Rich_Leadbetter

@Obsidian76 My mistake, it's a 4070 Ti Super, not the 4070 Ti.

"Many times I have tried DFs optimised settings that are okay ish, on my 4070 Ti Super system, yet are no help for the more performant 9070xt system which can usually run games with much higher graphics settings and resolution than the former."

The performance differentials may be slightly different but to say that optimised settings are "no help" is simply not true. Your game will run faster with optimised settings vs ultra - the point of optimised settings is to give you the best balance of performance vs visual quality.

Have you noticed how our optimised settings are nine times out of ten the same as PS5 settings? It's because the same principle applies even if different resolutions and different GPU architectures are in play. Even different graphics API in the case of PS5.

The general principle doesn't change: running everything at max is ultimately wasteful if you can lower the settings for very similar visual results.

The principle only doesn't apply if your Radeon GPU is producing different visual results to the output of the Nvidia GPU on the same settings which generally doesn't happen.

@MemuAccount Not sure I grasp some of your points, but I'll reply to the ones I do understand.

RTX 4070 Ti - our contributor Rayan tests graphics performance on this because it has the Nvidia feature set and the 16GB of RAM required to see full utilisation of all settings and features. We use DLSS quality mode because DLSS is used by the vast majority of RTX users and often looks better than native 4K. We test at 4K because it's a good fit for the 4070 Ti's capabilities. If we lower the resolution, there's a good chance we'll be CPU limited. We need to be GPU limited ideally to show the GPU cost of each setting.

RTX 4060 - We use this because we have data on how this or RTX 3060 is the most popular GPU, via the Steam Hardware Survey. The RTX 4060 is also very very close to PS5 in terms of compute power, so a useful console comparison on expected performance.

Ryzen 5 3600 - We don't have data on which CPU is the most popular (the Steam Hardware Survey is just core counts basically), but we do know its performance profile is broadly similar to Zen 2 on consoles. It is a useful anchor point, therefore, on whether CPU performance lands according to expectations. This does. Something like the Outer Worlds 2 doesn't. Also, if a game runs =>60fps on a 3600, it sets a good baseline for more modern CPUs in the era of the high refresh rate display monitor and also means that 30fps minimum is usually doable on a handheld (from a CPU perspective at least).

Testing fixed configurations - the point of optimised settings is to offer up our suggestions for a fixed configuration that offers the best balance of visual features and performance. Of course, it is entirely down to the user whether they want to tweak further.

1440p DLSS balanced - 1440p is the sweetspot for gaming monitors and our understanding is that most gaming monitors being sold now are 1440p. DLSS balanced is the sweetspot for image quality at 1440p, though I'll grant you that performance mode can look OK in many games.

I don't understand some of your other arguments but I think I understand the tone which suggests you may not be interested in a good faith discussion any way.

@Snorlaxcat Sony needs to expand its audience. It needs people who don't own a Sony console to consider one. Thing is about Nintendo Switch is that a LOT of people who bought it already owned a gaming device. There was a lot of crossover there and I think that's why Sony is doing it.

@Claw So it's a bit sobering but your 2080 Ti at this point is basically a 5060 with more memory and no frame-gen. You would get a very significant upgrade with a 5070 which hasn't increased in price that much.

Your 5600X is also a good potential upgrade point but your only meaningful upgrade is a 5700X3D/5800X3D which will set you back £300. It's a tricky one!

@Claw What do you have right now? As Will points out in the article, there's still scope for building a reasonable PC!

@awp69 Now live, sorry about the wait: https://www.digitalfoundry.net/reviews/crimson-desert-on-xbox-series-x-improved-by-update-n-but-whats-up-with-series-s

@Taggen86 Yes it is!

@awp69 Pearl Abyss keeps updating the game, meaning we need to recheck the findings. It should be up today/tomorrow. This article is a spin-off of the discussion from DF Direct #258 so hardly a case of doing this instead of Xbox. Tom has been working diligently on Xbox for over a week.

@Darren1967 Enhanced backward compatibility on PlayStation 5 is not as robust as the Xbox offering. Many games tackled in this manner have significantly lower resolutions on PlayStation compared to Xbox.

PS5 Pro does things the same way as PS5, but you get a small increase to performance on top.

@Granadico Fixed that, thanks for pointing it out. I think AC Unity is worth playing if you enjoyed AC2. It's the same formula but properly "next-gen" by comparison.

@Vangelis In fairness it's a more consistent 30fps experience and it doesn't look that much worse!

@NandoCalrissian How so, if it is factually correct? My definition of clickbait is an obviously enticing headline that does not deliver.

The first image shows that permutations of lighting quality can double performance which is full delivery on the headline? And beyond that, it's mostly just scraps. The second bank of screenshots shows a best case scenario of just 15 percent of extra performance beyond that one settings change.

