Assassin's Creed: Valhalla - The Next Gen Console Comparison - PS5 | Series X

Sep 10, 2005
7,083
183
63
#1
The 1st AC V comparisson from NXGamer,i assume DF will follow soon.Enjoy!

PS:There are surprises here too! (and most likely more to come)


Yet another comparison from VG (frame rate only) Series x has some dips in high 50s but it not visible.Both do at times but Ps5 does it less....


Great work from Nx gamer testing every consoles for AC V.


Patch 1.04

PS5 in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest native resolution found being approximately 2432x1368

Xbox Series X in Performance Mode uses a dynamic resolution with the highest native resolution found being 3840x2160 and the lowest native resolution found being 1920x1080

Series S performance mode goes lower than 720p...and looks very blurry.


Assassins Creed: Valhalla - Patch 1.04 Performance and Graphic Analysis - PS5 | SX | SS G From NXGamer




DF test for patch 1.04

 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2007
13,610
315
83
#2
This is very interesting considering all the bashing done by 2 certain members. From 30% power gaps to 9tf gpu because Sony lied. These results would be impossible if what those 2 were saying were actually facts.
 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2005
7,083
183
63
#3
It seems that the system efficiency on PS5 is on another level....We already had hints from developers before about its performance.We will see :)

PS: DF video about Watchdogs legion RT analysis between all platforms is ready.They said they will post it maybe today.
 
Last edited:

Libra-75

Superior Member
Jun 30, 2013
1,149
262
83
#6
Surprising indeed. Mostly the difference in performance between PS5 and SX, it's even less of a difference here than in the DMC5 comparison. That the PS5 loads faster is not a big surprise. I actually thought it would be an even bigger difference when they actually take advantage of the SSD and IO system. When they are not taking advantage of it we see results like those of the BC game comparisons, then the SX is actually faster. We just have to wait and see if this is what it's going to be like or if SX gains an advantage later down the line when games get more and more demanding.
 
Dec 20, 2006
9,882
90
48
#7
Sub and Aqua said that the ps5 would be under stress and would run at the true gpu performance, which is 9TF, because Sony lied about it being 10TF because they were afraid of MS 12TF RDNA 2 gpu.
Yeah if this is the way it goes then it's hard to justify buying the XSX as the multiplat console and leaving the ps5 for just exclusives.

However after the Zenimax purchase MS first party has real promise. And is looking like it will be more varied than Sony's.

Sony needs to do some major acquisitions asap.
 
May 20, 2008
10,977
110
63
#8
Sub and Aqua said that the ps5 would be under stress and would run at the true gpu performance, which is 9TF, because Sony lied about it being 10TF because they were afraid of MS 12TF RDNA 2 gpu.
Stop lying, guy. I never said that. I said PS5 was TF was variable meaning it won't run at it Hughes TF all the time.......and all see in that comparison is the series x holding a average steadier framerate .😄 Its still the best version .
 
May 20, 2008
10,977
110
63
#12
You sure did say that.

Edit:What kind of "heads, I win. Tales, you lose." shit is this?
Lol.. You care way too much about small stuff. Always grumpy about everything:oops:
There is still a long way until we see what the systems are capable of.
Exactly. We've barely scratched the surface on what these console will be able to do.
 

Aquanox

Forum Sage
May 26, 2005
8,590
159
63
#15
It looks like XSX is doing a PS3, but in a lesser extent.

Harder to master architecture and plenty of new technologies. There's no doubt that the power is there but it will take a bit until developers get the juice out of it.
 
May 20, 2008
10,977
110
63
#17
There is still a long way until we see what the systems are capable of.
It looks like XSX is doing a PS3, but in a lesser extent.

Harder to master architecture and plenty of new technologies. There's no doubt that the power is there but it will take a bit until developers get the juice out of it.
yep, next year we should see more games take advantage of what next has to offer.
 

Aquanox

Forum Sage
May 26, 2005
8,590
159
63
#18
What is so hard to master?
It's easier for program for higher clocked/less CUs for what has been reported from devs, so it will take some time for the XSX to tap their 12Tflop figure... and there's the advanced 2.0 features. Also, ML based super resolution is just under deep investigation by MS.
 
