Elden Ring Graphics And Performance Mode Details On Xbox Revealed

Nice, i was skeptical about the 60fps on Series S, really hope is a stable 1080p60 game

i'm pretty much team performance mode lol, it's becoming hard to even go back to 30fps games now

Looks like we’ll have to wait until PlayStation 6 and Xbox whatever to get BOTH performance and quality modes simultaneously 🙄

@Nightcrawler71 It’s a race that will never end they keep upgrading the graphics ,the texture, the lightning technics etc so we will never see what you wish for , you can have both performance and quality graphics when they optimize last gen games but new games are built with higher quality graphics at decent performance in mind, in general .

@Nightcrawler71 Yup, we were sold a bill of goods on the promise of Raytracing at 120fps. Instead, it's become an either or situation of Performance mode 120/60fps or Raytracing mode at half the fps (60/30). In this case likely 60fps performance/30fps raytracing. I can do 60fps instead of 120fps, but it's hard to go back to 30fps once you play 60. So, I'm guessing I won't be doing raytracing on this game and will sticking with the 60fps mode...

@themightyant It's much easier to fake 30fps with racing because of the speed and use of blur. It's really hard to go back to 30fps though in first person games after seeing it in 60fps.

@themightyant Yeah FH5 30 FPS is so good. I haven't even tried performance because I haven't run into any issues on 30 FPS. As long as frame rates are locked at 30 or 60 and it's a hard lock that never wavers, that's what I care about. I like the two options too.

"Up to 60" makes it sound like it's not a locked framerate. Which, for Souls games, is kinda important. Hopefully these are conservative numbers like what Capcom released for RE Village ahead of its launch.

Framerate issues have always kinda been a thing for Souls games and I'm hoping they clean it up at least on the next gen consoles.

Damn, identical to PS5 so still no idea for which one to go for. Will wait for the DF verdict and see if and how the Dualsense is implemented...

@XxEvilAshxX dark souls was always 30fps locked on consoles. it wasn't until dark souls remastered that a console saw a souls game run at 60.

edit: even then, none of them hit a locked 30 lol.
I wouldn't worry about it not hitting its framerate target. like any other game, it'd just use dynamic resolution with some graphical presets flipped or lowered. the biggest hurdle would be the CPU and these games have never been CPU demanding.

As far as I recall, all I was promised was that the consoles could offer up to 8k, HDR, Ray traced 120fps games - not necessarily ALL of those specs at once. I have no doubt that the Series X/PS5 'could' have a game running at 4k/120 with some form of RT - but nothing that is too 'complex'.

A 12TF means it can do up to 12bn floating point operations per second but that means its upto 0.4TF per 'frame' at 30fps, 0.2TF at 60fps, and 0.1TF per frame at 120fps.

Another way to look at it, at 4k/30, that's ~249m pixels per second, at 4k/60, that's nearly half a billion pixels per second and at 4k/120 - around 1bn pixels. Not only that, you have to calculate the physics, AI, input response, send draw calls to the GPU, process each frame etc etc increasingly more times.

Even the 'best' GPU on the market right now - a GPU with dedicated Ray Tracing cores - can't do 4k/120 with RT so I really don't know why people expected these consoles to do it. That's with games built with last gen limitations in mind - let alone with 'next' gen with much higher asset quality, higher Level of Detail, higher polygon counts, higher number of objects/foliage and all the extra shadows (at higher quality) etc that are 'added'.

Just going from 30fps to 60fps means that the entire system has half the time to produce the same quality visual presentation. Its not 'just' the GPU that has 'half' the time but the CPU and Asset streaming and at 120fps, it has to produce a frame every 8.3ms - that's just over 8/1000ths of a second (0.0083s) and as the 'more' complex, the more time it takes to produce a frame.

So yes, these consoles have the capacity to handle up to 8k, up to 120fps and offer Ray Tracing too, doesn't mean that 'every' game will be at least 4k/60 and with RT. Its why we have Performance, Quality and/or RT modes. They can use the power of the hardware to push the visuals to the 'max' of the hardware and still keep a solid and perfectly playable 30fps or make compromises because the hardware now has 'half' the time to spend on each frame at '60fps'.

