-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2 - PS5/Xbox Series X|S/PC Tech Review - Is 60FPS Viable on Consoles?
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Apparently, the stutters on PC are minimal.
Crayon
Member
They look tiny, to me.
kazuyamishima
Member
The Pro couldn't come in a better time, but man, the Steam Deck is spilling its guts with this one.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Crayon
Member
I'm 0-2 on that Xbox joke so far.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DanielG165
Member
Probably marginally better on the frame rate side of things, if the CPU in the Pro shapes up to be what rumors have stated. The resolution and overall detail would be improved, however.
DanielG165
Member
The stutters are either so minimal that they’re unnoticeable, or straight up nonexistent on PC, at least from my own experience, and I’m pretty sensitive to them.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
And HDR!! What is up lately with developers of high profile, big budget games not including this feature?!
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Hoddi
Member
Ya, there's nothing wrong with its performance on PC. There might be an odd shader stutter here and there but it's otherwise one of the smoothest games I've played in a while.
I could name any number of games that suffer from small microstutters but the frametime graph in this game is almost flat.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
That's what Alex does with all his PC tp console comparisons- this is why he's rightfully hated around here
VeganElduderino
Member
Anybody on here have a 5800X3d and 4070ti that tried this game ? If so how is it running?
Hoddi
Member
Don't worry about it. Even my ancient 9900k + 2080Ti still handles it well above 60fps at 3440x1440.
The game is mostly GPU bound on PC if you aren't using some crappy old CPU. There's otherwise nothing wrong with its performance.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
the difference is that DLSS doesn't look like shit tho
VeganElduderino
Member
At max settings?
Last edited:
Hoddi
Member
My system defaulted to a mix of high and ultra. I didn't particularly test for it but most of the settings are things that stress the GPU more than the CPU.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
sm2 does
SW Outlaws, but of course then UBisoft game in a more "normal" situation in terms of differences (more stable framerate and average dinamic resolution DRS).
W40K is among the extreme cases in terms of performance differences and whose surprise is more that it happens at this point in the generation in one of the most technically demanding games and with a genuine engine.
I said "recently released". Alan Wake 2 has 1 year old.
To be the console that generally suffers from the fact that PS5 is the base console for development and optimization because, economically for the Studios, it makes more sense to prioritize. Which also has to share optimization time with XSS and with (It was said) worse APIs and is about to begin the fifth year of generation.... I guess it's significant and worth mentioning in a place where a significant number of people periodically try to convince you of how poorly designed XSX is, the number of bottlenecks it has and the uselessness of its particular hardware characteristics
Last edited:
bbeach123
Member
If I'm the one in charge of graphics settings in PC version of anygame It'll take me 5 minute to look at all the ultra settings and remove any settings that look pretty much the same but cost 10-20% more perf . And kick that high settings to ultra .
And then had a laugh watching gaming channel and journalist praise me for good optimization .
PC gamer had too much pride to turn down settings imo .
And then had a laugh watching gaming channel and journalist praise me for good optimization .
PC gamer had too much pride to turn down settings imo .
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
What's sad is. We are saying this in the year where we are truly getting next gen games.
Basically we've been playing cross gen type games for four years and now we realise the current hardware can't handle true next gen bangers.
It's a shame.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
SW Outlaws, but of course then UBisoft game in a more "normal" situation in terms of differences (more stable framerate and average dinamic resolution DRS).
W40K is among the extreme cases in terms of performance differences and whose surprise is more that it happens at this point in the generation in one of the most technically demanding games and with a genuine engine.
I said "recently released". Alan Wake 2 has 1 year old.
To be the console that generally suffers from the fact that PS5 is the base console for development and optimization because, economically for the Studios, it makes more sense to prioritize. Which also has to share optimization time with XSS and with (It was said) worse APIs and is about to begin the fifth year of generation.... I guess it's significant and worth mentioning in a place where a significant number of people periodically try to convince you of how poorly designed XSX is, the number of bottlenecks it has and the uselessness of its particular hardware characteristics
I think if you cherry pick the games we know are true next gen engines and games, the xboz always comes out on top.
It was too forward thinking and MS probably thought that we wouldn't be playing cross gen games for four years.
Next gen is where the series x shines and it shows how well designed the console is.
It's just the timings and industry didn't line up with how advanced it was. It's perfect for Sony as they can now bring out the pro that's closer in design to a series x than a ps5 and reap the benefit. The issue is those that can't afford a pro or are dedicated to the ps5 they bought thinking it would be a great next gen console. It is great but it struggles with true next gen engines and games.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Unless the PS5 has a much better CPU, you're probably not going to see a huge improvement to games that are CPU bound. It'll likely be similar to the One X and PS4 Pro situation where the resolution and graphics are jacked up but target frame rates are the same for a lot of games. No amount of DLSS or Sonys in house upscaling solution can have that much of an impact on CPU bound games.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Although I believe that this gen arrived a year early and that wrong decisions were made in the hardware aspect for ML... I believe that the real problem is not the hardware capabilities of the consoles, the problem is that the evolution the hardware has long since ceased to coincide in time with the evolution of software and graphics engines.
