resolution drop during gameplay, which would likely only happen when lots of action is going on.

 

It's baffling.

[Remij 4,670]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

All I'm gonna say is I find it questionable that he's running framerate averages with cut-scenes in play, who gives a shit about a cut-scene framerate? The cut-scene performance has a pretty large divergence while the gameplay divergence is overall pretty small and could be hammered out with further optimization. It's close enough to 60 that they shouldn't have an issue reigning both in, the Pro simply holds the target better but still falls. Also the X is dramatically sharper image than the Pro, so I have no idea what drugs this guy's smoking.

 

This isn't a Resident Evil 2 situation, it's a 56% higher resolution and it shows. 

 



 



 



 



 

 

 

 

What are those... pictures for ants?  

 

But dude, I have to disagree about something.  Games these days cut right into gameplay from cut-scenes and vice versa.  It's quite valid to compare the avg fps across the spectrum of the same battle and cut-scene sequence.  Cut-scene performance may not be important to you; it's obviously not as important as gameplay performance, but the overall experience is hampered going from high fps gameplay, to 40-50fps juddery cut-scenes... especially when they dynamically transition to and from.  Besides, I'm not sure how you're going to argue that when you're advocating  for higher resolution which does nothing to improve the gameplay experience.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

9 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

What are those... pictures for ants?  

 

But dude, I have to disagree about something.  Games these days cut right into gameplay from cut-scenes and vice versa.  It's quite valid to compare the avg fps across the spectrum of the same battle and cut-scene sequence.  Cut-scene performance may not be important to you; it's obviously not as important as gameplay performance, but the overall experience is hampered going from high fps gameplay, to 40-50fps juddery cut-scenes... especially when they dynamically transition to and from.  Besides, I'm not sure how you're going to argue that when you're advocating  for higher resolution which does nothing to improve the gameplay experience.

I updated them, I reformatted and Flickr defaulted to scaled resolution. You can see as clear as day though he's high as a kite saying the Pro version is sharper.

 

They both run like ass during the cut scenes so that's kind of a non sequitur regardless of which one handles them worse. In terms of gameplay Thomas already ran through this and spent more time going over scenes, the game ran at basically a locked 60 during normal gameplay on the X with a few hiccups here and there that quickly faded out. It was just that goliath boss which had issues and bear in mind that demo was based off of code from Gamescom months earlier. The result doesn't seem to have changed here in any regard so it's likely cut from the same cloth. 

Edited February 9, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,670]

14 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I updated them, I reformatted and Flickr and it defaulted to scaled resolution. You can see as clear as day though he's high as a kite saying the Pro version is sharper.

 

They both run like ass during the cut scenes so that's kind of a non sequitur regardless of which one handles them worse. In terms of gameplay Thomas already ran through this and spent more time going over scenes, the game ran at basically a locked 60 during normal gameplay on the X with a few hiccups here and there that quickly faded out. It was just that goliath boss which had issues and bear in mind that demo was based off of code from Gamescom months earlier. The result doesn't seem to have changed here in any regard so it's likely cut from the same cloth. 

Fair enough, but I think you're reading too much into it.  It's simply that the game targets 60fps across the gambit, and the avg fps he measures is indicative of how well the game holds to that target across a section of the game.  He's not nefariously trying skew the viewers impression of gameplay performance to make it look worse than it is.

 

It still holds true that the PRO seems to maintain the target fps better throughout.

 

It will be interesting to see how this and Anthem shape up by launch and if there's any dramatic differences.

[JonDnD 2,608]

I've noticed some games on PC have 30fps cutscenes , why 

 

Also drop the resolution.  These actions games need fr stability more than resolution 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Jon2B

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

1 minute ago, Jon2B said:

I've noticed some games on PC have 30fps , why 

 

Also drop the resolution.  These actions games need fr stability more than resolution 

In case kaz decides to get the game. 

[Remij 4,670]

2 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

I've noticed some games on PC have 30fps cutscenes , why 

 

Also drop the resolution.  These actions games need fr stability more than resolution 

Consoles are the reason why.  THHBR 

[JonDnD 2,608]

6 minutes ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

In case kaz decides to get the game. 

KazzieHBK

[JonDnD 2,608]

5 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Consoles are the reason why.  THHBR 

ThhbR

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

20 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Consoles are the reason why.  THHBR 

I got the game for $13.33 for PC anyways so I can't complain. 

[JonDnD 2,608]

Just played the new demo.  Wasn't really much different at all 

[Remij 4,670]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I got the game for $13.33 for PC anyways so I can't complain. 

Well he said some games, not RE2, DMC, or the Division 2, which all have 60fps/unlocked fps cut-scenes and gameplay  

 

But no.. you certainly can't complain.  That's the best bundle deal in gaming atm.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

15 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

Well he said some games, not RE2, DMC, or the Division 2, which all have 60fps/unlocked fps cut-scenes and gameplay  

 

But no.. you certainly can't complain.  That's the best bundle deal in gaming atm.

I think that's the best bundle I've ever seen offered period to be honest. 

[JonDnD 2,608]

You could get a 570 for 150, take the games and sell the card