Digital Foundry has published a comparison between the PS5 and Xbox Series X (and Series S) versions of Assassin's Creed Valhalla today, revealing some "clear" issues with the Series X version in particular.
In terms of visuals, there's pretty much nothing between the two consoles - they both run at a dynamic resolution, jumping from a minimum of 1440p to a maximum of 1728p, but their performance throws up some curious differences.
Both the Xbox Series X and PS5 suffer from screen tearing, but the "key takeaway" according to Digital Foundry is that the Xbox Series X can struggle to maintain 60FPS in some scenarios, while the PlayStation 5 is "much closer to the 60FPS target more of the time".
"In fact, at its worst, we noted PS5 delivering a 15 per cent performance advantage over its Microsoft equivalent in identical scenarios."
There is a big bonus for Xbox Series X users however in the form of VRR - if your display supports it, the screen tearing reportedly disappears and the performance remains smooth, described as a "game-changer" by Digital Foundry. In comparison, Sony's PlayStation 5 doesn't actually support VRR at launch.
Ultimately though, it's disappointing to see the Xbox Series X version of Assassin's Creed Valhalla delivering a slightly less impressive version than Sony's PS5, so hopefully these issues will be addressed soon.
What do you make of this? Give us your thoughts in the comments below.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 23
I have the right TV and VRR on and yes no screen tearing and smooth as silk on series x.
I prefer no screen tearing I absolutely hate screen tearing.
Both PS5 and Series X have screen tearing.
But PS5 has no resolve as it does not have VRR.
I Will take VRR on Series X over the PS5 with no VRR any day, even if the PS5 on the odd occasion keeps a slightly higher fps.
However Ubi should improve both consoles with an update, let’s see if they do.
Key word: Optimization.
Being the start of the generation, the tools available from each console are not being fully implemented by developers.
As enjoyable as it is to compare consoles at this time, games need to take advantage of the hardware, which takes time.
https://youtu.be/CoQYpS7I_B8
https://www.gamespew.com/2020/11/observer-system-redux-is-simply-better-on-ps5-than-xbox-series-x/
Just like BOCW, PS5 seems to be better at running multiplat games. Both consoles occasionally drops fps but XSX drops to overall lower performance with around 10fps gap compared to PS5 in 120fps mode. Observer System Redux also reportedly has overall better performance compared to XSX version and raytracing is exclusive to PS5 for now.
It's either developers are s h i t when it comes to optimization in early days of new consoles era or what Mark Cerny said is true, developers had easier time with and games benefit more from fewer but higher clocked CUs.
Really hope they fix 60fps on the s. Set the resolution on 1080p, that should fix it. People who buy the s is not buying for the res, they buy it for the next gen eyecandy
Posted this news (and a few other games running better on PS5 as well) the other day and got called a Sony fanboy.
How would you like your crow, fanboys? I know you see this because I live rent free in your head.
Yep, it’s time MS starts giving devs better API tools, otherwise the tag line “The worlds most powerful console” will just be that, a tag line - or worse a bad joke. Sort it out MS!
@Menchi aren’t you scared; some of those heads might have things you don’t like
@mousieone Like what? The visuals on the Xbox One port of Halo Infinite? That's a pretty terrifying thought!
@Menchi well I was thinking more like what people do in their off hours. >.> but Craig works.
@graysoncharles If that’s the case then unless you have VRR on your telly get used to worst performance on the Series X, because third party devs surely will develop for the more popular system and better potential sales which will be the PS5. Rather then code from scratch for the Series X.
@graysoncharles @S1ayeR74 from the devs that inhabit push square, the ps dev kit is just much simpler to use in terms of having to do very little work to use the new features and optimize. Xb is more work, and the analysts have told publishers ps5 will outsell xssx 8:1.... So they're probably putting minimal effort in for now.
Surprising result, still, though.
Vrr is cool and all but only a tiny fraction of players have a 1 year old tv to use it.
I have a monitor that works with freesync, but not through my hdmi switches, so it's still not really available.
@mousieone equally as ugly!
@endlessleep could just be that devs had the PS5 Dev kit earlier and it's not RDNA 2 so they are more used to working with the tech? No idea as I'm not a techy but more time and more similar tech seems like it would make a difference?
To me the resolution drops make this nothing to celebrate for either the PS5 or XSX. As for fps- I don't care unless the game becomes unplayable (slideshow). Wait for next gen optimised games before you sell your XSX.
@gollumb82 Fair point there...i cringed when I heard the res of both of them.
Anvil and snowdrop are ancient engines that never really ran well anywhere..... It's probably a terrible game to compare consoles with. Believe it or not even frostbite is probably better for comparison.
Long term I don't expect to see any significant gap between PS5 and Series X either way. The real surprise for me was the Series S only being 30fps, in this game at least would you be getting any upgrade over the Xbox One X version?
@carlos82 Well it will be like Yakuza all over again. Funny thing is the frame targets are similar.
Yakuza
XSX
4k30 or 2k mostly 60 or 1080p60
XSS
2k30 or 900p60
Same thing here but subtract the modes and upscale the 2k for 4K.
So if people got upset at 900p60 for Sega and MS; how would Ubisoft fair better?
@mousieone at least give people the choice of modes, I'd much rather have a 60fps mode even if just below 1080p than not even have the option
@J1mmmmo Mine's LG and it doesn't disable VRR when HDR is enabled.
Performance is probably going to be a bit off in these early days of these consoles.
The way its performing right now, I have to wonder whether they are actually using the Series X at all or just running it in the Back Compat mode with a 60fps cap instead. Visual settings are not that different from what I would expect from an Xbox One X (based on previous Assassins Creed games) and just 'double' the frame rate. It really doesn't seem like we are getting the 'expected' results from AMD Zen/RDNA 2.0.
It maybe because it keeps it 'easy' for the devs - to patch in a few 'different' visual settings for the 'Back Compat' code rather than port the game and optimise specifically for the Series X - much like updating an Xbox One game for Xbox One X. The results are also disappointing on Series S too and again, I think that must be for the same reason. Both seem to be 'performing' as you would expect if they were just Xbox One with a bit more performance rather than leveraging next gen Architecture and features.
Of course MS and/or Ubisoft would need to answer why its performing like this. I doubt a PC with an RX 5700 XT and Zen 2 CPU would perform like this (and that's a smaller, less powerful GPU too). I know Devs have had a tough time with Covid interruptions and of course, the late arrivals of Series SDK's which may explain why they may be just using the Back Compat mode but with slightly different visual settings...
@carlos82 oh agreed. 100% prefer frames. And if your getting an S; most have 1080p sets.
@J1mmmmo
Use free sync VRR. Do not enable g sync VRR if you do you lose Dolby Vision HDR.
There is no advantage to g sync over free sync on a series X.
HDTV TEST ADVICE.
Tap here to load 23 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...