Will add the video to the OP and post a new Threadmark with the rundown. Give me a few minutes and thanks for letting us now 👍
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Digital Foundry: Anthem Console First Look: Xbox One X/ PS4 Pro Head-To-Head
- Thread starter Vexii
- Start date
The "45fps" crowd can have a toggle. They're objectively wrong, but whatever, let them be wrong with their own purchase.
At the very least there should be an option to cap the frame rate in the menus. Shit like this seriously makes me question the technical competency of these studios. Like how can a game with unlocked frame rate ship in this day and age? Do the devs who work on it not understand how fixed rate displays work? I just don't understand.
I honestly feel sometimes devs just unlock the framerate in the vague hope that its 'good enough'.
Optimise your games people! Stop chasing stupidly high resolutions and work on the framerate!
Yep I said that as well. But some people here said things that made me feel I was seeing things. Like those guys who said they can hit 4K/60/ultra with a 2080Ti with no dips...obviously bullshit. I can't hit 1080/60/high on Gtx1080, that's a big nope for me.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand how devs like that continue to be employed.
Dear devs, stop doing that bullshit. Please learn how video games work.
PC Demo Performance and Analysis
New video focusing on PC performance was posted a short while ago by Dictator giving some details on the Anthem Beta as well. The video is linked above, with the tl;dw listed below:
- Targetting 1080p60 across mid-tier configurations to compare against the performance profile of the PS4 Pro at 1080p mode
- Mid-range testing consisted of i5 8400, GTX 1060/RX 580, 16GB DDR4 2667MHZ, SSD
- 60fps is off the cards at 1080p Ultra. Hub sees dips to high 40's/50's, drops to mid 40's in combat. Below 60fps in the overworld
- Medium settings preset below 1080p60 too
- Low settings preset acheives some headroom above 60fps except in hub and firefights
- Didn't expect attaining 60fps to be this challenging
- Typically expect these cards to perform really well in Frostbyte games
- GTX 1060 performance profile even lower than expected based on other Frostbyte games (footage not shown as it was lost)
- CPU didn't seem to be a bottleneck in this scenario for the most part
- Higher mid-range graphics cards were Vega 56 / GTX 1070
- Vega 56 held above 60fps more consistently from the onset, but 1070 suffers heavily with drops below 60fps in firefights at Ultra settings, despite performing similarly to Vega while flying
- Vega dips below 60 during some scenes, including a giant enemy crab boss. GTX 1070 suffers similarly, probably tying in to massage damage
- Playing in the internal cave area yields much higher framerates due to lower scene complexity. Vega averages ~80fps allowing a lot of overhead for alpha effects in firefights, 1070 around ~60fps with some drops below
- Probably not worth dropping graphics settings with these cards due to low performance gains for image quality trade-off
- High-end testing uses RTX 2080 TI at Ultra Settings 4K
- Alex didn't expect locked 4K60
- Overworld sees drops into the 50's
- Firefights mainly in the 40's
- Dark1x played at 3840x1600 ultrawide resolution at 60fps in the overworld and hub but dropped frames heavily under 60 during firefights
- Richard says his platform of preference is PC, given all the circumstances
- AMD had an Anthem driver ready for this demo, Nvidia did not
- Alex states that there is rendering tech and a world size being used in this game that isn't commonly used in other console Frostbyte games
- Graphics options seemingly lacking or not having as much of an effect on fps as they should
- Ultra settings down to High doesn't seem to have much of an effect, only when dropping to Medium is there a tangible difference (HBAO>SSAO, shadow resolution etc.) with an 18% performance gain
- Low settings looks rough compared to Ultra, turns off a lot of settings, such as AA, SSAO, DOF and heavily affects shadows for a 21% performance gain
- Performance scaling is bad
- No DX12 options
- No HDR controls in game, disabling in Windows did not work - Had to disable HDR on the display
- Some graphical bugs on AMD hardware
- Need a deeper dive into specific Graphics options and what they do
- Firefights are the biggest offender for performance loss, probably due to heavy use of alpha effects
- Comparing gameplay type and performance to Warframe and Destiny 2 states that with such an emphasis on combat, more should have been done to optimise this area of gameplay
- CPU utilisation hit 100% and hit performance heavily, seemingly stopping by itself in Richard's case, but Alex needed to close the game for it to stop
- Loading screens seem to be random and occur during missions and traversal
- Alex needed to load an area twice whereas Richard only needed to load the area once.
Last edited:
To me, it feels like this could be Mass Effect Andromeda. They even included the tech/biotic combos.
AMD 2700x @ 4,3GHz, GTX 1080, 16GB 3200MHz DDR4, SSD here.
Can confirm. :/
I'm watching Digital Foundry video for the PC version. The game seems very demanding. Is this a game also designed for Next Gen system in mind ? Because having the Xbox One X struggling is puzzling.
I've heard DF using the word overhead few times when I guess what they really mean is headroom. Having higher overhead is not a good thing and comparing overhead of two different GPUs by frame rates isn't really meaningful if the word used in traditional sense.
yea but the lopsided nature of the install base you'd focus on getting the PS4 the best possible then getting around to the Xbone version
Watching the PC video. Wow, this game is an underoptimized mess. NVIDIA continues to have issues with Frostbite-based games more so but neither the 580 nor the 1060 are ideal for 1080p60... they are dipping down into LFC ranges for GSYNC/FreeSync... I would expect between the GPU manufacturers and Bioware/EA that this game will eventually be patched to a stable place though. Frostbite has been a good engine on PC overall and well-optimized across all hardware in general.