Sep 10, 2005
7,083
183
63
#19
It's easier for program for higher clocked/less CUs for what has been reported from devs, so it will take some time for the XSX to tap their 12Tflop figure... and there's the advanced 2.0 features. Also, ML based super resolution is just under deep investigation by MS.
Not sure if series x will be able to tap the whole 12tf all the time...I just posted an interview from Crytek that was back in April.The guy was describing back then,what we see now...There is no doubt that series X will get better,but it wont be the only one that does.No games so far are using any "advanced features" from any system.Also the equivalent of DLSS will come from AMD and it will be for both systems
 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2005
7,083
183
63
#21
Is this a joke?The game has dynamic weather it wont be the same even in similar shots.Lets see the video for this.
 
Last edited:

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,720
332
83
#26
It's easier for program for higher clocked/less CUs.
As someone that "programs" (and that's a crass simplification)... i don't know what this is even talking about. By and large, devs find the PS5 easier because the devstack is more familiar since it is a progression from this gen. Got nothing to do with the clock speed, or the CU count.
Also the equivalent of DLSS will come from AMD and it will be for both systems
AMD's implementation is going to be interesting. A big part of NN's is multidimensional array multiplication which, while can be done on anything (cpu, gpu etc), Nvidia's tensor cores are particularly good at accelerating. NN's aren't cheap or free (perf. wise). NN's incur a fixed cost to your render time, and the bigger it is, the longer it takes. Nvidia can run these off the main GPU core, through the tensor cores. Having no tensor core equivalent, it will be interesting to see how AMD get around this, or if they even can. Nvidia have inference engines built into the silicon, AMD does not.
 
Sep 10, 2005
7,083
183
63
#27
The latest patch 1.04 Made the Ps5 performance (original 60fps ) version of the game worse,with huge FPS dips that was not there before.Not sure why they did that i assume its a bug.
 
Likes: Two4DaMoney

Aquanox

Forum Sage
May 26, 2005
8,590
159
63
#28
As someone that "programs" (and that's a crass simplification)..
You're a bit narcissist, aren't you?

i don't know what this is even talking about
I was simplifying what Cerny said:

"Also, it's easier to fully use 36 CUs in parallel than it is to fully use 48 CUs - when triangles are small, it's much harder to fill all those CUs with useful work."

You need to stop behaving like Siri... or Google Assistance. Yes, I know you don't understand what I'm talking about.
 

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,720
332
83
#29
You're a bit narcissist, aren't you?

You need to stop behaving like Siri... or Google Assistance. Yes, I know you don't understand what I'm talking about
Hardly, but careful with the attempts at personal attacks. If you can't provide a credible counter point, just don't comment.

I was simplifying what Cerny said:

"Also, it's easier to fully use 36 CUs in parallel than it is to fully use 48 CUs - when triangles are small, it's much harder to fill all those CUs with useful work."
Cerny is talking about the hardware architecture. As a hypothetical, if the hardware can only feed a core a given data rate, but the core can process a higher data rate, you have an inherent bottleneck - in his case, you can't feed 48 cores. You're free to look up why GCN did so poorly compared to Nvidia's offerings. Difference being: If i write something in React, i don't particularly care what it runs on, nor do i concern myself with it; and this is analogous to how the render API's work (tho obviously not 1:1).
 

Aquanox

Forum Sage
May 26, 2005
8,590
159
63
#30
Cerny is talking about the hardware architecture. As a hypothetical, if the hardware can only feed a core a given data rate, but the core can process a higher data rate, you have an inherent bottleneck - in his case, you can't feed 48 cores
I know. That was what I was talking about in first place.

Hardly, but careful with the attempts at personal attacks. If you can't provide a credible counter point, just don't comment.
Not intended. I apologize if you felt offended.

Just trying to encourage to think outside the box and don't focus on semantics or the absolute literalism of the comment.

Peace.