AAA games take ~6 years of development and that's practically a full generation. When these are released, either it is a cross-gen game with the previous generation or it will be a game that will also come out in the next one. Therefore the hardware in the middle will always suffer in some way.
Crossgen games are here to stay, a generation change where software and hardware coincide will never exist again. That is why the solution to satisfy the most illiterate console users is either the PRo or midgen refresh consoles..... or breaking with the traditional hardware generation changes and adapting it to the evolution of the software. That is, continuous updating of the hardware and the software being the one that determines its support (in PC or mobile mode).
I believe that we are in a time where the hardware/architecture and power is so similar that the most important point that determines any difference in games or the real differences in power is determined by the software (Apis, graphics engine, use of particular features ...) and especially the optimization time dedicated and the target result to be achieved.
In the end, any case, including this one with W40K, will always have an explanation in the software rather than in the hardware.
So, Sony has played its cards better with the hardware? It is partly that and also that MS has played badly by not having accompanied the very good XSX hardware with the software it needed and also with the marketing that competing with a Sony PS console requires (in fact, marketing has been non-existent for years). And this has consequences not only on the user base, but also on the Studios when deciding which console version to prioritize and therefore...
I bought Geforce Now when it was on sale a couple of months ago and been playing a couple of games on it (Cyberpunk and Starfield mostly). Been really impressed, but this is the first time where I've used it and can really start to see the benefit. I've not exactly got a puny PC (3090), but more and more now I'm finding certain games are struggling with it (Cyberpunk with RT namely). The streaming service never breaks a sweat on any game and happily gives 80-100+fps in all games at absolute max settings. Thought I'd give this game a go after seeing some reviewers struggle with performance, but again maxed out in 4k with ultra settings and it's perfect. I really think I'm completely won over now to the point that I'll struggle to justify buying myself another beefy PC. Just pay £99 (£50 in sale) for 6 months and with a decent connection you've got something that can reliable max out even the latest games for as long as they keep providing it.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Why do people seem to think that a PS5 Pro will dramatically change things in every single case?
Based on the leak for the PS5 Pro, the CPU would get a boost to 3.85Ghz from 3.5Ghz but is still based on AMD Zen 2. Games that are more CPU heavy (like Space Marine 2) are unlikely to get massive FPS increases due to this. Even with Sony's in house upscaling technology, I can't see this having much of (if any) impact on the CPU performance. It would need a next generation APU based on recent AMD processors to hit north of 60fps.
PS5 Pro is much more likely to have graphics settings jacked right up and have much higher resolutions, much like we saw with PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
It comes down to the developers who can make either console the hero and then the fanboyz loose their minds…
"Linearly doubled", yeah cause that's how it works.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No it doesn't, it's just a throw away comment since the game doesn't have native 120hz support lol.
mrBarrelNut
Member
Well, if you have a high end PC (with Nvidia GPU) you don't have to use the FSR screen smear shit.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Are you hitting VRAM limit?
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Last edited:
MAX PAYMENT
Member
I've got a 4080. It looks amazing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No cross buy.
Housh
Member
I don't think so. I got 24 GB. It seems to be random. I'll be able to play for a few hours and then the game will suddenly hang while the background music will keep playing and then crash to desktop. It's not even during heavy scenes.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
They did a garbage job on console while charging more $ than PC. Don't buy this and start sending a message to these PC focused Euro devs who always do this weak effort.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Crossplay and cross progression.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Alright, now that I'm playing the game myself, here are some tech thoughts and how they might align with DF:
- Performance mode with VRR is pretty decent. Doesn't feel any worse than most modern games with 60 FPS modes.
- The image quality is soft though, and you can feel it get softer in big enemy hordes, while it becomes notably sharper when you're indoors. The DRS is doing its job.
- However, the image is stable, no visible aliasing, stair stepping etc. It's just a matter of softness.
- The 30 FPS mode looks a lot sharper, but for some reason it also feels a lot more choppier than most other 30 FPS games (like Rebirth or FF16 for example), perhaps the fast paced nature of the game is what makes it so.
- I would definitely not trade performance for higher resolution in this games particular case. If this were a slower game, then it would be an actual choice.
- Performance mode with VRR is pretty decent. Doesn't feel any worse than most modern games with 60 FPS modes.
- The image quality is soft though, and you can feel it get softer in big enemy hordes, while it becomes notably sharper when you're indoors. The DRS is doing its job.
- However, the image is stable, no visible aliasing, stair stepping etc. It's just a matter of softness.
- The 30 FPS mode looks a lot sharper, but for some reason it also feels a lot more choppier than most other 30 FPS games (like Rebirth or FF16 for example), perhaps the fast paced nature of the game is what makes it so.
- I would definitely not trade performance for higher resolution in this games particular case. If this were a slower game, then it would be an actual choice.