I get the game free with my 2080ti but god damn, for a product that's being shipped with the GPU to run so badly. I just hope the final product has a lot of optimisation work done from the demo build vs the launch build. Usually you would see a demo like this be 3-6 months behind the dev build. I hope with this, it is the case and we see a dramatic improvement.
nvidia has under performed in almost all frostbite 3 titles after battlefield 4 so that part isnt surprising. overall performance being so low however is surprising
Xbox One X Runs at Native 4K
Video and article updated....game runs at native 4K on Xbox One X.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-anthem-demo-performance-analysis
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-anthem-demo-performance-analysis
Not that much about this game in its current state is ideal, but it's crazy to me that to get the desired performance advantage, the Pro is legitimately running at 1/4 the resolution of the 1X, and otherwise, the base PS4 may even be a better performer than the Pro at the default resolutions. And this is on top of the oddities of the PC version. Locking down 1080/60fps, even on the lowest settings, wasn't attainable on cards like the RX 580 and GTX1060. The engineering seems all around messy.
Both of those are bad choices. On a 60hz display, the 40-60 needs to be capped at 30 to provide perfectly even, predictably responsive gameplay.
Anthem's drops to 22fps are unforgivable, but if they improve the performance (say, through optimizations that are already in the launch build) we'll then be looking at a variable situation like you suggested. That's terrible. Juddery gameplay can be an option for people that don't care about how a game feels, but a 30fps cap needs to be there for those that do.
I've threadmarked this because it's incredibly valuable information, and should put to rest the fears that the Pro is running better than X at the same settings.
If they improve performance the unlocked mode will improve too.
I'm surprised that they put in post-processing effects that mimics checkerboard artefacts but it does make more sense at least in regards to performance.
This is believable for me just because I've seen that stippling on things like the PC version of BFV in scenarios where I wouldn't believe there was any reconstruction actually going on for base geometry.
Their point still stands that the improvements to get the extra ~5-7 frames for a stutter-free 30 fps is more realistic than the same improvements pushing a minimum +30-35 frames to get the unlocked mode to a stutter-free 60 fps.
Yeah I don't doubt it it is just a very strange decision on biowares part.
er...wat?
I get 4K on X and around 1800CB on Pro but I also get some 3648x2052 on occasions but the break-up on the Checkerboard that is running on all consoles is very high here. In the end I am not 100% if just 1800CB (as most counts are)OR both have a small element of dynamic scaling in them with the X almost always at 2160CB so if dynamic on either it is very small.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but since DF always recognized a resolution advantage at default settings in the 1X' favor, and they've now determined that the 1X seems to be at an actual 4K, and you thought the 1X version looked sharper, doesn't that mean you agree with them?
It is. Seeing some people post about how well it was running on their pc's was frustrating because either they have graphics setting turned down, have low standards or were lying because this game is a janky mess. It runs well at times but it is inconsistent at best unless you start turning shit down or off. The high cpu usage scared me tbh nothing I ever play does that to my cpu.
I don't think it's well optimized at all. I have a 5.1Ggz 8086k, 16GB DDR4@4000, nvme SSD, and an Aorus 1080ti @ ~17% faster than stock Ti.
If I didn't have a Gsync 34" Ultrawide 3440x1440, it would be unplayable. At near max it sits between 55-80ish, which is perfect with a controller, but an absurd minimum configuration to require to have an ok experience, in a game that just doesn't look great. 30fps and below are completely unacceptable for this kind of title, same with erratic framerate when you are not running VRR. Also tried on my non VRR TV, and 1080p or 4k, it felt like trash both ways.
Game needs a miracle, or it's DOA. Division 2, even Destiny 2 'Complete' editions could eat it's lunch if they simply play better. Currently only like .01% of PC owners that have godlike CPU, super high bandwidth special memory, extremely high end GPU, and variable refresh displays give it anything approaching decent game feel.
If I didn't have a Gsync 34" Ultrawide 3440x1440, it would be unplayable. At near max it sits between 55-80ish, which is perfect with a controller, but an absurd minimum configuration to require to have an ok experience, in a game that just doesn't look great. 30fps and below are completely unacceptable for this kind of title, same with erratic framerate when you are not running VRR. Also tried on my non VRR TV, and 1080p or 4k, it felt like trash both ways.
Game needs a miracle, or it's DOA. Division 2, even Destiny 2 'Complete' editions could eat it's lunch if they simply play better. Currently only like .01% of PC owners that have godlike CPU, super high bandwidth special memory, extremely high end GPU, and variable refresh displays give it anything approaching decent game feel.
I mean initially when they said both were 1800p it just didn't seem quite right to me.
Wait what, 1X is actually native 4K?so what is Pro then? Because DF said it was barely noticeable if at all.
Native 4k is impressive but I really do hope they smooth out that framerate too.
Native 4k is impressive but I really do hope they smooth out that framerate too.
This is why I prefer looking at multiple analysis from different parties. Df have made mistakes in the past.
This. Way too many loading screens.
Also you gotta laugh at Nvidia bundling the game with their RTX cards, not having a driver ready for both demo (being beaten by AMD even) and not even having DLSS ready for launch.
I think there's a good chance it won't be when it launches though. Unless they can really get that framerate stable.
not if they can get the framerate to be mostly 45-60 and i click freesync on my xbox -sips tea-
I don't have a freesync display, to me it just creates a bigger excuse for devs to not optomize their games. "Buy a freesync display to truly enjoy our games!!!"
Wow native 4K on X is impressive but its frame rate isn't. It doesn't look very sharp tho. Does this support real time global illumination? Theres some impressive shadows casted from the sun.
