Digital Foundry vs Hardware Unboxed

[Razin_Shah]

Hardware Unboxed: "game runs buttery smooth as long as you have enough vram"

Digital Foundry: "the port has serious issues with cpu performance and memory management "

Which side are you on and more important which of the two is correct in their assessment?

[WolfishMeat7]

Hardware Unboxed dropped a ball on this one, maybe the first time I disliked the vid, so barebones... 🤢

[Michael]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von WolfishMeat7:

Hardware Unboxed dropped a ball on this one, maybe the first time I disliked the vid, so barebones... 🤢

angyFluffy did a repaste video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyDNUQ5eC0A

[KillingArts]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tr0w:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lince_SPAIN:

In some of the game DF tested the PS5 definitely was on par or slightly below a 2070 super

Were those PS4 games?

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNsMxrDEdc

[Mike]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

Both are correct in my opinion.
Also DF made an exceptionally weak analysis. So little information in an 1h boring video.

Did you actually watch the video? Alex said they did it that way since the game was getting patches.

[Michael]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mike:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

Both are correct in my opinion.
Also DF made an exceptionally weak analysis. So little information in an 1h boring video.

Did you actually watch the video? Alex said they did it that way since the game was getting patches.

plus it has soo many problems and not everything will be fixed in the friday patch...

This tweet dated April 4th....

https://twitter.com/Naughty_Dog/status/1643313967597772800

Ursprünglich geschrieben von twits link:

We previously aimed to have a fix for camera jitters related to mouse controls. However, to address unexpected issues this caused, we've pushed this fix toward a later patch.

[KillingArts]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

PS4 has only 5.5GB shared memory available for games and all PC versions needed more.

Not true, as I showed you earlier with GoW. You can achieve around PS4 level quality with even a 2GB card. Sure, if you look at what's needed to achieve PC standard quality (high resolution, 60fps or more, high settings), then you need more hardware. But the PS4 did not magically offer all that. It had 1080p at most (DRS was active) at 30fps with probably medium settings at best. A 2GB GPU will give you that on PC.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

When a game is designed to work with 16GB of VRAM it’s not easy to cut it in half and use 10x slower DDR4 instead. Not to mention many other differences.

But that's the point of a port. A port is supposed to make it work on the target platform. Frankly, the nature of the source platform is rather irrelevant. If the port fails to deliver a proper experience on the target platform - that's the definition of a bad port.

[JonBovi007]

Both are correct, game does run fine for me overall, I haven't had many issues really but it is clearly poorly optimized, now, besides the fact that people also need to optimized their PCs (basic things like CPU/GPU drivers, among other things, plus being mindful of their system specs and not expect miracles, the game is in fact a demanding game) in many circumstances the game might run fine simply because the PC (assuming you have a decent PC) is just powering through the game not because the game runs fine and properly optimized.

DF's video is great evidence of that and it showcases many of the problems affecting this game, CPU optimization being one of the worst things for instance, hopefully tomorrow's patch can in fact straight all this out in a significant way and maybe the game will be in a good shape by the end of the month or next month tops, but such a shame all this for such a great game.

[Marty McFly]

I think Hardware Unboxed was paid to do damage control for this horrible port, because there's nothing to justify this horrible and bad optimized port. Also, they were the only YouTube channel that tested this port and still defended it.

[Chums]

hardware unboxed knows next to nothing about ports / optimisation. gotta go with DF on this one

[master.yoda99]

I haven't had any problem with the game so far. It hasn't crashed and I am getting about 55-60 FPS on native 4K and ultra setting. Having said this, I have i5 13600k and Geforce RTX 4080, with 64GB DDR5 RAM. Perhaps this game just has a high demand on hardware requirements.

[MishaTX]

The DF video most accurately describes how poor this port is and goes by the same criteria that I use when looking at games and their performance, particularly ports.

Most glaringly, in order to get PS5 quality, you'll apparently need a 4090, which is utter bull. The PS5, technically, doesn't come CLOSE to the beefy rig they used in the video, yet that's what it takes to make this lazy, hack port look like as good as a console (no slam on consoles here, I'm a huge fan of them and used to have one alongside my gaming PC. Loved both!)

The 2070 setup that Alex used is closer to comparable, capability-wise, yet it looks like PS3 graphics and performs worse. Also, look at the RECOMMENDED specs on the store page. Alex's 2070 rig certainly meets those, yet it STILL can't run it without looking/performing like something straight outta the early 20-naughts. Seriously.

