Hogwarts Legacy - Digital Foundry Tech Review - PS5 vs Xbox Series X/S - 21 Mode Variations Tested

[Bodycount611]

series S makes a good ashtray at the very least:

 

[Gods&Monsters]

Summary:

- DF praise some aspects of the tech in general.
- Facial animations are a mixed bag.

- Game does have some notable graphical issues
- Shadow maps are near completely absent
- In motion the AO pass can look very messy
- Reflections in SSR (in non RT modes) gives water a very different appearance when occluded
- Issues with texture flickering, light bleeding etc also common

- PS5|SX have 5 graphical modes. Series S has 3

- Series X has 3 modes for 60hz. Performance, Fidelity, Fidelity RT
- Perf: Typically Dynamic 1440p. Can range from 50 to 80% of 4K dynamically.
- Targets 60 FPS but is very shaky. Dropped frames and stutters abound.
- VRR displays can smooth most of it out but not all.
- Fidelity mode: Avg 1728p with bump in foliage density
- Locks pretty decently to target with minor 1 fps drop here and ther
- Fidelity RT: dynamic 1440p and can do 50 to 67% of 4K scaling.
- RT implementation is nothing special and doesn't apply on large bodies of water like lakes.
- RT mode suffers from substantial stutters and drops

- When console is set to 120hz mode, 2 more modes are added.
- Balanced: Fidelity mode with 40fps target with significant stuttering
- High Frame Rate locks to 1080p and runs unlocked from 60 to 90 frames on average. Only recommended for VRR folks.

- Additionally on all modes (aside HFR) you can also uncap frame rate
- Results are 'pretty unimpressive'. Can squeeze 5 to 10 frames per mode but only viable when you're within VRR window.
- This seems like a future proof mode for next-gen hardware.

- PS5 has same visual feature set as Series X with same rendering targets
- Performance mode is not perfect but runs with better frame rate
- Fidelity and Fidelity RT run with near locked 30 and is very difficult to drop
- HFR Performance runs the same as Series X
- Balanced mode is closed to lock 40 with rare drops

- Uncapped performances ranges are similar to Series X. PS5 has less drops when capped.

- Series S has 3 modes: Performance, Fidelity and Balanced
- Perf: 792p, Fidelity: 1080p (same for Balanced)
- Fidelity manages a decent 30 FPS
- Perf is similar to Series X with an unstable 60 FPS
- No option to unlock FPS

- Loading times are brisk on PS5|SX. Series S can show additional loading screens when exiting Hogwarts

- Summary: Generally fine on PS5 but Xbox versions need some more work

- DF are curious how the upcoming PS4/XBO/Switch versions will work.

Amazing work you did in spite of all the tears streaming down your face.

Big props to you

 

[Gediminas]

DF couldn't do earlier this test, because their tried to harass developers.. but they didn't budge, so they moved on with the test.

 

[Shmunter]

It’s Xbox One all over again. Devs loosing interest in the wacky ram setup, not bothering to work around it.

 

[Shmunter]

Amazing work you did in spite of all the tears streaming down your face.

Big props to you

Heh, amusing

 

[Shmunter]

Rich had to do the video, the other Soy Boys couldn’t hack it

 

[anonpuffs]

Better optimized for PS5 but there was an Xbox patch with performance fixes (in notes) a couple of days back, not sure if this video was made before or after that.

In the video Richard says they had to delay the video twice while the dev worked on performance patches, so it's probably with whatever the latest patch is.

To be honest... they should have delayed the xbox version by a month if they needed to iron out performance. I don't think anyone paying $70 should have to suffer those frame pacing issues.

 

[Gediminas]

In the video Richard says they had to delay the video twice while the dev worked on performance patches, so it's probably with whatever the latest patch is.

To be honest... they should have delayed the xbox version by a month if they needed to iron out performance. I don't think anyone paying $70 should have to suffer those frame pacing issues.

Imagine how they would be harassed by bots.
Better take an L on performance on xbox.

It is already sony in blame for all that.

 

[adamsapple]

In the video Richard says they had to delay the video twice while the dev worked on performance patches, so it's probably with whatever the latest patch is.

To be honest... they should have delayed the xbox version by a month if they needed to iron out performance. I don't think anyone paying $70 should have to suffer those frame pacing issues.

It's probably similar to Callisto Protocol. Needed to have the game out one way or another by an arbitrary date to meet a publisher quota/earnings quarter.

 

[Entropi]

Yet another game running better on the “inferior” PS5 hardware. Maybe it’s not inferior after all.

 

[Sircaw]

Yet another game running better on the “inferior” PS5 hardware. Maybe it’s not inferior after all.

Just imagine if the Ps5 had those two extra tflops that xbox has.

The difference would be absolutely monstrous,

 

[Sircaw]

Amazing work you did in spite of all the tears streaming down your face.

Big props to you

Damn, that was so brutal

I like

Come on @adamsapple, Fight back.