It doesn't matter 'what' hardware you have, you can do a LOT more per frame if the hardware has 33.3ms to complete each frame compared to 16.6ms or even 8.3ms. To do what the 30fps XB1X does at 60fps, you need a system that is 'twice' as fast (inc CPU) and we see we get that with the Series X (look at the recent Forza Horizon 5 or even Guardians of the Galaxy technical analysis) plus a few higher visual settings. So to do that at 120fps, you'd need 2xSeries X and that's without RT which could take more than half the 8.3ms frame time budget to add...

It seems to me that most are using the 'extra' power of the consoles to really improve the Visual Quality (not 'just' resolution) and Density of the world, improve the lighting, textures, shadows etc or offering 60fps modes with at least similar, if not better image quality. To go from 1080/30 to 4k/60 is essentially an 8x jump if everything else stays the same and would require a 16x jump to offer 4k/120 - that's before you consider any other 'visual' improvements to shadow quality, draw distance, object/foliage density, higher quality/polygon count assets etc etc etc.

@themightyant I don't disagree on Playground being amazing at what they are doing. There are tricks to make things look better and I can't wait to see what they do with Fable. As far as what I'm saying with the "bill of goods" part, we were promised both at the same time, but you are right about the devs having to do it. I think a big factor into what the problem is with devs not pushing graphics has to do with the console shortages and that many of these games are still cross-gen and they are allowed to get away with making last-gen games still. Some of it is definitely due to the pandemic, but, I also think some are kind of mailing it in because they can get away with it right now.

@BAMozzy Everyone knew 8k "capable" was really a bogus statement. But getting raytracing at even 60fps (not 120fps) 4k was an expectation we were given. And I do think the consoles are capable of it, developers have to actually do it though.

Huh, seems people are more interested in shadows and lighting, than gameplay. To each, their own. Im excited.

@Trmn8r Of course its possible - but it really does depend on the complexity of the image and what aspects of RT they choose to implement.

A game like the Tourist runs at 4k/120fps (6k/60fps) on Series X and they maybe could add RT Shadows and drop frame-rate down to 60fps. A big open world with high geometric detail, high object/foliage density, extensive draw distances with more complex AI/Physics, real time lighting etc etc is a much different proposition.

Like I said, if you take Gears 4 (1080/30 on XB1), keeping the exact same 'visual' settings but just increasing resolution to 4k and frame to 60fps is an 8x jump. Not only are you asking the GPU to produce '4x' the image size, but to produce 2 of those in the same time it takes the XB1 - so pushing out 8x the amount of pixels. Not only that, you are giving the CPU half the time to calculate the Physics, input response, hit detection and impact, tell the GPU what to draw and where. Giving the system half the time to ensure all the assets/textures etc are transferred to where they need to be in time - do the 'same' amount of work but in 'half' the time.

That's before you talk about improvements to the actual visual quality by adding 'density' (more objects, more foliage), increasing polygon model counts, increasing Draw Distance/LoDs, improving effects (fog, particle density etc), water effects, reflections etc.

Even a RTX3090 can't do the latest games on max visual settings and Native 4k/60 with RT. You have to use DLSS to 'simulate' 4k. If this game comes out and has a 1080/60 RT mode, how is that different from a 3090 running the game at 1080/60 but using DLSS?

Its easier to think about games in terms of Frame Time Budgets. If you have 33.3ms of frame budget, you can do a LOT more and like I said, with a 12TF GPU, that's 0.4 floating point operations per frame (double what you have at 60fps). If RT costs about 6ms per frame, its a smaller percentage of your 33.3ms frame budget. At 16.6ms, 6ms is a massive chunk of time and at 8.3ms, its a massive chunk. Some things don't change regardless of resolution - like physics, AI, draw calls, hit detection etc and if that's over 8ms for example, it doesn't matter if the resolution is 240p, you'll never hit 120fps.

Whatever the game, the devs still have the 'same' frame-time budget. They decide whether its 'better' to have more frame-time to do 'more', or sacrifice in some areas to fit in a 'smaller' frame budget. Adding an 'expensive' item like RT means that they have to fit that into their 'budget' and at 60fps, you only have 16.6ms budget...

This has me wholly concerned.

A huge part of Souls game is timing. With this saying "up to" 60fps, sounds like it'll be unlocked and fluctuate. An unstable frame rate will cause all kinds of issues with the game.

I'm surprised its only a frame rate difference between the One X and the Series X, I would have thought it would be res too. Maybe the textures will be more and the ray tracing patch will make a huge difference? Guess we'll seen. Totally fine waiting awhile to play this one.