@Vangelis Weirdly, balanced mode is 30fps in 60Hz mode.

@El_Deato Definitely PSSR2.

@awp69 Yes, but due to resource limitations it will take some time. Interested to see the results though, and to see what's going on with Series S!

@MittenFacedLass Yup, exactly. It's like a modern day equivalent to the PS3 vaseline filter.

@awp69 Will try to take a look tomorrow but I'm expecting it's similar to PS5 as the resolutions are the same.

@FUBARx89 I've done just that. The information we had was that the games have been patched. But you are quite right to say that there has been no title update.

@CantThinkOfAUsername I believe a lot of that is discussed in the Q+A video. I guess the concept of "better" is a subjective one, but if you're seeing plausible reflections and contact shadows that didn't exist in the prior image, that might be considered "better". If you fed Minecraft to DLSS 5 you would get something approximating Minecraft RTX - ie adding RT and PT like features you would not see. Better? Up to you I guess?

I do take on board your comments and think they are represented in the Q+A video?

@TemsOrrough I don't think Nvidia feel they've made a mistake and they have plenty of time for minor or even major pivots.

@themightyant Could be a tone-mapping issue. There are many scenes where occlusion is much more pronounced where you think it should be.

@themightyant You're quite right, of course. However, we were dimly aware that there would be controversies about this. Oliver mentioned the "Grace's face" issue in the video and I think I mentioned something about how we were still processing the demo. Waiting would have allowed us to understand the concerns around the tech and to crystalise our thinking. This wouldn't have changed much about what we said about we saw but it would have allowed us time to make a better video for the audience and to factor in the developer concerns that arose afterwards.

This is a big moment for the future of games and being more aware of that would have made for a better video.

@DyeHardX86 I would imagine that they may not have access to RDNA graphics at that point and they may wish to tailor settings etc for an optimal console experience.

@mombe2 Just asked John about this! He says "the RT thing - the only thing that caught my eye without a deeper dive is that reflections are pared back. RT ultra mode has better distant RT reflections."

@sits We'll let you know.

@RavenSnyder The good news is that an RTX 4070 at 1440p on DLSS performance mode does good path tracing! The thing about all forms of RT, including PT, is that there's strong scaling with resolution.

@RavenSnyder Interesting point there. It's interesting because console games are already inherently "laggier" than PC equivalents. Thing is, you offset a lot of latency just by NOT using v-sync. You also save a lot of latency by running a display in 120Hz mode.

So I wonder... would restricting frame-gen to 120Hz modes (preferably with VRR) offset enough latency not to need an "anti-lag" solution?

@_Refurbished_ I think my point in the article is "how much do you put into PS5 Pro before encroaching on the enhancements PS6 could be delivering?". I'm not sure how much more we will get, but frame-gen would be a good cut off point.

@Darren1967 @themightyant This will be very easy to test when the time comes!

@mrc247 Oops, thanks!

@stoper The Windows Central interview today suggests that the new strategy has yet to be made and it's basically business as usual.

@Atlash Thanks, have fixed.

@mombe2 Owing to the nature of dynamic resolution scaling, it's just a few frames over the target: 30fps, 40fps, 60fps etc.

@Granadico Interesting! But if you take a look at the God of War 3 Remastered comparison video on the page, I'm really struggling to see how they could pull that off with the current camera!

@MarvinEternus117 Wow, that update passed me by. I've updated the results. PTL's lead is reduced but it's still a touch faster running on the PS5-equivalent settings. Thanks for the heads-up!

@Spodlude Amazing deal while it lasted!!

@Claw Yes, depending on the game, no problem.

@themightyant The GPU reviews embedded on the page should help out a bit with that!

@bespokePoster Thanks for that, I made a tweak.

@DeathElevenTeen Haha this one was actually my idea.

@themightyant Hi there, these were GPU tests run on a high-end system (and the coverage isn't talking about anything other than GPU performance vs Pro) but ultimately we are completely GPU-limited in all scenarios there.

I also wasn't making pricing comparisons but with that said, a £699 cost would not be a realistic comparison IMHO. PC games are generally cheaper than console games. You don't pay a subscription for multiplayer features. You get free games regardless from the Epic Game Store. So the value calculation is tricky.

With all of that in mind, Microcentre selling a 7500X3D system with a 9060XT 16GB for $999 represents higher performance and in time higher "value" than a console: https://videocardz.com/newz/microcenter-is-already-selling-ryzen-5-7500x3d-gaming-pc-100-cheaper-than-7600x3d-system

Not that you'd be able to run your PS5 library on it, of course, which is another real world confounding factor in such comparisons.