 

[adamsapple]

Damn, that was so brutal

I like

Come on @adamsapple, Fight back.

No, he deserves a "win" after how bad Forspoken turned out

 

[arvfab]

Yet another game running better on the “inferior” PS5 hardware. Maybe it’s not inferior after all.

Unfortunately there is a very gullible (and loud) gamer fraction, who believes in buzz words and media propaganda.

Outside of this fraction, people took a "let's wait and see" approach, knowing that, while it's true that 12>10, this value only considers a direct comparison of a single component within a very complex system architecture.

People with a bit of tech knowledge also knew, that those extra flops (still talking about the technical ones, not the ones which Xbox has also aplenty) might even be a necessity to "keep up", because of the limitations of a general purpose API like DirectX and a containerization approach like on Xbox (great for BC, not so much for "current" stuff).

 

[Bodycount611]

No, he deserves a "win" after how bad Forspoken turned out

speaking of bad turnouts, any thoughts on atomic heart?

 

[adamsapple]

speaking of bad turnouts, any thoughts on atomic heart?

Just that I'm glad I'm not playing it on PS5.

Goodwill for the game is further damaged by its unstable condition on PlayStation 5. I encountered several game crashes, an unexplained console overheating warning and a couple of corrupted save files during my time with the game. In speaking with other reviewers it seems the Xbox version has fewer of these issues, but the sheer amount of play time I lost to its broken state is bewildering.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Unfortunately there is a very gullible (and loud) gamer fraction, who believes in buzz words and media propaganda.

Outside of this fraction, people took a "let's wait and see" approach, knowing that, while it's true that 12>10, this value only considers a direct comparison of a single component within a very complex system architecture.

People with a bit of tech knowledge also knew, that those extra flops (still talking about the technical ones, not the ones which Xbox has also aplenty) might even be a necessity to "keep up", because of the limitations of a general purpose API like DirectX and a containerization approach like on Xbox (great for BC, not so much for "current" stuff).

You can’t call what MS does Backward Compatibility. It doesn’t even use the original code for the games, instead it uses recompiled binaries.

True backward compatibility means the real thing runs on the new hardware. MS is too lazy to make that happen, and their fanbase is too gullible and ignorant to see why MS’ approach is bullshit.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Unfortunately there is a very gullible (and loud) gamer fraction, who believes in buzz words and media propaganda.

Outside of this fraction, people took a "let's wait and see" approach, knowing that, while it's true that 12>10, this value only considers a direct comparison of a single component within a very complex system architecture.

People with a bit of tech knowledge also knew, that those extra flops (still talking about the technical ones, not the ones which Xbox has also aplenty) might even be a necessity to "keep up", because of the limitations of a general purpose API like DirectX and a containerization approach like on Xbox (great for BC, not so much for "current" stuff).

The “higher numbers==better” shit has lead to a LOT of good products failing to find a market.

I used to have a Pioneer Dynamic Power Shift home theatre amplifier. Instead of being 50 watts per channel or whatever, it was a single 125-watt amplifier with a power management circuit that powered each channel accoutring to volume levels.

In Pro Logic surround setups, dead air hiss on quiet channels was a common issue, and got worse with higher wattages, as there was more power and less signal. The DPS amps didn’t have that problem, as a channel putting out 1db got a lot less power than one putting out 50db, but it was harder to explain to consumers, so they only put out two model years in North America with that tech, and only four in Japan.

 

[ethomaz]

The “higher numbers==better” shit has lead to a LOT of good products failing to find a market.

I used to have a Pioneer Dynamic Power Shift home theatre amplifier. Instead of being 50 watts per channel or whatever, it was a single 125-watt amplifier with a power management circuit that powered each channel accoutring to volume levels.

In Pro Logic surround setups, dead air hiss on quiet channels was a common issue, and got worse with higher wattages, as there was more power and less signal. The DPS amps didn’t have that problem, as a channel putting out 1db got a lot less power than one putting out 50db, but it was harder to explain to consumers, so they only put out two model years in North America with that tech, and only four in Japan.

Let me guess… the company market the power as 4 channels of 50 watts = 200 watts while the performance was closer to 50 watts than the marketed 200 watts.

Here is Brazil had something similar… when a sound system company uses the real power it felt underpowered but when they used that big number people believed it was to break grass with the sound

So most if not all companies used that RMS power that could reach 1000/2000 watts.

 

[anonpuffs]

Let me guess… the company market the power as 4 channels of 50 watts = 200 watts while the performance was closer to 50 watts than the marketed 200 watts.

Here is Brazil had something similar… when a sound system company uses the real power it felt underpowered but when they used that big number people believed it was to break grass with the sound

So most if not all companies used that RMS power that could reach 1000/2000 watts.

It's the same with "1ms response times" on computer monitors. Very few monitors have true 1ms response times and they're high end/expensive. The rest have to find some weaselly way to say 1ms by measuring different things so they can advertise it as 1ms, otherwise people won't buy it.