Proof Death Stranding 20% better then DC edition

[Derik-For-Real]

Here is proof, Death Stranding DC has 20% performance loss compared to base game.

The new game fails to deliver the same or better average fps then base game which is concerning.

I did performance logging through amd adrenalin software, nd shared on reddit the data for the game, and a nice guy was interested to tested both game nd send his data to me to compare. Both games were play tested in same region nd play style to perform accurate comparison.

We have very similar results check it out !

My results; https://imgur.com/gallery/srjvCvp

His results; https://imgur.com/gallery/4LuBu0w


my build;
Aorus xtreme x570
AMD 5800x OC 4.6 ghz
CPU cooler, NZXT z73 360m aio
32gb 4x 3600mhz
NVME 2tb samsung evo plus 970
Sapphire nitro plus SE 6800xt (stock)
Cooler Master PSU 1200 watt
Case, Cooler Mastrer c700m


His build;
Intel I5 10600k (stock)
16 gb G skill DDR4
Radeon RX6600 (Hellhound) (stock)
WD Blue M.2 SSD

At this point Kojima Production & 505 needs to be called out for breaking the game performance in DC, the game plays nd looks the same as base, only difference is a few items nd mission, no graphic upgrade, we paid monney and expect to receive similar or better performance then base.

This is really bad, you know it nd I know it, fix it ASAP kindly ! I am shocked that this is even happening, Kojima games usually are solid no complaints, first time complaining.

[Derik-For-Real]

Автор сообщения: Waiwai

The reason I said about structures was because there is heavily different between places with lesser structures and place with many structures.

The DS:DC definitely has something on its own, otherwise it won't have this huge different in FPS from location to location, and it is not something requiring you to compare with the base version to see the difference.

I don't consider base version and DC version comparison is valid and makes a lot of sense, before you can get more variables under controlled.

Rather than asking why DC and base have huge difference, better than getting the FPS difference solved in DC version first.

Check the location of screenshots, the Torii top in games, eyes toward South Knot. Both got 120 FPS and same load, if there is really 20% performance difference, it should reflect on here too.

Your average tests have too many variables. I cannot consider them to be valid tests.

Check the GPU utilisation, when FPS goes down, the GPU utilisation also goes down as it should be. This means something caused bottleneck to GPU, causing GPU cannot work at maximum.

I never got 80% GPU utilisation in DC version, but I got it easily to over 80% GPU utilisation in the base version, therefore I usually get better FPS on the base version.

The base version is netiher better nor worse than DC version. They perform same, when you eliminate many uncontrollable variables in the comparison.

That is why I said about structure (enviroment). If you ignore structure number difference, test result will always vary. Not to mention many players moved from the base to DC now, making the shared network has large difference.

It looks very painful to the eyes the way you present your data, its hard to read nd very confusing, also I have seen those data before in other post, secondly you should never turn vsync on when benchmarking, thats already red flag.

Its not that hard to understand and acknowledge the scenerio, we are testing apples to apples without any complications. My data provide various variables indeed, but even then, the conclusion is that DS base runs better then DC edition.

We have simulated the same gameplay condition for DS base nd DC edition. Your implication about the structure issue is not relevant to determine which game performs better, we are comparing apples to apples after all, no need to complicate. As long as we know which game underperformed, we should be able to target that game nd fix the issue from there. Its not that hard to understand I hope.

I have seen other people compare even gameplay footage of DS base nd DC edtition from first area of the game where you hardly see any structures, nd the performance difference was also huge around 20%.

This means DC edition is not optimized at all, if it was, it would run same as Base game or better but not worse, thats what my Data nd the other guys data confirms nd als the complaints from other people threats about huge performance loss in DC edition confirms this.

[Waiwai]

Nah, at the moment your data provide various variables violently, the "average" result cannot tell anything already.

You try to justify this is an apple-to-apple scenario in a 1000m x 1000m in-game enviroment with various possible structure and item difference. They are not same. You have to consider structure and item as variables in the all test, otherwise your result tells nothing.