This forum ♥♥♥♥-swinging is getting tedious. Yes, of COURSE a PS5 port plays OK on a 4090, it damn well better considering that the GPU itself costs 4-5 times as much as the entire console, but that's not the point, is it? For a port to be considered even remotely successful, by me at least, it absolutely MUST run at least as well as the original at recommended specs or above.

Certainly not LESS well.

Disagree however much you like, I really don't care.

[C1REX]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mike:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

Both are correct in my opinion.
Also DF made an exceptionally weak analysis. So little information in an 1h boring video.

Did you actually watch the video? Alex said they did it that way since the game was getting patches.

Every game is getting patches after premiere.
The way they did the analysis made many people believe that the game looks worse on PC. Why would they do that?

[Flappy Pannus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MishaTX:

Most glaringly, in order to get PS5 quality, you'll apparently need a 4090,

Well let's not go overboard, reality is bad enough. A 4090 will give you 60fps at Ultra 4K, which (when they're uh, fixed) are higher settings than the PS5, which at the same res gives you 30fps. A 4090 is 3-4X more powerful than a PS5 though, so...yeah.

So no, it's not quite that bad, but in reality to run this at the same PS5 framerate you're looking at a 12600K min CPU, and a 2080ti or 3080 - which is extremely in excess of what's normal. Especially for a game that barely looks better than TLOU2, while having smaller environments to boot.

The only other game to require this grunt of GPU load (and no game I'm aware of requires this combination of CPU+GPU) is Uncharted, which needs around a 2080ti to equate PS5 performance. Which runs on the same engine...and had Iron Galaxy's involvement too. Not exactly inspiring if you're hoping for big performance patches.

This forum ♥♥♥♥-swinging is getting tedious. Yes, of COURSE a PS5 port plays OK on a 4090, it damn well better considering that the GPU itself costs 4-5 times as much as the entire console, but that's not the point, is it? For a port to be considered even remotely successful, by me at least, it absolutely MUST run at least as well as the original at recommended specs or above.

Correct. If you're a 4090 owner, you've invested a *lot* into PC gaming - so at least for this game, you should actually care that a $400 console is giving a better result than $800 cards, regardless if yours is more powerful or not. Publishers will not bother with the platform if your target market is the ultra high-end of PC gamers, as that market is absolutely tiny. You're not getting this port without all the $400-$500 GPU owners buying it, they vastly outnumber you.

That's not to say this game should run at 60fps on a 1060 - but it sure as hell should be running far better on something like a 3080.

[C1REX]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von KillingArts:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tr0w:

Were those PS4 games?

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNsMxrDEdc

I have doubts that the 2070 Super can run the game like the PS5, especially in the later biomes which are more demanding. I own the game and many people have complained about its performance and crashes, especially those who use Nvidia GPUs. Even if the 2070 Super is sufficient, you need a CPU performance close to that of the i9-13900K to avoid stutters at 60fps, according to Digital Foundry. Users have complained about stutters even with top-tier hardware. The game is very demanding despite its visuals.

You also have a different focus, which is trying to convince others what is theoretically possible and that games can be better optimized. I agree with that statement, as games can indeed be optimized much better. However, my point is different. I believe that games will not be better optimized and will soon require stronger hardware.

[fender178]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C1REX-PL:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von KillingArts:

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNsMxrDEdc

I have doubts that the 2070 Super can run the game like the PS5, especially in the later biomes which are more demanding. I own the game and many people have complained about its performance and crashes, especially those who use Nvidia GPUs. Even if the 2070 Super is sufficient, you need a CPU performance close to that of the i9-13900K to avoid stutters at 60fps, according to Digital Foundry. Users have complained about stutters even with top-tier hardware. The game is very demanding despite its visuals.

You also have a different focus, which is trying to convince others what is theoretically possible and that games can be better optimized. I agree with that statement, as games can indeed be optimized much better. However, my point is different. I believe that games will not be better optimized and will soon require stronger hardware.

You are on to something here because I remember a YouTube Video where someone tried running a PS3 game that also had a PC port on a 7800GTX which is similar to the RSX graphics chip in the PS3 and it didn't end well for the PC version with the 7800GTX it ran terrible vs the PS3. Just because a PC has hardware that is equal to the console doesn't mean it can run it with similar graphical settings as the console.