The number of structure surrounding you, the number of npc surrounding you, and the number of lost cargo and vehicle surrounding you, all these will impact the final result of FPS and hardware utilisation. You cannot say the dynamic environment of base and the dynamic environment of DC are same, it is impossible, in both Death Stranding versions.

Otherwise, I won't get same FPS result, CPU utilisation and GPU utilisation on the Torii top, and a close result at the Chiral Relay. Those places have lesser cargo and structures around.

Not to mention when you are in combat, the FPS will be heavily impacted and vary violently, this happens on both of DC and base during I travelled between area and crossed MULE camps. FPS was dropped to 100 and then 80 if there is many MULEs or terrorists on screen in base version in the period, and I cannot call this as a performance issue on base.

If this is a real performance issue, this should apply to every place in DC regardless situation and environment, but unfortunately it is not in this case.

In Fallout 4, your FPS will be heavily impacted when you are inside a settlement with many structures. Simply same logic here, more items, lesser FPS.

Since all cutscenes are locked to 60 FPS, and no benchmark demo environment provided by Death Stranding, there is no easy valid method to get a controlled group data for dynamic environment. You can't say your average data is a proof, because your data is very arguable due to not consider a large number of possible variables.

Done with Vsync off tiny test, no where near 20% difference.

[Waiwai]

DC vs base version comparsion, location-specific only, static location comparison

Results from Nvidia performance overlay

Hardware:
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Gigabyte AORUS B550 motherboard PRO AC
Gigabyte AORUS Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070S 8G
2 x 16 GB DDR4 RAM 3200MHz
M.2 NvMe, OS disk and DS:DC installation
SATA3 SSD, base installation

OS:
Windows 11 Pro

In-game settings:
Ultra graphics settings
DLSS:Quality
Motion blur off
Depth of field off
Vsync off
Max FPS 120
Shared network, all shared

DLSS library:
DC 2.3.7 (installed in current DC version)
Base 2.1.19 --> 2.3.7 (copied from DC version)

=====

(* Last updated, DC and base: 22th May 2022)

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017109
Captial Knot:
DC: 120 FPS --> 114 FPS, 41% CPU, 74% GPU
Base: 120 FPS, 41% CPU, 73% GPU
(114 FPS after restarted DC, shared network updated)

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017152
Chiral Relay:
DC: 120 FPS, 36% CPU, 75% GPU
Base: 120 FPS, 35% CPU, 74% GPU

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017228
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017014
Edge Knot:
DC: 120 FPS --> 115 FPS, 40% CPU, 73% GPU
Base: 120 FPS, 40% CPU, 73% GPU
(115 FPS after restarted DC, shared network updated)

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811018338
Lake Knot:
DC: 120 FPS, 42% CPU, 74% GPU
Base: 120 FPS, 38% CPU, 71% GPU

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017343
Private room:
DC: 120 FPS, 44% CPU, 71% GPU
Base: 120 FPS, 38% CPU, 69% GPU

=====

One litte thing, when the briefing list should on the left side, I always get 10 FPS loss.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2811017287
Base: 110 FPS, 31% CPU, 62% GPU

[waltc]

The only thing I didn't like about the deal was the $10 charge for people who owned the game, who had assumed they were paying full pop for the only Death Stranding that would be released. The changes to the game were slight, judging by the version number, so getting another $10 charge on top of the MSRP for a bug fix or something else that should have been in the original game seemed excessive. I bought it, but kind of resented it. OTOH, the people who did not buy the game prior to the bug-fixed version got a much better deal than the people who bought pre-patch @ $39.99.

Second version of the game should have been free for people who owned the game, and the fixed version should have cost $49.99. As it is, the people who supported the game earlier wound up paying more for the same game. Seems kind of backwards.

[Pumper]

Автор сообщения: waltc

As it is, the people who supported the game earlier wound up paying more for the same game. Seems kind of backwards.

That is always the case (new game 60, dlc +40 vs. a year later GOTY/whatever for 50), or are you saying that games should get more expensive as they get older? You are paying more for the privilege of playing the game sooner that anyone buying on a later date.

[Komarimaru]

Thinking this is an AMD issue, since not experiencing this myself. Sounds right though, AMD has massive driver issues still to this date.

[Shrimps Prawnson]

Damnit Kojima. At least give us a benchmark so we can do comparisons!

[Darth ŠČ!]

My answer is a non-scientific one, but I loaded up both versions, ultrawide 1440p, max graphics settings, DLSS off, FidelityFX off. Went to the first cutscene where we meet Fragile and I have about 125 fps in that scene afterwards. Both in the original game and in DC. No tangible difference. Computer is Ryzen 3900x and RTX3080. Worth noting that I am playing in Vulkan API mode on Linux with Steam Proton.

[Sam Arboria]

Автор сообщения: DarthChillash

My answer is a non-scientific one, but I loaded up both versions, ultrawide 1440p, max graphics settings, DLSS off, FidelityFX off. Went to the first cutscene where we meet Fragile and I have about 125 fps in that scene afterwards. Both in the original game and in DC. No tangible difference. Computer is Ryzen 3900x and RTX3080. Worth noting that I am playing in Vulkan API mode on Linux with Steam Proton.

I bet my bottom dollar it is a DX12 caching/pipeline issue, or what have you. Elden Ring has similar issues.

I think it's the buggy render-er DX12 is.

[Laguna]

Yeah I noticed that too recently. Up to date Directors Cut patch runs worse for me than the original game that was on old patch. I can't get GPU usage to hit 100% on my GPU like before. It's not gamebreaking but it's a justifiable disappointment that the game runs worse while having same visuals.

[The Cat of Istanbul]

For me, and I haven't found anyone else to have the same problems, but DLSS does jack all, even on the lowest setting. It is simply jarring why they haven't attempted to fix the game yet, it's been a month since the last update with no other news.

[KiLL ScreeN]

Автор сообщения: waltc

The only thing I didn't like about the deal was the $10 charge for people who owned the game, who had assumed they were paying full pop for the only Death Stranding that would be released. The changes to the game were slight, judging by the version number, so getting another $10 charge on top of the MSRP for a bug fix or something else that should have been in the original game seemed excessive. I bought it, but kind of resented it. OTOH, the people who did not buy the game prior to the bug-fixed version got a much better deal than the people who bought pre-patch @ $39.99.

Second version of the game should have been free for people who owned the game, and the fixed version should have cost $49.99. As it is, the people who supported the game earlier wound up paying more for the same game. Seems kind of backwards.

I never bothered with the game on release originally but decided to have a go after hearing about the directors cut. I got a license key for the original for £11 online and upgraded through steam. I basically got the DC version for less than £20 in total.

I haven't played the original but I wasn't under the impression the changes were 'slight'. I thought they reworked the combat mechanics and added additional story elements etc, alongside bug fixes. People getting the upgrade for free would of been nice but at the end of the day no one is forcing you.

[VisciousFishes]

Автор сообщения: KiLL ScreeN

I never bothered with the game on release originally but decided to have a go after hearing about the directors cut. I got a license key for the original for £11 online and upgraded through steam. I basically got the DC version for less than £20 in total.

I haven't played the original but I wasn't under the impression the changes were 'slight'. I thought they reworked the combat mechanics and added additional story elements etc, alongside bug fixes. People getting the upgrade for free would of been nice but at the end of the day no one is forcing you.

Having played OG and DC there is something available in the DC game FROM THE BEGINNING which would've improved my quality of life and now I have found it it's changed my game for the better. I don't care about the other changes.

In the OG version you couldn't tie stuff down to your floating carrier - you can in the DC version

P.s. You played the consumer game at gold level, no joke, just respect!

[yamaci]

in my case it is up to %30-40. not to mention director's cut drop alot of frames
https://i.imgur.com/mw9PqWg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/x0M99nq.jpg

[MartensoftWorld]

Yeah I've continued to have more issues with this game over time, like dropped frames or stuttering as yamaci says. I hope these problems can be ironed out. And Kojima can renegotiate the Monster deal.